Mid-Term Review of Strategy 2020 - ReliefWeb Midterm... · IFRC Mid Term Review of Strategy 2020 4...

IFRC Mid Term Review of Strategy 2020

1

International Federation of

Red Cross Red Crescent Societies

Mid-Term Review of Strategy 2020

FINAL REPORT

August 3 2015

Vine Management Consulting Ltd

__________________________________________________________________________

Vine Management Consulting, Hope House, 19 Upper Town Lane, Felton, Bristol, BS40 9YF, UK www.vinemanagement.co.uk; Tel: +44 (0) 1275 475066; Email: [email protected]

UK Company Limited by Guarantee No: 8243996; VAT Registration Number: 154 8572 84

http://www.vinemanagement.co.uk/


2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 3

II. MID-TERM REVIEW METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 4

III. HUMANITARIAN OPERATING CONTEXT .................................................................................. 4

IV FINDINGS ON MTR QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 5 RELEVANCE OF STRATEGY 2020 ....................................................................................................................... 5 EFFECTIVENESS OF STRATEGY 2020................................................................................................................. 5 UTILITY OF STRATEGY 2020 .............................................................................................................................. 6

V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 6 MTR CONCLUSIONS ON PROGRESS OF STRATEGY 2020 IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 2010 – 2015: ...... 6 MTR CONCLUSIONS ON PRIORITIES FOR THE PERIOD 2016-2020 ............................................................. 7

VI. MTR RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUMMARY ................................................................................ 8

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE MTR .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MTR .................................................................................. 10

2 MID TERM REVIEW METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 11 2.1 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................. 11 2.2 MTR REPORTS......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 BASIS OF THE MTR ................................................................................................................................ 11 2.4 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 11 2.5 DOCUMENT REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.6 COUNTRY VISITS ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2.7 ONLINE SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.8 MTR FOCAL POINTS .............................................................................................................................. 13

3 CONTEXT FOR THE MID TERM REVIEW ................................................................................... 14 3.1 HUMANITARIAN OPERATING CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 14 3.2 INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3 SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION .................................................................. 15 3.4 WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT ....................................................................................................... 15 3.5 PARALLEL RCRC INITIATIVES TO THE STRATEGY 2020 MID TERM REVIEW ............................. 16

4 FINDINGS ON THE MTR QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 17 4.1 RELEVANCE OF STRATEGY 2020 ......................................................................................................... 17 4.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF STRATEGY 2020 .................................................................................................. 22 4.3 UTILITY OF STRATEGY 2020 ................................................................................................................ 27

5 FURTHER DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 31 5.1 CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 31 5.2 IFRC APPROACH TO CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 31 5.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION (OCAC) .................................. 32 5.4 IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL SOCIETIES .......................... 33 5.5 CREATING A RELIABLE, CREDIBLE IFRC HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE .......................................... 34 5.6 ENCOMPASSING HUMANITARIAN ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 35 5.7 STRATEGY 2020 AS A COMMUNICATION TOOL .................................................................................. 36 5.8 ROLE OF THE IFRC SECRETARIAT ....................................................................................................... 36 5.9 STRATEGY FOR THE RCRC MOVEMENT.............................................................................................. 37 5.10 YOUTH AND VOLUNTEERING ................................................................................................................ 37 5.11 MONITORING THE PROGRESS OF STRATEGY 2020 ........................................................................... 39 5.12 POTENTIAL GAPS IN STRATEGY 2020 ................................................................................................ 39 5.13 LENGTH OF THE TERM OF STRATEGY 2020 ...................................................................................... 40 5.14 SURVEY RESULTS ON PRIORITIES TO THE YEAR 2020 ...................................................................... 40


3

6 CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROGRESS OF STRATEGY 2020 IN THE PERIOD 2010-2015 .................................................................................................................................................................... 42

6.1 STRATEGY 2020 IS AKIN TO A VISIONARY STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ............................................. 42 6.2 FOR A MAJORITY OF NATIONAL SOCIETIES STRATEGY 2020 IS POPULAR, INSPIRING, AND

RELEVANT 42 6.3 STRATEGY 2020 DOES NOT SET PRIORITIES ...................................................................................... 42 6.4 ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGY 2020 AGENDA HAVE PROGRESSED ................................................ 42 6.5 PROGRESS AGAINST STRATEGY 2020 IS DIFFICULT TO ASSESS ...................................................... 42 6.6 THE IFRC HAS NOT FOLLOWED UP ON STRATEGY 2020 AS INTENDED ....................................... 42

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 2016-2020 ..................... 44 7.1 THERE IS NO CASE FOR REVISING STRATEGY 2020 .......................................................................... 44 7.2 PRIORITISING NATIONAL SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 44 7.3 A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO NATIONAL SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED.................. 45 7.4 IMPROVING COOPERATION WITHIN THE MOVEMENT ...................................................................... 46 7.5 COLLECTIVE, RELIABLE PREPARATION FOR DISASTER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED ........................... 47 7.6 SPECIFYING AND MONITORING ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGY 2020 ............................................. 47 7.7 SETTING A FEW MAJOR TARGETS THE FEDERATION NETWORK ...................................................... 48 7.8 SETTING SECRETARIAT PRIORITIES .................................................................................................... 49 7.9 COMMUNICATING THE FEDERATION MANDATE AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE ...................... 49

ANNEX 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE.................................................................................................. 50

ANNEX 2 – INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................................ 54

ANNEX 3 - DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ............................................................................................ 58

ANNEX 4 – REVISED QUESTIONS FOR THE MID TERM REVIEW OF STRATEGY 2020... 63

ANNEX 5 – GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 14 OF 2009 .................................................. 65

ANNEX 6 – IFRC STRATEGY 2020 MTR MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT ........................ 66

ANNEX 7 - SUMMARY RESULTS FROM MTR ONLINE SURVEYS ............................................. 67

Abbreviations

FDRS Federation–wide Data and Reporting System

IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies

MTR Mid Term Review

OCAC Organisational Capacity Assessment and Certification

RCRC Red Cross Red Crescent Movement

SA/EA Strategic Aim/Enabling Action of Strategy 2020

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SMCC Strengthening Movement Cooperation and Collaboration

Acknowledgements

1. The MTR team would like to thank all MTR participants for their contribution to the exercise, in particular: the five National Societies which hosted visits by the team, and the Federation delegates who helped to organise them; the regional focal points who help to guide in the selection of National Societies for visits and provided National Society strategic plans; the Advisory Group for its discussions and commentary on the inception, initial and draft reports; and the Management Committee for its oversight and support to all elements of the MTR process.


