AfGH Final Evaluation Report 2007

8/14/2019 AfGH Final Evaluation Report 2007

1/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 1

Action for Global Health

Evaluation Report

December 2007

prepared by

Jim CoeHarm-Jan Fricke

Mara Becerro TorresJean Martial Bonis Charancle

Elena LucchiDrte Pommerening

Jeremy Smith

for

staff, managers and organisations involved in the

Action for Global Health network

Contents:

part one: summary report ................................................................. 2summary ...................................................................................................... 2recommendations .......................................................................................... 8

part two: findings and conclusions .................................................... 91. introduction ........................................................................................... 92. project rationale and relevance .............................................................. 103. progress to date ................................................................................... 114. organisational and national contexts ....................................................... 125.

plans and planning ............................................................................... 15

6. strategy .............................................................................................. 177. influence and outcomes ........................................................................ 198. health policy agendas ........................................................................... 209. policy analysis and positions adopted ...................................................... 2110. public communications .......................................................................... 2311. cross-national working .......................................................................... 2412. network coordination and management................................................... 2413. governance and accountability ............................................................... 2614. internal communications ....................................................................... 2715. working groups .................................................................................... 2816. decision making ................................................................................... 2817. identity ............................................................................................... 2918. network membership ............................................................................ 3019. general conclusion ................................................................................ 32

part three: survey findings .............................................................. 33Introduction ................................................................................................ 33State of the AfGH Network ............................................................................ 34Internal Communication Flow ........................................................................ 38General Appreciation of the Network .............................................................. 39

appendix: evaluation purpose & methodology ................................. 40


2/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 2

part one: summary report

summary

introduction

1. This evaluation report considers the progress made by the Action for GlobalHealth (AfGH) network during its first year of operation. It concentrates on thedevelopment of the Network against its stated objectives, the processes used toachieve the aims of the Network, and on opportunities to develop the Networksoperation in the future.

2. The primary concern in conducting this evaluation is to provide an opportunity forthe Networks members to consider experiences to date and learn from them sothat future working can be more effective. Ideally the report will act as a tool to

encourage and stimulate internal reflection on the work done to date, includingits notable achievements, and focussing on important issues that still requireresolution.

3. Assessments given in this report draw on information and opinions gathered fromAfGH and partner staff and managers, documents supplied by the Network, andfrom a limited number of external sources. A draft report was presented to AfGHinternal stakeholders for comment and attempts have been made to address thefeedback received in this final report.

first year achievements and the key challenges now

4. Thanks to a great deal of energy from Network members, and despite sometimessignificant organisational problems, AfGH has been able to achieve virtually all ofthe objectives it set itself for its first year of operation. It is commendable thatthe basics of the network are in place. The structure is sound, plans have beendelivered, much has been produced, and an identity has been forged. We believethat in achieving these things, the network has laid a good foundation for thedevelopment of future work.

5. In building on work to date, inevitably much still needs to be done in order tofulfil the Networks goals and objectives. We suggest that certain aspects ofNetwork operation need explicit attention, particularly those relating to memberrelations and mutual understanding, strategy and planning, and managementand decision-making.

rationale for the network

6. The rationale for the existence of the AfGH Network is generally felt to be soundby both internal and external stakeholders, and the establishment of a Europeannetwork was said to be timely.


3/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 3

7. The AfGH network appears to be fulfilling a need by advocating for global healthand better health services as a cross-cutting issue. Whilst there remain someissues about what this means in practice, the fundamental notion seems sound.

8. The extent to which the Network adds value, particularly at national andorganisational levels, is sometimes questioned. This is particularly so whereoverlapping work is done by other networks, organisations or institutions.

However in other national contexts the added value of AfGH seems clear. Ourown view is that it is too soon to comment with any force on the benefits andadded value of national and cross-national levels to date. In any case there is achallenge to be met to establish sound national rationales for how the Networkcan best add value in different contexts and strategies to support this, based ona good understanding of the national political and policy concerns, and within thecontext of an over-arching EU-wide approach.

9. Application of a cross-cutting (as opposed to an intervention- or disease-specific)approach to issues of global health and development is relevant, timely andneeded in order to hold governments to account for their stated commitments tothe delivery of the Health MDGs. What this focus means and how best to

communicate it - for example by members with disease- or intervention-specificremits - needs further clarification.

organisational and national contexts

10.Network members are diverse, for instance in size, culture, experiences, andstatus within national and international NGO communities. Such differences canbe accommodated within a network such as this one. There is, however, a needto acknowledge and address the implications arising from these differences,ensuring that members respect each others contexts and have clear expectationsof each other.

11.There are differences too in ideological and practical buy-in to the Network, anddifferences in opinion about benefit to member organisations. Mutual awarenessof the existence of diverse opinions about such issues let alone thinking aboutits implications - seems to have emerged gradually and relatively recently. It hasnot yet been properly addressed.

12.In addition differences have been created from the outset in the allocation ofresources to the different countries taking part, with the UK having access tothree full-time staff members and others having to rely on two. Given thedifferences that exist between members and their national situations, progress isbeing made at different speeds, with some members having adopted a generallyreactive stance to network initiatives.

planning

13.There has been significant, and successful, effort to ensure that project activitiesand milestones for year one have been achieved. In effect, this has beenachieved in something like eight months. Some feel however that this has beenat a cost in terms of quality or meaningful participation, particularly whereplanning on issues other than those outlined in the proposal was concerned.


4/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 4

14.Concerns around the speed of, and mechanisms for decision-making wereespecially highlighted by respondents.

strategy

15.To date, work has focused on achieving identified activities and milestones. Thishas left little time to reflect on the Networks broader strategic aims andobjectives. From the available information, it is not evident that AfGH strategiesmake the best use of the networks resources. Nor is it clear that there has beensufficient exploration of the external operating environment. A clearer strategicrationale for the work, and greater focus within it, is therefore needed.

16.Such a strategic rationale and focus should include the design of approaches toengage with and influence identified target decision makers and influentialaudiences. To support this, better understanding of the policy and advocacyenvironments in which the Network operates needs to be systematicallydeveloped.

17.Sharper strategies are needed to feed into efforts to improve prioritisation ofpolicy agendas, so that the network can develop achievable objectives andoperate to greatest effect in achieving its goals.

18.The Network is battling huge forces. To make its contribution in the mosteffective way, AfGH will need to be very clear how it can bring its limitedresources to bear in ways that makes most effective use of them. This requiresgreater attention too to ways of assessing progress against goals and objectives.

influence and outcomes

19.As already anticipated in the evaluation Terms of Reference, little can be said atthis stage about the influence and outcomes of the AfGH project to date.

20.Members generally feel that, while it is early, AfGH is increasingly beingrecognised, by both NGOs and targets. TheHealth Warningreport anddissemination work done to date is helping to forge good relations according torespondents. What limited information we were able to gather from externalsources appears largely to support these internal perceptions.

21.Currently, evidence of network influence - let alone outcomes - is not beingrecorded, and not systematically analysed by the Network. Occasional externalevaluation cannot be a replacement for ongoing internal analysis, and a systemand approach should be designed to enable it to do that.

health policy agendas

22.Progress on the development of joint positions on health policy has in many waysbeen remarkable, given the difficulties faced and the timescale in which this hasbeen achieved. The challenge now seems to be to make such progresspractically significant by building on individual members strengths without thenetwork losing sight of its broader health and development mandate andintention.


5/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 5

policy analysis

23.The production of the Health Warning report caused some significant problems largely due to pressures of time and the final reports are acknowledged to havelimitations. However, their publication is seen as useful by both internal andexternal respondents. Internal respondents generally suggested that external

views of the report were more positive than the views that they themselves hadof it.