4

I. Executive Summary

2. The IFRC General Assembly adopted Strategy 2020 at its 2009 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. The accompanying resolution requested the Secretary General to prepare an external mid-term review (MTR) of Strategy 2020 during 2015. The IFRC Secretariat appointed Vine Management Consulting to conduct the MTR between March and July 20151.

3. The MTR provides an independent assessment of Strategy 2020 against three principal criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, and Utility. The report presents the MTR findings with a discussion of their implications for the IFRC, plus conclusions and recommendations for the further advancement of Strategy 2020 and for the improved performance of the IFRC in its fulfilment of Strategy 2020.

4. The purpose of the MTR, as per the MTR Inception Report is:

“to assess the relevance and utility of Strategy 2020, and effectiveness in terms of progress to date against the strategic aims and expected impacts, from the viewpoint of National Societies and the IFRC Secretariat, from other interested stakeholders, especially the ICRC, and other external partners, and to make recommendations, as required, for its further implementation up to 2020”.

5. The MTR was supported by an Advisory Group comprising five National Society Secretary-Generals and Presidents, a youth representative and the IFRC Regional Director for the Americas, acting as Chair. A Management Committee provided on-going management of the review process.

6. The MTR took place in parallel with the IFRC Secretariat 2016-19 Plan and Budget process and the Strengthening Movement Cooperation and Coordination (SMCC) process.

II. Mid-Term Review methodology

7. Please see Section 2 of the report for more on the MTR methodology.

8. The evidence base for MTR comes from: documentation review; more than 3000 responses to online surveys; 130 interviews with National Society representatives, IFRC Secretariat staff, ICRC, and external stakeholders; and visits to five National Societies (Costa Rica, Egypt, Mali, Nepal, and Serbia).

III. Humanitarian operating context

9. See Section 3 of the report for more on the Humanitarian operating context.

10. The demand for RCRC services will continue to grow even as the operating context for humanitarian action becomes increasingly difficult, dangerous and complex, with unexpected emergencies unfolding alongside drawn-out and complex armed conflicts.

11. Several important global initiatives are taking place in 2015-2016 with which the IFRC needs to engage, including: The Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the World Humanitarian Summit.

1. 1 The Vine Management Consulting Mid-Term Review Team was: Piers Campbell, Strategy and Organization Specialist; Judith Hushagen, Organizational Development and Facilitation Specialist; Janey Lawry-White, Senior Researcher and Review Coordinator; Simon Lawry-White, Team Leader.


5

IV. Findings on MTR Questions

12. Please see Section 4 of the report for more on the MTR findings.

Relevance of Strategy 2020

13. Strategy 2020 is seen by the majority of National Societies to be highly relevant, motivational and even inspirational. It remains current, having anticipated global trends and challenges well. There was moderately strong support for the statement ‘Strategy 2020 is as relevant today as when it was agreed in 2009’, in both the National Society and Secretariat surveys.

14. From National Societies, we heard, for example, that: “Strategy 2020 creates a Federation home and identity”; ‘Strategy 2020 helps us to look more professional’; “Strategy 2020 is with the National Societies to work for vulnerable people”.

15. In all our interviews with National Societies, their commitment to the RCRC Principles and Values came across strongly. This is one of the reasons for National Society identification with Strategy 2020. It is considered to provide a very good articulation of ‘Who we Are’, ‘What we Do’, and ‘How we work’ (the three chapter titles of Strategy 2020).

16. The consultation process for the development of Strategy 2020 was thorough and, partly as a result, the strategy enjoys strong ownership. National Society survey respondents agreed that: ‘There was full consultation with National Societies leading up to the agreement of Strategy 2020’.

17. For a minority of National Societies, Strategy 2020 has not been helpful, being regarded as unfocused and as trying to be ‘all things to all people’. A proportion of National Societies report that some of their priorities do not appear in Strategy 2020, while others felt that Strategy 2020 does not fit their context. A sizeable minority of National Societies is looking for clarification of some aspects of the strategy.

18. Strategy 2020 has influenced the content of National Society strategic plans, though with what impact it is uncertain. National Society plans sometimes resemble Strategy 2020 but often use a simpler structure.

19. Regional conference agendas have been closely connected to Strategy 2020, but the regional conferences themselves do not provide a reliable way ensuring the implementation of Strategy 2020.

Effectiveness of Strategy 2020

20. National Societies judge that Strategy 2020 has helped their planning to become more relevant to the most vulnerable in their society but they do not claim that this has made their work more effective. So far, no attempt has been made to attribute results to Strategy 2020. Reporting at global level of the progress of the application of Strategy 2020 across the Federation has been very limited. There are indications that the Federation-wide Data and Reporting System (FDRS) will provide fuller reporting against Strategy 2020 Strategic Aims and Enabling Actions as successive editions of the ‘Everyone Counts’ report are generated.

21. Insufficient support is the principal challenge identified by National Societies in limiting their application of Strategy 2020. National Societies responding to their survey identified ‘Preparing and responding to disasters and crises’, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction’ and ‘Volunteers and Communities’ as the top priorities for the further implementation of Strategy to the year 2020.


6

Utility of Strategy 2020

22. The MTR has identified specific elements of Strategy 2020 that have influenced National Society strategic plans. Humanitarian diplomacy has assumed importance as the ‘Changing Minds’ dimension of Strategy 2020 has taken root, though it requires more explanation and support. Discussion of how to strengthen the auxiliary role of National Societies appears to be taking place at all levels across the Federation. There is more attention to vulnerability and social inclusion. Community resilience has been boosted by the launch of the One Billion Coalition, and Youth engagement is high on the IFRC agenda.

23. The Secretariat has developed many, perhaps an excess of, good quality strategies and tools to assist with the application of Strategy 2020. Considerable resources have been devoted by the Secretariat to support aspects of Strategy 2020, though not in a clearly planned way, and not always with clarity about what its efforts were trying to achieve.

24. National Society strategic plans vary considerably in how they have appropriated Strategy 2020. For the National Societies, their own strategic plan is their key reference document, with Strategy 2020 in the background once it has been used to inform the National Society strategic plan. In the survey, 77 per cent of National Societies had updated their strategic plans since 2010, 14 per cent had not, and 9 per cent had no strategic plan.

25. The main gaps in Strategy 2020 identified during the MTR were:

Education sector. National Societies train children in first aid, life-saving,

humanitarian law, community cohesion, peace, and risk reduction, amongst others.

This interaction with school children can be a powerful tool for good and makes

them more likely to volunteer for the RCRC in the future.

Blood Services. Many National Societies take, process and provide blood, a function

the Federation has not wanted to promote given the high risks associated. There is a

measure of peer support between National Societies engaged in blood services.

Older people. Strategy 2020 puts great emphasis on youth engagement but does

not highlight older people as a resource or as potential volunteers.

Strategy 2020 introduced a much greater emphasis on the promotion of non-

violence but makes no mention of the most widespread, endemic forms of violence;

gender-based violence and domestic violence.

V. Conclusions

MTR Conclusions on progress of Strategy 2020 in the period between 2010 – 2015

26. See also Section 6.

27. Strategy 2020 is more akin to a visionary strategic framework than a strategic plan. Strategy 2020 does not set priorities.

28. Amongst a majority of National Societies, Strategy 2020 is popular, inspiring, and still considered to be relevant.

29. Elements of the Strategy 2020 agenda have progressed (including humanitarian diplomacy, strengthening the auxiliary role, community resilience, vulnerability and social inclusion, although, in discussion, some National Societies reported that they do not always know how to apply these concepts.

30. There is no clarity on which elements of Strategy 2020 all National Societies should adhere to and which are optional. As a result, monitoring the alignment of National Society with Strategy 2020 is difficult.


7

31. The IFRC has not followed up on Strategy 2020 as intended. IFRC governance has taken a laissez-faire approach to all aspects of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution 14 of 2009 regarding Strategy 2020.

32. Progress reporting against Strategy 2020’s three strategic aims and enabling actions has not taken place so far, though new developments in FDRS may make this possible in future. Unless monitoring improves, a final evaluation of Strategy 2020 will be unable to assess the impact of Strategy 2020 on National Society planning or its impact on RCRC programmes.

MTR Conclusions for the period 2016-2020

33. See also Section 7.

34. There is no case for revising Strategy 2020 but there is a strong rationale for specifying and monitoring alignment with it. It is both possible and desirable for the IFRC to clarify the meaning of National Society ‘alignment’ with Strategy 2020. This will require a set of 10-12 elements that should appear in every National Society strategic plan, with criteria for assessing whether the elements are reflected.

35. The prime enabler of, and constraint on, further progress in the application of Strategy 2020 is the capacity of National Societies. Therefore this should be the first concern of the IFRC up to the year 2020. The second priority for the advancement of Strategy 2020 for the remaining term of Strategy 2020 is Enabling Action 3, ‘Function Effectively as the IFRC’.

36. Indicators and means of verification should have been devised at the time of the adoption of Strategy 2020 for each of its eighteen ‘expected impact’ statements. At this stage, it is not realistic for the IFRC to establish, monitor and report on a comprehensive set of indicators for Strategy 2020 by the year 2020 but setting three-four major targets for the Federation network as a whole to achieve over the next five years would be achievable, motivational and measurable.

37. National Society organisational development is likely to be most effective when National Society leadership and the IFRC Secretariat agree on the development needs of the National Society before investments are made.

38. For many National Societies, financial sustainability is the major challenge. At the same time, there are National Societies with very good experience in generating domestic income that could be shared more widely within the Federation network through peer-to-peer exchange.

39. Acting collectively, the RCRC has the potential to be the largest, most important and most effective disaster response network in the world. However, its capacity to respond reliably, rapidly and at scale is undermined because the Federation allows the preferences and capacities of individual National Societies to determine the nature and scale of Federation response. This needs to be rectified through collective preparedness planning for high-risk disaster and crisis prone countries, understanding that the services provided by the National Society may be constrained by the mandate assigned to it by Government.

40. The MTR points to the following core roles for Secretariat in its support to the furtherance of Strategy 2020: 1) National Society development, 2) data management, especially with regard to strategic planning, and the expansion of FDRS; 3) knowledge brokering, especially knowledge exchange between National Societies and integration of the varied and extensive IFRC guidance materials, and; 4) coordination of preparedness and response.


8

41. Feedback from external stakeholders indicates that the IFRC is not communicating its distinctive role strongly enough. The IFRC and National Societies’ ability to raise financial resources for the future will be critically dependent on stronger external communication. The Secretariat itself needs to regain clarity of purpose and to communicate this through the organisation.

VI. MTR Recommendations in Summary

42. See Section 7 of the report for a full set of recommendations.

Recommendation 1: Build Strong National Societies

43. Place the development of strong National Societies ‘front and centre’ for the period to the year 2020, with the following priorities: Financial self-sufficiency; Skilled and principled leadership and governance; Volunteer recruitment and retention; Statutes, legal basis, and definition of the auxiliary role with government, including advocacy; Transparent, accurate financial and narrative reporting, including resolution of integrity issues.