24.The current consensus on the quality of the Networks policy analysis provides abasis on which to develop stronger joint positions. A comparative analysis ofcurrent published policy asks of the Network and its individual members couldhelp to identify areas of policy consensus, divergence and hiatus.

public communications

25.The network has identified a number of broad audience groups, includinggovernments in the different national arenas (including the EU institutions),

NGOs, EU citizens, media, and the private (healthcare and research) sector.Development of public communications needs more work and is closely related tothe development of the networks (influencing) strategies, addressing suchquestions as: who are the priority audiences that need to be engaged oraddressed? Are they different in different national contexts? Which potentialchannels can be used to reach them?

cross national working

26.There has been some disappointment that to date the Network has insufficientlybeen able to benefit from what is possibly its greatest asset: its internationalcharacter. Improvements in acquiring and sharing intelligence and in jointstrategising can provide AfGH with the key benefit of advocacy networking:members being able to advocate common positions simultaneously, acrossdifferent arenas, in order to exert multiple routes of influence.

coordination and management

27.The work of the Coordinator and Coordination team was generally seen assupportive of members and the Networks needs, providing a steer and supportto the project. Responses from members do indicate however that there is aconstant need to be sensitive to the difficult balance between providingleadership and facilitating members involvement and participation.

28.In particular, it seems that Network decision-making sometimes suffers becausedecisions are taken at short notice, with insufficient time given to thought anddebate. Difficulties are exacerbated by language issues.

29.Structuring members involvement in decision making in ways that make it easyfor all to participate, including through scheduling in more time for translationand for national consultations before Steering Group meetings, would help toimprove the quality of decision making and, it seems, of the decisions made.


6/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 6

governance and accountability

30.There appear to be some divergent views (for example between some in theProject Accountability Group and others outside it) about where accountabilityand final decision making lies within the Network.

31.Respective roles of Steering Group, Advocacy Officer Meetings and WorkingGroups appear not to be always clear, at least not for many members.32.In our view the Networks engagement with and accountability to Southern (Third

World) partners and groups needs examining and strengthening for reasons ofcredibility, consistency and effectiveness.

internal communications

33.Comments from internal respondents sometimes demonstrated a lack ofappreciation of others working contexts, and there was a lack of awareness ofwhat others were calling for in their report.

34.To some extent, it seems that the pressure to deliver activities on time hasprecluded the development of solid internal communications. This should not beoverstated however since survey findings indicate relatively high levels ofsatisfaction with internal information flows. Nevertheless, telephone conferencesare not particularly seen as useful by some (because of language issues) andface-to-face meetings are felt to lack variety in approach and format.

working groups

35.Working Groups are regarded as a potentially useful tool but they seem not tohave functioned fully to-date.

decision making

36.Moving forward in a strategically coherent fashion requires that members havefull confidence in decision-making mechanisms. The main issue seems to beabout lack of preparation time, with the result that people dont feel equipped totake the right decisions.

37.Given the organisational issues involved in developing the work of the variousdecision-making groups, a balance will have to be found between face-to-facework and meetings and virtual meetings and work through e-mail and internetexchanges.

identity

38.As expected at this stage of the project, recognition of AfGH as an entity is still ata low level. In some countries the Network is explicitly branded and promotedin its own right, while in other countries member organisations primarily refer toAfGH as one of their activities.


7/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 7

39.It would be helpful for the Network to develop some common principles aroundhow members communicate their membership of AfGH.

network expansion

40.One of the stated intentions of the Network is to expand over the coming years.This will need thought and debate to consider how this should best be done inways that ensure that future expansion contributes strategically to theachievement of AfGH goals. Key questions to ask in this respect include: whatadded value would the network want to gain from a new member; what benefitwould the new member get when joining AfGH network; what possible obstacleswill need to be faced both by the network and the new member; what addedvalue can the network offer candidate members?

conclusion

41.The Action for Global Health Network has, during its first year, established a goodbasis for itself. It is seen as credible and its concerns are felt to be timely.

42.In developing its work in the coming year priority should be given to improvinginternal communications and decision making processes and to developingcoherent strategies focussed on the Networks main concern and main policytargets.


8/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 8

recommendations

We highlight below the key areas that we recommend the Network focuses attentionon. Additional suggestions for action are made in the main text, in bold.

The Network should:

R1. Identify, review and clarify its primary strategies. This should be done basedon an analysis of (internal) strengths and weaknesses and (external)opportunities and threats. Sharp, focused strategies should feed into effortsto prioritise policy agendas better, so that the network can developachievable objectives and operate to greatest effect in achieving its goals.

R2. Ensure that systems for gathering information about policy contexts andtargets, and systems for reporting provide meaningful intelligence aboutstrategies and their effectiveness, as well as record the delivery of activities

and milestones.

R3. Review planning and decision making processes and establish proceduresthat include:

laying out consultation guidelines for national convenors;building in time so that all can contribute equally; andadopting measures to ensure the networks focus is preserved andapplied.

R4. Develop ways of working that promote and encourage cross-nationalcollaboration, and review who might be best placed to lead on which aspectsof work, and - on this basis - consider allocating lead responsibility for keywork to specific organisations.

R5. Set out a process and timetable for resolving questions of membershipexpansion, including:

What added value would the network want to gain from a new member?What benefit would the new member get when joining AfGH network?What possible obstacles will need to be faced both by the network andthe new member?What added value can the network offer candidate members?


9/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 9

part two: findings and conclusions

1. introductionWe summarise in the appendix the purpose of this report and the approach we havetaken to gather evidence for it.

This version of the report is an updated version of an earlier draft that was circulatedto members for comment. We have attempted to respond to all comments in thisnew (and final) version of the report.

Our primary concern in conducting this evaluation is to provide an opportunity forthe Networks members to consider experiences to date and learn from them so thatfuture working can be more effective. During its first eight to twelve months theNetwork has achieved a great deal, in effect delivering what it set out to do in thatperiod. This report should ideally act as a tool to encourage and stimulate internalreflection on those achievements, but with a focus on the important issues that havebeen given less or no attention to date.

We regret that the draft report has not been effective in generating such internalreflection. Few Network members were able to give feedback on the draft report,and many found it difficult to find the time even to read it. Clearly this reflects aspecific failure with this evaluation process as well as specific flaws with the report (itwas felt to be too long and not sufficiently clear for non-English speakers).

But we are concerned too that this relative lack of engagement with the process mayalso be symptomatic of a wider concern - highlighted too through interviews carriedout as part of our research - that opportunities for reflection within the network aretoo limited or not taken up sufficiently (because of pressures of work and other

factors).

In addition, the nature of the responses received on the draft report seems toconfirm the point being made elsewhere that opportunities to input and shape thefuture of the network are currently disproportionately taken up by UK networkmembers (because of issues of staffing capacity and language, amongst others).This is not meant as a criticism of the UK partners or of others, but it reveals aninequality of participation that the Network needs to address.

Although written responses elicited comments such asa helpful contribution andgood, well written and thoughtful, our efforts to describe the challenges facing theNetwork were met by mixed responses. Some felt the criticisms made wereharshin some places, whereas others felt the report was too diplomatic and did not getto the heart of some of the issues. In fact, whilst we respect both of theseperspectives, we have sought to maintain a balance: we are keen that issues ofconcern be raised not ignored, but keen also to express them in sensitive andconstructive ways.