Recommendation 2: Strengthen IFRC Organisational Development

44. The IFRC should take steps to enhance its approach to organisational development of National Societies, in particular: reduce the production of guidelines and tools by the Federation; increase the use of peer-to-peer learning between National Societies and; rebalance the Secretariat support to National Society organisational development in favour of greater use of experienced in-region and in-country presence. Investments in organisational development should be the subject of agreement between the National Society and other Federation partners investing in-country, ideally including the ICRC.

Recommendation 3: Expand the use of, and modify, OCAC

45. Further encourage the use of OCAC by National Societies, wherever it can add value, and adjust the OCAC process to allow National Societies to make an explicit self-assessment of their alignment with Strategy 2020, not just of their strategic planning in general.

Recommendation 4: Strengthen international cooperation for emergency response

46. The IFRC should ensure full coordination of all National Societies preparing for, or responding to, an emergency, to ensure that the Federation responds to the humanitarian imperative at scale, with agreed plans and resources for preparedness response and recovery.

Recommendation 5: Ensure collective preparedness

47. The IFRC should ensure that, collectively, its members are ready to respond to emergencies in the 20 most at-risk countries or sub-regions by mapping the most important disaster and conflict risks, comparing the likely crisis scenarios against local National Society response capacities and planning how to address the likely scenarios, using the collective capacity of RCRC network.

Recommendation 6: Align further National Society planning with Strategy 2020

48. The IFRC should encourage its member National Societies to align themselves more closely to Strategy 2020 by developing a set of 10-12 Strategy 2020 alignment criteria, encouraging their use by National Societies and reporting the degree of alignment of National Society strategic plans to the Governing Board.

Recommendation 7: Set Federation-wide targets for achievement by the year 2020

49. Adopt at maximum three-four key Federation-wide quantifiable targets, and mobilise financial resources for them, in addition to the One Billion Coalition commitment, with perhaps one target per S2020 Strategic Aim.


9

Recommendation 8: Align the Secretariat Plan and Budget with the MTR

50. Further align the MTR findings with the Secretariat Plan and Budget by ensuring resources are devoted to core Secretariat roles, especially: National Society development; Data management; Knowledge brokering, and; Coordination of preparedness and response.

Recommendation 9: Communicate confidently the unique identity, role and mandate of the Red Cross Red Crescent

51. The IFRC should develop a clear and confident communication strategy as the basis for fundraising and as a foundation for new partnerships, with different strategies for addressing itself to governments, humanitarian partners, and donors. The World Humanitarian Summit offers an opportunity for the Federation to clarify its position and comparative advantage in relation to other humanitarian actors. The Secretariat must also communicate internally to re-establish its sense of purpose and direction and raise the morale of staff.


10

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

53. The IFRC General Assembly adopted Strategy 2020 at its 2009 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. The accompanying resolution requested the Secretary General to prepare a mid-term review (MTR) of Strategy 2020 in 20152,3.

54. A team of four external consultants from Vine Management Consulting was appointed by the IFRC Secretariat to undertake the MTR between March and July 2015.

55. This report represents the Mid Term Review. The final MTR report will be presented to the IFRC General Assembly at its December 2015 meeting.

56. The MTR provides an independent assessment of Strategy 2020 against three principal criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, and Utility. The report presents the findings with a discussion of their implications for the IFRC, plus conclusions and recommendations for the further advancement of Strategy 2020 and for the improved performance of the IFRC in its fulfilment of Strategy 2020. The original Terms of Reference for the MTR are included as Annex 1 and the Inception Report is available as a separate document. The MTR review questions are included as Annex 44.

57. The MTR covers the period 2010-2020. The review focuses on the period 2010-2015 and the MTR recommendations address the period to the year 2020.

1.2 Purpose of the MTR

58. The purpose5 of the MTR, as per the MTR Inception Report is:

“to assess the relevance and utility of Strategy 2020, and effectiveness in terms of progress to date against the strategic aims and expected impacts, from the viewpoint of National Societies and the IFRC Secretariat, from other interested stakeholders, especially the ICRC, and other external partners, and to make recommendations, as required, for its further implementation up to 2020”.

1.3 Oversight and Management of the MTR

59. An Advisory Group comprising five National Society Secretary-Generals and Presidents, a youth representative and the IFRC Regional Director for the Americas, acting as Chair, reviewed and approved MTR deliverables. A Management Committee provided on-going management of the review process and provided feedback on all the MTR deliverables. (See Annex 6 for the composition of these groups and the MTR team.)

1. 2 IFRC -17th session of the General Assembly – Decision sheet 3 The predecessor corporate strategy ‘Strategy 2010’ was similarly reviewed in 2005. 4 The TOR review questions were revised during the inception phase and included in the Inception Report 5 In agreement with the Management Committee and the Advisory Group, a revised purpose statement was devised for the MTR during the inception phase, based on the Terms of Reference and updated in the light of initial interviews and document review.


11

2 Mid Term Review Methodology

2.1 Multi-Stakeholder Perspective

60. In accordance with the Inception Report, the MTR has drawn on multiple stakeholder inputs, as illustrated below:

Figure 1 – MTR multi-stakeholder perspectives

2.2 MTR reports

61. Reporting for Mid Term Review proceeded as follows:

An Inception Report was discussed with the Advisory Group and subsequently agreed with the Management Committee on April 29.

An Initial Report, presented in PowerPoint format, was discussed with an expanded meeting of the Advisory Group in two WebEx sessions on June 26.

A Draft Report was prepared on July 16 based on the initial report and updated in the light of Advisory Group discussions and written comments.

This Final Report was completed taking into account detailed written comments received on the draft report from the Advisory Group and the Management Committee.

2.3 Basis of the MTR

62. The MTR is based on evidence from the documentation provided by the IFRC, on stakeholders’ own assessment of their actions taken in response to Strategy 2020, and on the views expressed in interviewees and in online surveys. In developing its conclusions and recommendations, the MTR team made use of its previous knowledge of the Federation and its varied expertise in the humanitarian field, as well as its experience of management, strategy and organisational development in other international organisations.