We hope that we have raised issues arising sufficiently well to allow the Network andits members to follow up on them, by identifying and addressing key priorities overthe coming months and years. For this reason, we very much welcome the plans


10/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 10

already underway to ensure that timetabled processes will be developed in

response to the recommendations we make.1

2. project rationale and relevanceThe rationale for the AfGH project is expressed in the July 2006 ActionAidInternational et al proposal to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as follows:

Advocacy for global health has a long tradition in Europe but is almostentirely focused on specific health topics. Moreover, cooperation betweengroups working on different health topics has been limited, with littleadvocacy for global health as a whole, traditions of advocacy varyingconsiderably across European countries and little attempt at coordinationacross Europe. This proposal sets out a programme for developing thecapacity of European civil society to advocate collectively for global health,using the Health MDGs as a focus.2

Both internal AfGH and external respondents to the evaluation suggest that this

rationale is a valid one at least at a cross-European level.

Speaking generally, it is clear that decision makers naturally find it easier and moreefficient to deal with groupings rather than individual organisations. Networks offerthe prospect of benefit through increased capacity development, improved qualityand sophistication of analysis and strengthened engagement and influence. The casefor networking to achieve change is also well illustrated in research and literaturerelating to joint working in advocacy.

More specifically, we heard the case that, in the past, Health NGOs have not beenwell coordinated at a European level and often appear to have been in competition.The effect on EU policy-makers has been that theyend up getting mixed

messages.

3

And the establishment of a European network was said to be timely. Given that aidbudgets in most cases are comparatively high, and growing, the benefits ofsuccessful joint advocacy are potentially significant. But health, according to some,is seen as old-fashioned- in Brussels, for example, where the Commission seemsmore concerned with promoting good governance. And with fears in the EU aroundthe increasing influence of China, one response seems to be an inclination to putfewer conditions on the use of development funds. The fact that AfGH is asserting aspecific health agenda is therefore seen as a necessary and valuable counterbalanceto these challenging trends.

At national level, we heard that the current state of the debate in Germany and the

UK for example meant that the networks formation was timely too: There is notmuch pressure on Governments to fulfil their promises, and,we bring a vigilancefunction that was not covered before. The fact that the network is essentially

1Text in bold highlights particular issues which we suggest the Network should consider through

reflection, discussion and resolution in the development of future work.2

page 6 of the proposal3

Unless otherwise indicated, statements in quotation marks have been taken from respondents.


11/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 11

advocating to governments to implement (international) decisions that have alreadybeen made is seen as favourable to both national and international collaboration.

Both in intention and - according to internal respondents - in practice, the networkallows its members to advocate to and engage with key audiences and targets in a(more) systematic manner. Also significantly, the AfGH network appears to befulfilling a need by advocating for global health and better health services as a

cross-cutting issue. Whilst there remain some issues about what this means inpractice (as we discuss later), the fundamental notion seems sound. As one externalrespondent noted, with particular reference to AfGH being able to bring practicalexperience to a so far largely theoretical debate, AfGH is entering the debate at theright point.

However, in some countries overlapping networks exist. This means that, for somerespondents at least, it is not clear what the AfGH network is bringing that is notalready covered by other institutions, networks, or alliances: We bring a force butnot necessarily something new. In different contexts, there is a differentperspective. In France, for example, the analysis was that,Health and developmentwas covered by large NGOs working independently with a vertical approach. We are

occupying an empty space.

We are only able to present an overview of AfGHs role and contribution in thedifferent national arenas in which it operates. More work seems to be needed toidentify the added value of AfGH in each of these contexts. This should also takeinto account the relative strengths and weaknesses of AfGH members in relation toother NGOs in the country. The challenge is to establish how the Network canbest add value in different contexts and strategies to support this, based on

a good understanding of the national political and policy concerns, andwithin the context of an over-arching EU-wide approach.

3. progress to dateIn normal circumstances, networks evolve in response to potential partnersrecognising a need. This means that, at least theoretically, the structure andmembership of a network derives from its purpose. In the case of AfGH, thenetwork was created because of funds and not the other way around. Combinedwith the situation that members generally did not know each other, and with the factthat year one plans were designed by people other than those responsible forimplementing them, this could be seen as an unpromising start.

Given this, we think it commendable that the basics of the network are in place. Thestructure is sound, plans have been delivered, much has been produced (setting upthe website, fact sheets, reports etc.), and an identity has been forged: all this

despite some inevitable delays, for example in appointing staff.

The fact that a shared set of top-level messages and policy recommendations hasbeen developed and agreed has been a sign of a good start too. As many internalrespondents mentioned, this has been a difficult process:We have to findagreement along the way and not before the beginning of the project; that wouldhave been the ideal. Although many network members recognise the limitations ofthe current policy positions adopted, the general sense is that they form a goodbasis, potentially at least, for the development of future advocacy.


12/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 12

Difficulties and shortcomings are to be expected, certainly in the first year. And it isworth stressing that the Network has only been functional for a few months. Fromthe information which weve gathered and from our analysis of it, we have notidentified major flaws within the intentions or set-up of the project. That should beseen - and is meant - as high praise.

At this stage, it makes sense to look at the value of the network in its potentialrather than in its achievements to date. So it is encouraging to hear that externalsgenerally saw the establishment of the network as a positive development both interms of health related objectives and in terms of creating synergies at Europeanlevel. Indeed, for one external respondent, the value of AfGH's work is alreadyapparent: health as an issue has become more clearly identified; the issue is moreprominent, which is in part attributable to AfGH and an indication that workingtogether has been beneficial.

Our own view is that it is too soon to comment with any force on the benefits andadded value of national and cross-national levels to date. The important thing at thisstage, therefore, is to look at whether the conditions are in place to ensure future

effective working.

It seems that the starting point for the further development of the network isrelatively good: a good spirit and interest in the work in hand exists. But it isimportant too to recognise the challenges facing the network, so that members canreflect on them and then work out what needs to be different.

4. organisational and national contextsIn developing the project proposal, the partners that were brought together seem tohave been contacted primarily because of existing personal relationships. Given the

pressures on time, this may have been inevitable, but the result has been a networkof very diverse, if not disparate, NGOs. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but itrequires careful management. And for AfGH currently it is not yet obvious how onemembers strengths complements those of another, nor how one membersweakness in a particular aspect of work can be accommodated through anothermembers strength.

Without wishing to overstate the differences amongst the networks members, thefact remains that these include:

culture: as shown in organisational processes such as those around internaldecision making, and Advocacy Officers ability to take decisions on behalf of anorganisation, which varies from NGO to NGO;

size: both in absolute terms across the network and in relative size in nationalcontexts;orientation: some having a focus on vertical (i.e. disease or other specificintervention) issues, others concentrating on broader (horizontal) health themes;language: with English being the projects working language across the Networkand the first language for some members, for others it is their second or thirdlanguage;connections and relations with other NGOs: with some membersat the marginsof the NGO community and others much more at the centre;


13/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 13

staff assigned to the project: some are new in their organisation, while othershave been employed in the same organisation for some time;staff involvement in AfGH work: some are involved on a full-time basis, othersare part-time;practical support from within the member organisation: for example, supportfrom media specialists is in some cases available and sometimes not (in whichcase those assigned to the AfGH project have to do everything);

organisational support for advocacy: for some members advocacy is a core partof the function of the NGO, in others it is less so;organisational expertise: significant differences between members in, forinstance, capacity to carry out policy analysis, or media work, as well asvariations in levels of experience of negotiating with decision makers, publiccampaigning, etc.; andthe specific position of the partners based in Brussels: these partners rely on theinput and approval of the other network members in a way that those operatingat national levels do not.

Such differences can be accommodated within the network over time (as staff andorganisations get used to each other and to the task in hand). In general it helps to

acknowledge and address them specifically: differences, if not well understood, maylead to misinterpretations and lack of trust. Such understanding is particularlyneeded for what may be called cultural differences: mentalities and philosophiesrelating to work and its organisation. From early reports, the current peer reviews(probably better called exchange visits rather than reviews) have gone some waytowards developing the necessary mutual understanding. But further appreciation ofwhat these differences entail will help avoid situations where there are attempts bymembers to impose rigid ways of thinking and acting, with the risk of correspondinginaction or disengagement by one or other member organisation or networkcountry.

What may be more difficult to deal with are the different levels of organisationalsupport to the AfGH project: commitment to the project within the different member

organisations varies. Some internal respondents report that buy-in is a little shakyin some places [in the member organisation] or that[involvement in the networkis] tolerated but not strongly supported. Buy-in, or its absence, relates closely toreal or perceived tensions between the networks relatively broad health agenda anda members more specific remit.

In some cases, the level of integration of the project within a member organisation islow (particularly in organisations with disease specific remits given that AfGH isseeking to work horizontally). As one respondent said, [it feels like theorganisation is] hosting a stranger, since there is very little cross-over with otherwork done by the member NGO.

The survey results confirm that there are currently mixed views about the Networkand its value to its members (see Part 3 of this report). It is striking that thosewhose responses across all the bi-polar questions tend to be high (indicatingdissatisfaction with the various elements of network functioning and performance)are much more likely also to score the network low in terms of its importance andbenefit as well as its effectiveness. The evidence from the survey, supported byinterview findings, is that the majority of members are broadly positive about thenetwork and its ways of operating, but that there is a bloc of organisations whoserepresentatives are significantly less positive about the network than the others.


14/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 14

Going forward, this could result in problems if the difference of perception andattitude between groups of members is not reduced.

This may be partly about different expectations: for example, some hope for theirorganisations profile to be raised, others have less desire for this. But the opinionthat,nothing has been done to date that could not have been done anyway in myown organisation's name- although perhaps at one extreme - illustrates a

perception that is potentially damaging for the success of the network.

Differences in levels of ideological and practical buy-in, and differences in opinionabout network interests and benefits, are likely to create problems for the AfGHproject if they are not resolved. Evidence from the literature emphasises thatnetworks are most effective when the goal of a network is consistent with, andfurthers the mission of each organisation entering into it and when network membersconsider the priorities of the network their own.

Awareness within the network of the existence of such diverse opinions about buy-in,interests and benefits let alone thinking about its implications - seems to haveemerged gradually and relatively recently. It has not yet been properly addressed.

There is a need to promote mutual understanding of constraints and needs, and ofcontributions that people in different organisations can make.

As part of this, the Network should look more at the strength of each organisation,and consider how best tasks might be divided accordingly. This was a view thatmany informants agreed with, expressing a sense that specific NGOsexpertise hasnot yet been exploited enough, for example in the production of fact sheets or in thethematic development of the project.

Given the differences that exist between members and their national situations, oneconsequence for practical work has been that some members have adopted agenerally reactive stance to network initiatives. As a result, national partnersopportunity to develop working relationships amongst themselves has been quite

low. In other cases, notably in the UK, network partners have been able set upintricate joint working systems based on close alignment, with significantcommunication between themselves.

Progress is being made at different speeds. As a result, on the one hand, a sense offrustration was communicated to us by some members that some organisations arenot making an optimum contribution to the network, or at least not visibly. On theother hand, there are feelings that some members are seeking to lead others in thework of the project in ways that are inappropriate and not fully sensitive to culturesand constraints. The very busy first-year workplan, with its tight deadlines, hasexacerbated some of these tensions.

One issue to consider in particular is that the network has tended to be northernEuropean - in particular UK dominated, with others - in particular members inSpain and Italy having to work hard not to be removed to the margins. Amongstother reasons for this is that in its design, the project gave some precedence to UKNGOs, through providing funding for three full-time posts while in other countriestwo were funded. In dealing with the implications of this, the Network must balancethe need for efficiency and effectiveness recognising, facilitating and building onmembers good quality work - with the importance of a sense of mutualaccountability and appreciation of others contexts.


15/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 15

Differences in the pace and quality and focus of work across the network must not beallowed to affect its future effectiveness. Recognising diversity of contexts should bethe starting point for developing greater sensitivity to aspects such as timing,working methods, and decision-making needs of network members. In the words ofthe proverb: if you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.

Trust is the glue that holds networks together but is difficult to develop where there

are significant cultural differences, language barriers, different capacities andcapabilities and organisational pressures. Likewise, trust cannot be developed wheremembers do not know or value each other. Although the current exchange visits(peer reviews) provide an important getting to know you mechanism, AfGH staffshould give explicit attention to working towards becoming a virtual team, awareand confident in the skills and values they each bring, and acknowledging othersadded value.

One model of joint working identifies that successful collaboration develops inphases:

from attention to form and focus;to organisation and action;

to achievement and transformation (Taylor Powell & Rossing).

It seems that the AfGH network, with early pressure to deliver on milestones andoutputs, has to some extent jumped in at phase two, which means that some of thephase one aspects have not yet been resolved.

To foster improved trust and joint working, guiding principles and values

which members relate to and work with each other should be established,

including around:

the need for collaborative action;a common understanding of the practicalities of mutual reliance;

mutually agreed parameters regarding expectations

respect for diversity enabling all voices to be heard;acknowledgement of power differences within the Network, but with

a commitment to equality in decision-making.

5. plans and planningThe fact that the network has delivered on its plans is something that we thinkmembers should be both very pleased with, and also sceptical about.

The work that this involved was hard and occasionally very stressful, in particularin the run-up to the release of the national reports. Although this does not seem to

have seriously affected the quality of work produced, it has led to the results beingmore limited than might have been the case had more time been available.

There has been significant effort to ensure that project activities and milestones foryear one have been achieved. Some feel that this has been achieved at a cost:Sometimes we have been more worried to carry out the agreement with GatesFoundation than to do the advocacy work with quality. Campaigners are often inthe position where there are constraints in place that make it difficult to gather,share and learn from information and intelligence, and apply the lessons in the


16/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 16

future. Often this boils down to problems of finding the time. It will be important forthe Network to ensure there is meaningful space where reflection can take place in aconsidered manner, and to ensure that opportunities to reflect are valued, and notseen as an unaffordable luxury, or a diversion from action.

Planning of activities other than those outlined in the proposal seems to have been,in some settings at least, rather unstructured and reactive. Whilst the survey results

suggest that, overall, members themselves see planning and implementation ofplans as a relative strength, there is a sense too that there could be a clearer focuson whats important (see part 3).

In particular, plans will need to be responsive to concerns around speed of, andmechanisms, for decision-making. In the first year, there have been sensitivitiesabout this, highlighted in the inability of Italy and Spain to launch the report at anapparently jointly-agreed time. (Italian and Spanish partners are aware of thesensitivities, but report that they were unhappy about the deadline from the start.Other partners have expressed frustration about the perceived delays and profess tonot understand why they happened.)

More generally, various informants mention that there has been pressure to makedecisions in teleconferences when they feel insufficient time has been available forpreparation and consideration: we put pressure on ourselves that is not necessarilyjustified. Such pressure to decide in an instant has been particularly felt when itcomes to taking positions on issues raised by members. This indicates that longerlead-in times for decision-making are needed. It also perhaps suggests that thenetwork covers too much ground and that there is a need for agreeing (annual)criteria or guidelines that establish a focus on specific global health themes andcreate a framework for debate and development of those selected themes. Whatfalls outside those criteria or guidelines would be for membersindividual decisionand not as part of the Network. This should then enable the network to react fastbut accuratelyto aspects that fall inside the agreed guidelines.