2.4 Key Informant Interviews

63. During the MTR, some 130 interviews were conducted, with: Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) National Society Secretary-Generals, Director-Generals, and Presidents; all members of the MTR Advisory Group; Secretariat 6 senior management, regional 7

1. 6 In this report, Secretariat refers to the IFRC Secretariat HQ in Geneva plus the network of IFRC regional and country offices and delegations.

Triangulated assessment

RCRC Volunteers

National Society Management/

Staff

IFRC Secretariat

ICRC, Standing

Commission

External stakeholders

MTR team observation


12

directors, and a sample of Secretariat senior staff8; selected IFRC donors; selected UN partners; the ICRC; and the secretariat of the Standing Commission. (See Annex 2 for a full list of interviewees).

2.5 Document Review

64. The MTR team reviewed a substantial body of IFRC policies, guidance, toolkits, and planning documents, in addition to Strategy 2020 itself9. A sample of ten National Society strategy documents, two from each region, as selected by the regional office, was reviewed for alignment with Strategy 2020. (See Annex 3 for a schedule of documents consulted)10.

2.6 Country visits

65. A member of the MTR team visited National Societies in five countries: Costa Rica, Egypt, Mali, Nepal, and Serbia, with each visit covering two to four working days. These countries were selected by the five Secretariat regional offices, one country for each region. The visits typically included discussions with: National Society senior management; a member of the National Society board of governance; groups of volunteers; Federation, National Society and ICRC delegates; and in some cases, government counterparts; and other humanitarian organisations. Observations from the visits were fed back directly to the National Society and/or the organising Federation delegate before the end of the visit, as far as possible11..

2.7 Online Surveys

66. Separate on-line surveys were conducted for National Societies, Secretariat staff and delegates, and for youth and volunteers. Each survey was translated into Arabic, English, French and Spanish12 and separate survey links created for each (i.e. 12 surveys in total).

99 National Societies responded to the survey, which represents more than half the total of 189, with a balance of responses between regions 13.

370 staff and delegates of the Secretariat completed their survey, a high response rate, with a fairly even distribution of responses across regions, and one third of the responses coming from the Geneva Secretariat HQ.

2,537 volunteers responded to the third of the surveys. These responses represent a very small fraction of the potential number. For reasons unknown, 72 per cent of the volunteer survey responses came from Europe14.

3. 7 ‘Region’ is used throughout the report in line with the new designation by the Secretariat. Secretariat regions were formerly known as Zones. 8 By attending a Fundamental Principles workshop Kuala Lumpur, it was possible to conduct face-to-face interviews with five Secretary-Generals from Asia Pacific region. 9 The Secretariat provided an initial set of documents and subsequently located further documents on request of the MTR team. The team also collected further documents from IFRC web site and from FedNet, the IFRC intranet. New, relevant material was still being identified until a late stage in the MTR. 10 The MTR team noted the very wide range and depth of IFRC documents, more so than some other international organisations. This proved challenging for the MTR. We suggest than any final evaluation of Strategy 2020 be accompanied by a separate document review to be undertaken in advance of the evaluation proper. 11 As agreed during the inception phase, separate reports were not prepared from these visits 12 Translation was provided by the IFRC Secretariat translation service. 13 The total number of responses was higher because a few National Societies submitted multiple entries. 108 National Societies responded. 14 The survey link for volunteers and youth was distributed via focal points for gender, volunteering and youth. The reason for the heavy bias in responses towards Europe is not known. European respondents would have enjoyed some advantage in terms of good internet access but not sufficient to explain the disparity with responses from Asia Pacific or the Americas, for example.


13

Summary results from all three surveys are included as Annex 7, which also explains the scoring system used in the results tables.

67. Two types of opinion question were used in the surveys. The first involved picking from an ‘all that apply’ list, for which the percentage score means simply the percentage of respondents making that selection. The second type of question involved a rating scale with respondents asked the extent to which they agreed with various statements. For example, the score for ‘Strategy 2020 helps us to feel part of the wider Red Cross Red Crescent network’ is 73 per cent. This indicates that there was agreement, but not a strong agreement15.

68. The survey results have been used extensively throughout the report, as part of the MTR assessment. The surveys were confidential and, therefore, open-ended responses remain with MTR team.

2.8 MTR Focal Points

69. At the request of the Management Committee, IFRC HQ departments and Regional Offices16 appointed focal points to support the MTR. The focal points played an important role in proposing country visits, National Societies for interview, and documents to be reviewed.

1. 15 0%=Strongly disagree, 33%=Disagree, 66%=Agree, 100%=Strongly Agree

16 At the time known as Zone Offices


14

3 Context for the Mid Term Review

70. This section considers the context in which Strategy 2020 is being reviewed, in terms of: 1) the humanitarian context in which the Federation is operating; 2) the most relevant international initiatives that the Federation is influenced by; and 3) the developments within the RCRC.

3.1 Humanitarian operating context

71. Humanitarian needs are increasing year-on-year. The impacts of instability, conflict, epidemics and climate change on low, middle and high-income countries are increasing. At the same time, there is pressure on aid resources and an increasingly competitive operating environment, with many new actors entering ‘the market’.

72. The operating context for humanitarian action is increasingly difficult, dangerous and complex. As the recent RCRC vision statement says, the RCRC:

‘is working in an environment that is increasingly diverse, fragmented and unpredictable: where unexpected emergencies unfold alongside drawn-out and complex armed conflicts; where violence and instability are both causes and consequences of recurring conflict and suffering; and where natural disasters, environmental problems and socio-economic crises further exacerbate situations of chronic vulnerability and hardship. In parallel, there is a widening gap between diverse, multi-layered humanitarian needs and the overall ability to deliver an effective response, marked by the flagrant politicisation of aid and by the decreasing proximity of many international humanitarian actors to the people they aim to help’17.