Reasons for this pressure on decision making are not always clear; after all, as onemember pointed out (in a line of thought echoed by others), AfGH is not operating inan emergency situation. Its right that there is a strong impetus behind the work,and a sense of its urgency and importance, but ways of working need to be bothsustainable and appropriate to ensuring strategic effectiveness. It may be that theheightened pressure of delivering the first year milestones in what was actually lessthan a year has created temporary difficulties for the network, but our experience isthat these things have a habit of becoming established ways of working unlessreconsidered explicitly.

We believe that greater flexibility of timeframes, taking into account the varyingavailable staff time, would not only help bring improvements in working relationshipsbut also help to ensure a higher quality of advocacy activity and thus improvedresults. Key to this will be to ensure that quality assessments as differentfrom largely quantitative milestones - are identified and established asimportant for AfGH members and the project.


17/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 17

6. strategyStrategies deployed in this first year have largely been in line with those outlined inthe proposal to the Gates Foundation. They have not been significantly developed.Although the proposal gives a sketch of components of strategy, it does not givemuch of an assessment of possible approaches that might be best suited to

achieving the aims of the project. From the available information, it is not evidentthat AfGH strategies make the best use of the networks resources (we do not knowyet the strengths of the members). Nor is it clear that there has been sufficientexploration of the external operating environment (for instance through externalenvironmental analysis, contact mapping, identifying influencing routes, etc).

Some internal respondents, however, feel that the outline of strategy as shown inthe proposal is sufficient: We have the right tools. The key will be to use them atthe right moment.

Other respondents suggested that the proposal gives too much attention tomilestones and activities (driven it seems by the requirements of the grant funder)and that a greater focus on achieving success (influence on political and social

change) may be best achieved using approaches other than those already outlined inthe proposal, mentioning that, for instance, political engagement strategies are notin place and have not been adequately developed.

Whichever of these opinions one endorses, there is a generally recognised need forgreater clarity on strategic vision, especially with many respondents stressing thatstrategy coherence is (and will continue to be) under pressure due to the tendency ofthe members to try to align the network agenda with their institutional priorities.

We suggest that strategic analysis of both internal and external contexts should be apriority for the network. This would entail assessing internal strengths andweaknesses and external opportunities and threats.

Some building blocks for this have been put in place, for instance through thedevelopment of some joint policy positions, and through collaborative work to date.

However, a structured approach to this is needed to replace the current tendency tofocus on activities instead of explicit attention to the creation of strategic results. Asone interviewee put it, the network has so far been always looking forward, withoutreflection. A clearer strategic framework would give much-needed criteria withwhich to assess the value of particular aspects of work, including for instanceattendance at and follow up to external events.

The Network should identify, review and clarify its primary strategies. Thisshould be done based on an analysis of (internal) strengths and weaknesses

and (external) opportunities and threats. Sharper strategies should feedinto efforts to prioritise policy agendas better, so that the network can

develop achievable objectives and operate to greatest effect in achieving itsgoals.

Improved political information could also be valuable in helping the network toestablish sound political positioning - balancing dialogue, support and criticism -bearing in mind that the policy environment is reported to be particularly sensitive insome arenas in Brussels, for example, where relationships between NGOs and the


18/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 18

Commission have, according to some, become quite conflict-prone. The idea, floatedin the funding proposal, to test positions with focus groups made up of allies withintarget institutions could perhaps be revived.

The kind of approach we are outlining here would also help support the creation of amonitoring and evaluation system with indicators to assess progress towards goalsand objectives. At the moment, such indicators seem to be lacking, or if they exist,

members do not seem to be aware of them, despite the claim in the proposal thatindicators and baselines have been established or will be in year 1 of the project.

We have a concern, that some internally also identified, that the network to date hasbeen too focused on delivering a set of activities, without taking sufficient time topresent a coherent and transparent sense of the social and political change it isseeking, and the pathways towards achieving it.

It is not yet clear that the Network has a common or clear sense of what would helpdemonstrate progress towards achieving goals, beyond delivery against milestoneswhich are typically measures of activity only.

Some dimensions to this wider question could include the following:

focus of enquiry possible benchmark

activities milestones achievednetwork processes money effectively disbursed;

quality of planning, monitoring and evaluation;members satisfaction with systems and procedures;lessons learnt are identified and serve as the basis forreformulating strategies and activities

political outcomes network is seen by key audiences as a reference for globalhealth;levels and quality of engagement with decision makers;global health issues are high on national and international

agendas;participation of network members in the design of the healthpolicies strategies;ODA for health increased

organic outcomes growth in the network;relationships between members;motivation and performance of individual members;enhanced capacity to act jointly;network sustainability;network acknowledged as key partner by organisations inthe South;participation of South organizations in the network

impact 2015 targets on track/metimproved health of poorest people in South

This list is designed to be illustrative rather than definitive. The point is that thenetwork would benefit from developing a clear and shared sense of what it is tryingto achieve, and how it will know if it is on course to do so. Externally conductedreviews like this one are not a substitute for the Network itself clarifying itsaspirations and then ensuring that it has good information about the extent andspeed of progress towards them, so that tactics, strategies and ways of working can


19/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 19

be adjusted as necessary along the way. This would include, for example, trackinghow the network itself is evolving as well as recording the reaction from keyaudiences and targets to the network and its issues (and in both cases reviewingapproaches, activities and strategies in this light).

The network is battling huge forces. To make its contribution in the most effectiveway, the Network will need to be very clear how it can bring its resources to bear in

ways that makes most effective use of them.

As part of this, the Network will need to set out ways that ensure thatapproaches to information gathering and reporting provide meaningfulintelligence about strategies and their effectiveness, as well as recording

the delivery of activities and milestones.

7. influence and outcomesAs already anticipated in the evaluation Terms of Reference, little can be said at thisstage about the influence and outcomes of the AfGH project to date. It is, however,

a concern that evidence of network influence - let alone outcomes - is not beingrecorded, suggesting that a more systematic approach to political intelligencegathering needs to be put in place.

Some, largely anecdotal, examples of AfGH influencing the debate in some countries,or moving the issue up the agenda, have been mentioned to us or appear in peerreview reports. At least one MEP (Wolfgang Wodarg, SPD) refers to AfGH on hishomepage, endorsing AfGHs analysis. And the opinion of internal respondents thatAfGHs information supply is appreciated is corroborated by another MEP, who notedthat the network is important for her work as a source of information. Shecommented on the well-organised website which enables her to follow the debatesabout health and development issues.

Members generally feel that, while it is early, AfGH is increasingly being recognised,by both NGOs and targets. The report and dissemination work done to date ishelping to forge good relations according to respondents, including withorganisations interested in becoming members (see section 18). Other NGOs arenoticing the issue raised by AfGH (e.g. Coordination Sud in France) and express aninterest in meeting to explore possible shared interests. Increased recognition ofhealth as a key development issue has led, in Italy, to the issue being brought into adraft law for international cooperation. And in France, we understand that AfGHmembers have been invited by the government to comment on their latest healthstrategy.

As discussed in the section on Strategy (section 6), there is a need for the Network

itself to set up means of gathering political intelligence through its day-to-day work,as well as systems for interpreting findings. This should enable it to be in a positionto make judgements about the effectiveness of strategies and tactics pursued, basedon evidence of achievements (and failures). Any future external evaluation of thenetwork should have the purpose of looking to corroborate, challenge and possiblyprovide alternative interpretations to the internal analysis. Such external evaluation,however, cannot be a replacement for internal analysis.


20/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 20

8. health policy agendasWhile one partner commented that AfGH members have coalesced around a commonagenda, and that the network has advanced much quicker than others with whichthey have experience, another felt that a shared agenda was, still far off ... at themoment AfGH is all over the place, engaging in any and every discussion on healthsystems over-ambitious.

These diverse views reflect the fact that, given the short timescale, progress on jointpositions has in many ways been remarkable, but more needs to be done to makethese meaningful and feasible.

The potential value of working across vertical issues is that it can be a bridgebetween different interest groups. And certainly, the evidence from the ground inSouthern developing countries, as we understand it, is that integration of verticallyconstructed health programmes into a general healthcare focus represents animportant way forward in strengthening health provision.

Thus, the aspiration is a sound one, but to achieve it involves a difficult balancing

act. The challenge is to find ways to build on individual members strengths withoutthe network losing sight of its broader mandate and positioning.

One external respondent saw it as impressive that AfGH started off as a network ofdisease-specific organizations and is moving towards the overarching health systemsagenda. However, the respondent continued, there is still a dual message in thereport. It is asking for both disease-specific funding as well as for funding for healthsystems. AfGH needs to be clearer whether they are advocating on horizontal orvertical issues. At the moment there are mixed messages.

These external views on the nature of the Networks vertical versus horizontalapproach possibly reflect the fact that members themselves dont always seem to bewholly clear about the Networks position on this.

There are concerns amongst some members that the current inability to talk aboutintervention or disease specific issues means that the network is not sufficientlymaking use of their strengths or needs. But at the same time, it is right that thesepressures are counter-balanced:the partners have to regularly revisit and confirmtheir shared agenda and conceptual identity [i.e. the horizontal (cross-cutting)theme of health]; otherwise there is a danger of becoming another AIDS network.

It would certainly help to clarify key issues around policy and

communication, for instance:

is it appropriate to advocate on intervention/ disease specific issues as a

means into the broader health and development debate?if yes, when would this be appropriate?

how can the network keep focused on the cross-cutting health anddevelopment agenda when this may in some circumstances be more

difficult to communicate than intervention/disease specific issues?

The need for more rigorous identification of when best to intervene is identified, forexample, by this response: There are so many things happening that we are


21/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 21

running behind the agenda. It is a struggle to keep up ... we would like to steer theagenda more.

As mentioned elsewhere, this can partly be addressed through better forwardplanning. For example, an annual assessment of forthcoming European and nationaladvocacy opportunities (that relate to the networks priorities) would allow theposition to be developed in advance.

Obviously, sometimes work is reactive, and cannot be wholly anticipated. Forexample, the recently launched International Health Partnership was initiated by thegovernments of Germany, the UK, Norway and Canada, but now includes France,Italy and others as well as the European Commission and UN agencies. This seemslike an initiative requiring significant attention from the Network. Responding tosuch interventions and opportunities requires both clear strategic parameters andalso capacity (time and ways of working).

From the feedback received, however, it is not clear if current ways of workingpromote the operation or development of a systematic, integrated approach. Forinstance:

the policy Working Groups, by all accounts,are not up and running yet and thefear has been expressed that they have become too general. This may bebecause of organisational reasons (for example because their terms of referenceare not sufficiently detailed) or because of planning reasons (for instancebecause the overall strategies or external analyses are insufficient to give therequired guidance).members are finding it difficult to keep pace with the need to take positions onvarious issues raised by other members. As mentioned previously this may bedue to a lack of sufficiently detailed set of priorities. It also indicates for somemembers that the current policy ofno comment = yesneeds adjusting, as itgives an advantage to those who make propositions, risking a more diffuseapproach with a reduced focus on the Networks core intention.

To help resolve these issues, there is a need to agree criteria or guidelinesestablishing a focus on specific global health themes. These guidelineswould create a framework for debate and development of a common

position on the selected themes. Any such guidelines should incorporateattention to systematic ways of working that enable speedy, accurate

reaction when required.

9. policy analysis and positions adoptedComments by network members on the policy reports were somewhat muted. They

were cited as useful internally by a number of members: it is a good to have thereport as a tool for communication and advocacy. One Italian partner saw it asanopportunity to step back and reflect on specific topics, although the lack of availabledata at national level made it difficult to produce a realistic picture. In Germany,internal comments noted that theend product is ... not as relevant for the[national] policy audience and NGO scene [as it could have been]. At an EU level,according to one interviewee, the report was insufficiently tailored towards theinterests and expertise of the audience. While, from the UK, an opinion was


22/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 22

expressed that, the first two sections contain some broad evidence that was alreadyin the public domain but didnt get down to details.

Internally too there was mention that the report was based on aweak consensusand [with] recommendations that sometimes lacked teeth. The process adopted fordeveloping the report also received some criticism as being too top-down: nationalsections were derived from the international, and the opinion was expressed that this

should have been the other way round (or at least ideally in both directionsconcurrently).

Interestingly, internal respondents generally suggested that external views of thereport were more positive than their own, stating that they had received positivefeedback from other civil society organisations, and that it had been noted ingovernment circles, in some cases leading to access and debate within decision-making circles.

The timing of the evaluation makes it difficult for us to corroborate this sense (forexample, the Spanish report was launched on October 15th, after interviews hadtaken place). And in any case, we have only heard from a very limited number and

range of external respondents. Those external respondents who could commentlargely share the internal view that the reports have been useful in publicising theNGOs' thinking, and as a reference text. One MEP indicated that, The report gave agood and also very detailed overview of the work of the EU and [national]government to date it did point out shortfalls that undisputedly exist. Anotherexternal respondent said that the report was of fairly good quality, given that theinformation was still moving; another commented similarly, along the lines that itwas good given the circumstances. However, we did hear critical comments too,with one official for example identifying mistakes which undermined its value [and] it had a limited vision.

Notwithstanding this, it seems to be the case that the reports met a need:a goodproduct at the right time what was needed was a set of fairly crude messages.

The reports have established a foundation; this will need to be built on:the networkneeds to update its messages to show it understands the broader context ... To doso would boost [its] credibility. To not do so means you fall back into the group ofNGOs just making noise and whose messages are crude. With this in mind, it isperhaps encouraging to note that a number of external respondents made positivementions of the AfGH newsletter.

Development of the report also raises the question, for the design of futurepropositions by AfGH, as to whether the Network sees itself as a producer of newknowledge, and/or whether it wants to be a collator and disseminator of alreadyexisting knowledge and information produced elsewhere. The answer to this wouldindicate the Networks ambitions and the extent to which AfGH is restricted or not byits membersexisting knowledge and expertise.

One current problem is that many members are not at all sure what others arecalling for (for example in section 3 of the national reports). Although the ability toframe an issue successfully and jointly in an international network can be particularlydifficult, there is a need to give time to this if the network wants to achievemeaningful results.

The current consensus, although described as weak by some respondents, providesa basis on which to develop stronger joint positions. Network members must create


23/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 23

the time and energy to enable this to happen. In order to identify and expandareas of policy consensus, the Network should conduct a comparative

analysis of current published policy asks of the Network and its individualmembers.

10.

public communications

The proposal to the Gates Foundation identified in effect five broad audience groups:

governments in the different national arenas (including the EU institutions);NGOs;EU citizens;media; andthe private (healthcare and research) sector.

Such broad audiences are obviously too general to be of much use in practicaladvocacy work without further refinement. Some of these groups, for instance, maynot be target audiences, but instead may be channels through which other (target)

audiences are approached. This is an area that needs more work and is closelyrelated to the development of the networks (influencing) strategies, addressing suchquestions as: who are the priority audiences that need to be engaged or addressed?Are they different in different national contexts? Which potential channels can beused to reach them?