73. Strategy 2020 itself describes challenges in the external environment that are still pertinent today, including the financial and economic crisis whose severe effect on employment and living standards continue to have a global impact. Strategy 2020 summarises the challenges faced by the Federation:

“the disadvantage and discrimination that arises from the interaction of changing demographic patterns, including an ageing population and unplanned urbanization; high levels of violence – particularly among young people – forced migration, shifting burdens of disease with non-communicable conditions becoming as prominent as the familiar infections, degradation of the environment, and insecurity of access to food, water and natural resources. Meanwhile, more and bigger disasters are inflicting greater damage, loss and dislocation. Climate change is set to alter profoundly the way we live, and how we seek and share further economic growth. These trends are likely to increase vulnerability on a large scale by heightening and creating new patterns of marginalization, impoverishment and insecurity.” (Strategy 2020, p9)

74. The members of the Federation face increasing demands for accountability and evidence for results from donors. The demands for data and analysis, and high quality reporting, are a challenge for humanitarian organisations, especially those without advanced data management systems.

75. There is still no breakthrough in resolving the bifurcated aid architecture that maintains the divide between humanitarian and development funding. The World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 may present an opportunity for new models to be proposed, but signs from the preparatory stages are not positive so far; although some donors are increasing

1. 17 Vision of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 2015, p1


15

the level of internal coherence between their development and humanitarian planning for complex situations. The rise of the Resilience debate, of which the IFRC is a part, has not yet led to any significantly increased allocation of funding to the peri-humanitarian priorities of preparedness and recovery, which continue to be poorly funded.

76. Within the Federation, ‘bilateralism’18 continues to increase as better-resourced National Societies respond to the competitive environment by increasing their profile and influence, often through increased field presence, in their international assistance to other National Societies, especially in responding to major emergencies.

77. At the same time, closer collaboration at the leadership level between IFRC and ICRC has brought an increasing openness to cooperation between the two organisations, which presents new opportunities for the future but also faces substantial obstacles, as discussed later in the report. UN agencies also increasingly see National Societies as potential partners because of their knowledge of, and access to, local communities.

3.2 International Initiatives

3.2.1 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

78. The United Nations General Assembly will meet in October 2015 to ratify the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have been developed as the successor global commitments to the Millennium Development Goals. The 17 SDGs are broad and ambitious, touching on multiple areas of concern to the RCRC from healthy lives, to food security, gender equality, water and sanitation, and peaceful and inclusive societies. There is considerable overlap between Strategy 2020 and the SDGs. The SDGs are not yet resolved and are still the subject of active debate. There is some way to go before the SDGs and their sub-goals and indicators are agreed. Meanwhile, in its new plan and budget, the Secretariat has started to map its objectives onto the SDGs.

3.3 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

79. UN Member States adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 2015-2030 in March 2015 at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan. Federation members were active participants in the conference, with more than forty National Societies taking part. The Sendai Framework replaces the Hyogo Framework for Action, which had steered global action on DRR since 2005. The Sendai Framework includes four priorities including, amongst others, understanding disaster risk, and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response, both of which are part of the core business of the RCRC. The RCRC is stepping up its contribution to working with communities, governments and the UN to improve multi-hazard early warning, preparedness, and recovery. The President of the IFRC announced the One Billion Coalition for Resilience19, which aims to work with public authorities, humanitarian organisations, the private sector and schools or universities to address disaster risk.

3.4 World Humanitarian Summit

80. The first World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) will take place in Istanbul in May 2016. The four themes of the WHS are: humanitarian effectiveness; reducing vulnerability and managing risk; transformation through innovation; and serving the needs of people in

1. 18 Bilateralism: Better-resourced National Societies providing financial assistance through direct agreements with other National Societies, as opposed to the multilateralism, whereby operations and financial resources are coordinated through the Federation Secretariat. 19 See https://www.ifrc.org/one-billion-coalition

https://www.ifrc.org/one-billion-coalition


16

conflict. The IFRC is fully engaged in the preparatory regional consultations and the IFRC and ICRC are represented in the working groups for each of the four themes. The WHS meeting itself and the preparatory stages represent a major opportunity for the IFRC to promote the principles and values of the RCRC, especially in response to the challenges to humanitarian principles described above, and to present the distinctive role of the RCRC. One of the underlying themes of the WHS will be ‘localisation’, as part of the effectiveness agenda, which plays directly to the comparative advantage of the RCRC’s local presence and proximity to communities.

3.5 Parallel RCRC initiatives to the Strategy 2020 Mid Term Review

81. Two important initiatives that have run in parallel with the MTR are discussed later in the report: 1) The IFRC Secretariat Plan and Budget process for 2016-19 (see Section 4.3.4) and 2) The Strengthening Movement Cooperation and Coordination process (see Section 5.9).


17

4 Findings on the MTR questions

82. In this section of the report, Strategy 2020 is reviewed against the three principal review criteria of Relevance, Effectiveness, and Utility.

4.1 Relevance of Strategy 2020

83. The MTR questions on Relevance were:

1. Is Strategy 2020 considered by National Societies and the Secretariat to be relevant in 2015?

2. To what extent do National Societies see their priorities reflected in Strategy 2020?

3. To what extent and in what ways has Strategy 2020 been used by National Societies and the Secretariat in setting out their own strategic plans?

4. Are National Society strategic plans built directly on Strategy 2020, or broadly consistent with Strategy 2020?

5. How inclusive was the consultation process for arriving at Strategy 2020?

6. Does Strategy 2020 accurately reflect the consultations with National Societies and the Secretariat that preceded its agreement?

7. Which elements of Strategy 2020 have been discussed at IFRC regional conferences and with what result?

8. How well does Strategy 2020 capture trends, opportunities, challenges and risks that affect the National Societies?

9. Does Strategy 2020 identify the most important global threats for the period 2010-2020? Have new threats emerged since?

10. How relevant is Strategy 2020 in the light of the new global development and agreements, e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals, the replacement for the Hyogo Framework, the New Deal for fragile states, the likely outcomes of the World Humanitarian Summit, Climate Change financing, etc.?

11. Are there priority aspects of the work of National Societies and the Secretariat that do not fit with Strategy 2020?

12. Has Strategy 2020 been interpreted by National Societies in a way that gives strategic direction to young people (under 30) working or volunteering with National Societies?

13. Are their elements of Strategy 2020 that are unclear in their meaning to National Societies and the Secretariat? Are there elements of Strategy 2020 that cannot be implemented for lack of clarity?

Summary of Findings:

Strategy 2020 is seen by the majority of National Societies to be highly relevant, motivational and even inspirational. It remains current, having anticipated global trends and challenges well. For a minority of National Societies, Strategy 2020 has not been helpful, being regarded as, for example, unfocused, wordy, and as trying to be ‘all things to all people’. A proportion of National Societies report that some of their priorities do not appear in Strategy 2020. The consultation process for the development of Strategy 2020 was thorough and, partly as a result, it enjoys strong ownership. Strategy 2020 has influenced the content of National Society strategic plans, though with what impact it is uncertain, and data for such assessments is generally lacking. A sizeable minority of National Societies is looking for clarification of some aspects of the strategy. National Society plans are often made to resemble Strategy 2020 visually; some mimic the structure but most use simpler structures. Regional conference agendas have been closely connected to Strategy 2020, but these conferences do not provide a reliable way of implementing Strategy 2020.


18

4.1.1 Development of Strategy 2020

84. According to interviews and survey responses, the consultation process leading up to the adoption of Strategy 2020 was thorough, with a strong sense of inclusion, although a few National Societies felt that their views were not taken into account. The drafting process was lengthy and the document went through much iteration before being adopted by acclamation by the General Assembly. All regions were visited more than once by the Secretariat authors as part of the consultation process. There was a 68 per cent agreement amongst National Society survey respondents that: ‘There was full consultation with National Societies leading up to the agreement of Strategy 2020’.

85. The National Society survey recorded 69 per cent support for the statement ‘Strategy 2020 is as relevant today as when it was agreed in 2009’, with the Secretariat survey recording a 63 per cent agreement. There was a 38 per cent agreement with: ‘Strategy 2020 is missing some of our National Society priorities’.

4.1.2 Nature of Strategy 2020

86. Although Strategy 2020 is the overall guiding strategy document for the Federation, interviewees often struggled to describe what Strategy 2020 is. The MTR included substantial discussion with interviewees and between team members on the nature of Strategy 2020.

87. Strategy 2020 is not a strategic plan in the traditional sense in that it does not conform to the IFRC strategic planning guidelines for National Societies, or any other standard planning text, that would prescribe a logical structure of aims, objectives, activities, and indicators, as some informants clearly expected it to have done. Reportedly, the term ‘Strategy’ was chosen to maintain continuity with former IFRC strategy ‘Strategy 2010’, while the authors of Strategy 2020 sensed from the start that ‘Vision 2020’ might have been more appropriate.

88. The Secretariat survey responses were almost evenly divided between Strategy 2020 being best described as a Vision, a Strategic Framework and a Strategic Plan (34, 33, and 30 per cent respectively). Some described Strategy 2020 as providing a ‘direction of travel’.

89. The majority of MTR informants were positive about Strategy 2020. For many, Strategy 2020 is less a plan than a stimulating, and even inspiring, document that encourages new directions to be taken. It does not constrain and it is not directive. For some, it is visionary in anchoring emerging concepts into the RCRC, such as inclusion, diversity, and peace and security, which had not featured strongly in previous IFRC strategies. Strategy 2020 highlights appropriately the global risks of, for example, pandemics, climate change, and the changing nature of conflicts, to which National Societies need to respond.

90. Others object to the description of Strategy 2020 as a ‘vision’, pointing out that it sets out no visionary future end state for the Federation by 2020. For some, in particular National Societies from developed countries, the document is not sufficiently focused. There were also contrasting reactions to the writing style of Strategy 2020; for some wordy and unclear, but for others, very well drafted.

91. Both National Society and Secretariat informants told us that Strategy 2020 was written primarily for National Societies. Not all Secretariat staff were positive about the value of Strategy 2020, as the following descriptions from the Secretariat survey show20: ‘A practical planning intention that nobody actually uses to guide one’s work’; ‘A lot of

1. 20 in response to: ‘Other description (of Strategy 2020), in your own words:’


19

words that provide little vision and no direction’; ‘A confusing vision document that implies the RCRC can do everything for everyone, everywhere’.

4.1.3 The Intent of Strategy 2020

92. To be able to assess whether Strategy 2020 has been successful as a strategy, it is first necessary to understand what the IFRC intended the document to achieve. This is not straightforward because Strategy 2020 includes no clear statement of purpose. Three intentions can be interpreted from page 4 of Strategy 2020 where it states that it: ‘..consolidates previous policies and strategies in presenting updated core concepts

to guide National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in formulating their own mission statements and strategic plans in the context of the specific needs and vulnerabilities that concern them’

‘provides direction to the secretariat in setting its operational priorities in support of National Societies’

‘is also the basis for updating, harmonizing and developing new implementation tools and cooperation frameworks’.

93. In the first of these, Strategy 2020 has succeeded in articulating well the core RCRC concepts, values and principles, while setting them in a contemporary context. Most National Societies, in reviewing their strategic plans, have consulted and deliberated over Strategy 2020 to varying degrees, as discussed below under Utility (4.3). Strategy 2020 also led to the development of many new tools, although, arguably, its aspiration to harmonise was less successful, given that many IFRC tools and guidelines do not promote an integrated approach, nor do they make the connections to other guidelines clear.

4.1.4 Scope of Strategy 2020

94. All informants agree that Strategy 2020 has a very wide scope. The breadth of Strategy 2020 does not appear to be a concern to most National Societies, as they have tailored their own strategic planning to their national context, using Strategy 2020 to varying degrees. The activities of the National Societies are in line with Strategy 2020 because its wide scope makes it hard for them not to be21,22.

95. The breadth of Strategy 2020 is both a strength and a weakness. This apparent contradiction is illustrated well by two quotes from the National Society survey: ‘Strategy 2020 is wide enough to satisfy all needs and priorities of our National

Society’, ‘Strategy 2020 is too wide to decide priorities of National Society strategy’.