A general public communication tool currently available to AfGH is its website.Although in the early stages of development and not yet widely used, its potentialusefulness is indicated by some comments from externals (see section 7). Weunderstand that plans are afoot to improve accessibility to the site (including throughlanguages other than English), and to improve its potential relevance (includingthrough expanding the links to articles relevant to AfGH and to activities in individual

countries). Such development should increase what looks like limited use of the sitecurrently (around 1800 visits in one month covering October-November, and amajority of visitors originating in the UK, Belgium and the USA). Improvements tothe site are also likely to increase reference to AfGH on other sites. A search onGoogle for internet sites which mention AfGH gives 604 references for Action forGlobal Health (which also covers French and German language references), 372 forAccin por la Salud Global and 851 for Azione per la Salute Globale.

Specifically considering public audiences, it seems that different opinions exist,perhaps reflecting different national contexts. In the UK for example, partners haveonly limited capacity to make health and development a public issue(and in anycase there is an existing public campaign on this issue run by a major NGO), whileItalian members are talking about the need for wider public (as well as NGO)

support, in order to put pressure on decision makers. One respondent suggested thedesirability of a joint popular event to create public noise, and some memberswould like to allocate a communication specialist for the production ofcommunication materials. However, it would seem that a more developed set ofpublic communication strategies is needed first.

In developing these strategies, the question has, firstly, to be: what support is reallyneeded and where from (in order to achieve the core aims of the network)? And,secondly, if it is needed, is it possible? Public campaigns are very resource intensive


24/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 24

especially when the media environment is reported as a difficult one in differentlocations. Positive media coverage of the launch was mentioned by Italian members,for example, but not highlighted elsewhere.

Approaches towards public communications should be considered as part of

the wider strategy development process that we advocate in section 6.

Part of the answer to these questions will depend on the broader, and global,advocacy campaigning environment on health and development issues. Ensuringthat members are being informed of - and where advantageous relate to - otherrelevant campaigns is likely to be a central task for the Coordination Team.

11. cross-national workingSome members are disappointed that to date the Network has insufficiently beenable to benefit from what is possibly its greatest asset: its international character.German staff, although aided at short notice by UK members, did not always feelwell supported by other network members at the G8, for example.

In an international network, operating at different levels of influence can bring vitalbenefit. At a relatively simple level, for example, German AfGH staff mention thatthey are often asked by politicians and others where Germany stands in relation toother countries in terms of MDG performance and policies. Evidence on this couldprovide a powerful advocacy tool, but it cannot be answered without informationfrom other countries. Through better shared intelligence and joint strategising, AfGHcan fulfil a key benefit of networking. Members will be able to advocate commonpositions simultaneously, across different arenas, in order to exert multiple routes ofinfluence.

As part of its development of ways of working that promote and encourage

cross-national working, AfGH should review who might be best placed tolead on which aspects of work, and - on this basis - consider allocating leadresponsibility for key work to specific organisations.

For example, there may be particular lead roles which the Brussels groups couldusefully and productively take on, with an EU-wide perspective; and Working Groupleads may be in a position to take on a more proactive and strategic role on thenetworks behalf.

To be most effective, these kinds of approaches may depend on some reallocation ofresources between members from that currently agreed.

12. network coordination and managementThe network coordinator is generally respected, was widely - although certainly notuniversally - praised for his approachability and for the support he has given, andadditionally commended for displaying energy, finesse and balance.

Inevitably, there were criticisms too. These were mostly along the lines that thecoordination function has been seen as being too controlling to date. Certainly, the


25/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 25

literature stresses that the coordinators emphasis should be on quality rather thancontrol and that the coordinators role is to encourage innovation and focus.

But in this case there are complexities to be negotiated flowing from theCoordinators multiple roles: firstly, as lead in a network aspiring to be democraticand participatory; secondly, as project manager, answerable to managers inActionAid and to the Gates Foundation for the network delivering against plans; and

thirdly as conduit for representing ActionAids positions, as partner, within Networkdiscussions. This is clearly a very difficult balancing act, especially given some of theissues we raise below about governance.

Other more specific complaints e.g. that in one country the Coordinator has beentoo operationally involved in national affairs would seem to be more easilyresolved.

The point is that there is a balance to be struck between strong leadership andparticipatory decision-making, and between trust and formalisation. Basically, themore top-down and centralised the network, the more you trade off participation forefficiency, speed and leadership.

In relation to whether the coordination function delivers a good balance, opinions aremixed. This only serves to reinforce the fact that one persons momentum isanothers feeling that there is unwelcome direction from above. The sense from thesurvey results was that the coordination function is currently too operational. Therewere some suggestions of laborious [over-]consultation, with the accompanyingrecommendation that the Coordinator should take more of a leading role in resolvingthings,rather than always setting up a group to look into things when issues areraised. Others seem to value the approach taken, however, welcomingopportunities for involvement. The key challenge seems to be how to structuremembers involvement in decision making in ways that make it easy for all toparticipate whilst ensuring there is good quality involvement and that good qualitydecisions result.

There was a widely felt concern that the need for immediate answers - for positionson health policy issues for example - has affected the quality of decision-making.Clearly, more time needs to be scheduled in for translation and for nationalconsultations before Steering Group meetings. We heard from several sources thatnational convenors often go into Steering Group meetings/conferences unprepared(without having consulted on or considered issues for discussion), with the resultthat decisions have been taken, or implicitly accepted, that turn out later not to havebeen wise. One input suggested that the network is working at a pace and stylethat does not suit non-English speaking countries with only two staff.

The challenge is to provide a greater focus, in order to promote networkcohesiveness, enabling a more measured decision making process. As part of this, aclear eye should be kept on decision-making arenas. At least in the early days, theCoordination Team has involved itself in processes of agreeing policy, which, for onepartner, are more properly the role of the policy officers collectively. It was felt nowthough that there is becoming a greater and more appropriate separation betweenthe functions of coordination and policy setting. In addition, the Steering Groupshould gradually withdraw from any focus on operational issues, on thebasis that, as Advocacy Officers develop enhanced working relationships,

they can be trusted to get on with it. The increasing risk otherwise would be


26/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 26

that the Steering Group makes decisions on points that have already made their wayinto daily practice.

As it is identified who can do what, where expertise resides, there can be morebilateral communication, with less having to go through the coordination hub.

13. governance and accountabilityAlthough the Steering Group is established to govern the running of the Network4,one member of the Project Accountability Group described it as a forum forconsultation.

And there was a view expressed too from within Project Accountability Group, as theaccountable body (to the Gates Foundation), it is for ActionAid to take a stronglycontrolling view of the network: it is important that partners are part of the processand that there is a certain amount of consensus, but in the end we need to get themessage out. These comments should not be taken as representing the collectiveview of PAG members. As emphasised by another PAG member, a successful

network will only be created if members authority within the network is recognisedand respected. But they perhaps highlight a discrepancy worth exploring further.

In any case, these comments represent only a narrow interpretation of the extent ofthe networks accountability to others. Whilst lines of accountability seem to beclearly manifesting themselves through ActionAid International, and thus to thedonor, they are less obvious in the other direction. Accountability to members innetworks is generally maintained through a funding relationship: networkSecretariats tend to be part-funded at least through members contributions; in thiscase, as funding flows the other way, members recourse is somewhat more limited,to withdrawal (with its accompanying costs).

Another line of accountability runs towards partners and people in the South, thenetworks perceived beneficiaries. Current relationships with groups and people inthe Third World appear very tentative and indirect: stronger in some organisations,weaker in others, but in all cases not explicitly addressed through AfGH processes.The extent to which the Network speaks or can speak on behalf of partners in theSouth is therefore left vague. The survey results indicate that members recognisethis concern (see part 3) even though the internal sense seems to be that this is nota key priority to address.

Our own view is that one key source of the Network legitimacy is its links withSouthern, developing world, partners. Drawing on other (i.e. Southern) perspectivesand experiences is, for a network such AfGH, important:

in terms of moral consistency: given that members make the case to decision

makers that theyshould be listening to grassroots voices;for effectiveness: it is easy for officials to ask, who do you represent?to help ensure message consistency: if Southern campaigners have differentmessages to those disseminated through Northern networks, then this can beextraordinarily damaging; andfor credibility: to help ensure that policy proposals offer credible solutions topractical, on the ground, health and development issues.

4Steering Group ToR, January 2007


27/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 27

Engaging with civil society groups in developing countries is about coordinatingadvocacy activities as well as informing AfGH's own positions. The network shouldbe connected to stakeholders in the South to enable information sharing, includingsharing of plans and political information in other words providing access toinformation that Southern groups often find very difficult to obtain. As one externalput it, the network needs antennae, if not legs, in the developing world and also a

part of its brain should be there.

The need for enhanced links also reflects the fact that, the problem is not just withthe donors, but with the recipient [governments], which need [influencing] by CSOsdirectly.

We believe, therefore, that AfGH should look at ways of forging of links withSouthern regional counterparts and/or a caucus of civil society informants

by building on members existing contacts and collaborations. As part of

this, AfGH, could consider what kind of access partners in developingcountries can have to the network (e.g. as a second circle of members? as

observers?)

14. internal communicationsInformation exchange is at the core of any network. As already noted, commentsfrom interviewees to this review sometimes demonstrated a lack of appreciation ofothers working contexts. There was even a lack of awareness of what others werecalling for in reports: as one put it, Im not sure if common positions are beingadvocated across Europe. In some countries, joint working structures (betweennational partners) are very well developed; others have found it more difficult to setthese up. To some extent, it seems that the pressure to deliver activities on timehas precluded the development of solid internal communications.

This should not be overstated. Survey findings indicate relatively high levels ofsatisfaction with internal information flows. But some of the mechanisms do notseem to be working as well as they ideally would. For example the teleconferencesare not a useful tool for some (because of language issues), especially given thepoint already made regarding insufficient preparation time. Long face-to-facemeetings have a tendency to sap energy: suggesting the need to find different waysto interact. Face-to-face meetings are important but perhaps different formatsshould be adopted, involving a variety of appropriate methods of work. In particular,there is a need to expand the networks multi-lingual facility: language barriersexacerbate the likelihood of UK partners (and of others with English as a firstlanguage) dominating the discussions and proceedings.

It is important that barriers to participation are addressed; and some reorientation isrequired to ensure this. Successful networks ensure that those with least resourcesand power have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way and also thatthere is willing input of resources by members, particularly those most advanced, forbenefit of all.


28/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 28

15. working groupsThe Working Groups seem not to have functioned fully to date. There is a need toclarify their purpose and content, as well as their nature and relation to the overallthemes (horizontal or transversal). They are regarded as potentially a good tool,even though they were not very active in year 1. It will be important to give morestrength to them in year 2.

For one partner, there is an opportunity for the Working Groups to play anincreasingly strategic role in how the network functions. Working Groups could be aprimary means to demonstrate that AfGH is a supportive structure to bring peopletogether, for example, acting as a policy interface with other (non-member) groups.

16. decision makingNetwork decision-making processes work best when there are low levels of formalcontrols with high levels of coordination and facilitation. You cannot consulteveryone on everything all the time so it is vital there is confidence in others. Someformal aspects between members are no doubt needed in this case, given thecontractual relationship that ActionAid has with the Gates Foundation, but ideallythese would not have to be invoked during normal interactions between members.

As noted elsewhere, there are frustrations about the perceived slowness of decision-making but the main issue seems to be more about lack of preparation time, withthe result that people dont feel equipped to take the right decisions. Oneconsequence of this is that decisions are made but not always followed through.

Given the organisational issues involved in developing the work of the variousdecision-making groups, a balance will have to be found between face-to-face workand meetings and virtual meetings and work through e-mail and internet exchanges.

This will require the development, at the outset, of clear guidance on which aspectsof reflection, creativity, strategy, and implementation will need to be discussedthrough which format.

Moving forward in a strategically coherent fashion requires that members have fullconfidence in decision-making mechanisms. To ensure this, the Network shouldreview planning and decision making processes and establish proceduresthat include:

laying out consultation guidelines for national convenors,building in time so that all can contribute equally, andadopting measures to ensure the networks focus is preserved and

applied.

As part of this, we suggest that the Network should conduct an assessment ofthe contribution that member organisations and staff feel they can make to

the Network, as well as their perceived needs from others. This informationshould form the basis for developing ways that Advocacy Officers andothers can deliver more focussed and targeted contributions.

On policy content, for example, there was a feeling that the Advocacy Officers couldbe better supported by specialists within the Network, rather than left to deal on


29/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 29

their own with content-specific issues. Overall,it is [still] not clear who should dowhat... we could have a more structured division of tasks. Again, to achieve abetter balance, members will need to know others strengths and weaknesses.

One concern raised in relation to this is that there could be over-reliance on thosemembers of the network who are performing well [which] may result in somenational partners being unable to conduct the policy and advocacy work that is

required of them. Clearly this concern, amongst others, would need to be takeninto account in identifying who can best support whom, when.

Whatever the systems and processes employed, it is ultimately a question of havingpeople who are committed, empathetic and flexible.

17. identityAnecdotal evidence suggests that the network is becoming better knownprogressively, but that recognition is still at a low level. This is to be expected atthis stage in its lifetime. Internally, as indicated in survey results, there is an overall

sense that that a strong identity/brand has been created. Certainly, the fact that thenetwork has been so proactive in working internationally to create a distinctiveidentity has helped create a potentially valuable platform for future joint working,especially in tandem with the fact that effort has been invested in establishing jointmessages and joint positions. Network branding seems to be positively regardedinternally, notwithstanding one or two complaints about the cost.

However, the identity of the Network and the use of the Network as an entity in itsown right vary from country to country. In France for example, AfGH e-mailsignatures and links to the AfGH website show that members promote the Network intheir day-to-day work. In other cases, for example in Italy, much more reliance isplaced on individual members taking forward AfGH ideas, with separate AfGH

branding not (yet) or less in vogue.

Some feel difficulties in separating out when they are speaking for their ownorganisation, when for AfGH and when for AfGH in its national configuration.However, the confusions to date are within the bounds of what would be expected ina new network, and it appears that the parameters are becoming clearer. The bestway to resolve these kinds of questions is through developing members sense ofassociation with the network, in the ways touched on earlier: through clarifying andexpanding the space for overlap between members and network aims.

Alongside the issue of whether and when members can speak for the Network ratherthan their own organisation, the issue of whether and when members should speakfor the Network was touched on, but without an obvious sense that this was a major

concern. The case was made that for some of the bigger organisations involved, itdoes not necessarily make sense always to highlight that they are speaking on behalfof the network, as they are well known themselves within the arenas in which theyare operating.

It may be right in some circumstances that a pragmatic approach is adopted, withgroups with national profile sometimes at the forefront of messages. Over time,however, it will be important to see a growing use of the Networks brand by


30/41

EVALUATION REPORT

page 30

members. Partner organisations should be able and willing to talk for the wholeAfGH network and not only on their own behalf.

The Network should seek to agree a set of common principles around howmembers promote their membership of the Network, allowing for flexibility

of implementation according to national and organisational contexts.

18. network membershipWhilst we respect opinions (

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mariabecerro8402
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

AfGH Final Evaluation Report 2007

Documents