These two users of Strategy 2020 appear to be looking for different things from the document; one seeks reassurance that National Society priorities are covered, while the other seeks direction.

96. Strategy 2020 does not prioritise between, or within, its three Strategic Aims and the three Enabling Actions, or between aims and actions. For some, generally the better-resourced National Societies, Strategy 2020 does not provide sufficient focus, which they see as a major shortcoming. A significant minority consider Strategy 2020 is not focused enough.

1. 21 We heard of a few instances of activities being stopped because they did not fit Strategy 2020 (for example, stopping Bingo sessions and coffee mornings). 22 National Society survey respondents agreed that ‘The priorities of our National Society are reflected in Strategy 2020’ (71%),


20

97. Some National Societies acknowledged that is it important for them to understand Strategy 2020 better in order to support other National Societies that are following it, even if they are not really using it themselves.

4.1.5 Content of Strategy 2020

98. The content of Strategy 2020 combines:

Well-established, traditional RCRC activities, for example, disaster preparedness and

response, provision of health services, especially from Strategic Aims 1 and some

elements of Strategic Aim 2.

Existing RC activities given a higher profile, such as disaster risk reduction,

vulnerability capacity assessment, climate change adaptation, non-communicable

diseases.

Newer concepts, especially on community resilience, social inclusion, and

humanitarian diplomacy. These new themes have come to be seen as very relevant,

although some National Societies report that they are not always clear on how they

should be applied.

99. Strategy 2020 was far-sighted in setting out challenges that are likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Since its adoption, the challenges of intra-state violence and migration have grown, and there are now more than 50 million forcibly displaced people in the world, more than at any time since the Second World War. The 2008 financial crisis continues to have serious implications for employment and living standards, and to impact on young people, in particular.

100. One of the criticisms levelled at Strategy 2020 is that it does not seem to have been driven by data, either on global trends or the state of development of National Societies. If the selection of aims and sub-themes was informed by data analysis, this is not visible.

4.1.6 Ownership of Strategy 2020

101. Overall, Strategy 2020 enjoys a high level of ownership from National Societies. Many National Societies consider that the substance of Strategy 2020 originated from them and can ‘see themselves’ in Strategy 2020, which has greatly helped its acceptance. National Societies we spoke to reported a sense of attachment to Strategy 2020. In the National Society survey, there was agreement that ‘Strategy 2020 helps us to feel part of the wider RCRC network’ (73 per cent).

102. In our interviews with National Societies, we heard, for example, that: “Strategy 2020 creates a Federation home and identity”; ‘Strategy 2020 helps us to look more professional’; “Strategy 2020 is with the National Societies to work for vulnerable people”, while a few National Societies felt that Strategy 2020 does not fit their context. In all our interviews with National Societies, their commitment to the RCRC Principles and Values came across strongly. This is one of the reasons for National Society identification with Strategy 2020. It is considered to provide a very good articulation of ‘Who we Are’, ‘What we Do’, and ‘How we work’ (the three chapter titles of Strategy 2020).

4.1.7 Comparison with Strategy 2010

103. The predecessor to Strategy 2020 was Strategy 2010, which was seen to have been more focused on the Secretariat and on how international cooperation between National Societies should work. Strategy 2010 was said to be more ‘from the Secretariat’, even though it too involved a consultation process with National Societies. In the surveys, Strategy 2020 was considered an improvement over Strategy 2010, with National Societies giving a 71 per cent agreement; and the Secretariat, 66 per cent.


21

4.1.8 National Society Understanding of Strategy 2020

104. National Society survey respondents disagreed strongly (86 per cent) with the statement: ‘Strategy 2020 is difficult to understand’. Yet, it was also evident in some of our interviews and in the survey comments that some aspects of Strategy 2020 are less easy to interpret and apply. Several survey comments called for more explanation and training on Strategy 2020.

105. Drawing on both National Society and Secretariat survey results, Table 1 shows how easy or difficult National Societies found it to interpret and apply the strategic aims and enabling actions of Strategy 2020, or were thought to by responses to the equivalent questions in the Secretariat survey.

The results show that Strategic Aims 1 and 2 were relatively easy to interpret and apply, which is reasonable given that these are the more established RCRC elements, with Strategic Aim 3 and all the Enabling Actions less so, especially Enabling Actions 2 and 3. The averages suggest that for Strategic Aim 3, and Enabling Actions 1-3, there are almost as many National Societies indicating that they find them hard to interpret and apply as those who find it easy.

106. Several National Society survey responses called for greater explanation of Strategy 2020 and support to National Societies in implementing it. Table 1 shows that the results on areas that are less easy to interpret and apply are remarkably consistent across the two surveys, and provide some insight into the aspects of Strategy 2020 needing most support.

Table 1.Perceptions of the National Societies’ ease of interpretation and application of Strategy 2020

(per cent agreement) 23 National

Society Sect. Average

SA1. Save lives, protect livelihoods, and strengthen recovery from disasters and crises

64 64 64

SA2. Enable healthy and safe living

62 59 61

SA3. Promote social inclusion and a culture of non-violence and peace.

52 48 50

EA1. Build strong National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

53 51 52

EA2. Pursue humanitarian diplomacy to prevent and reduce vulnerability in a globalized world

50 44 47

EA3. Function effectively as the IFRC

48 48 48

Very difficult=0%, Very easy=100%, Neither easy or difficult = 50%

1. 23 National Society and Secretariat survey responses to the statement ‘National Societies have found Strategy 2020 strategic aims and enabling actions easy to interpret and apply’


22

4.2 Effectiveness of Strategy 2020

107. The MTR questions on Effectiveness were:

4.2.1 Adoption of Strategy 2020

108. The expectations for the utilisation and reporting against Strategy 2020 were set down in GA Resolution 14 of 2009, under which Strategy 2020 was adopted24 (see Annex 5). The resolution included the following:

‘encourages and requests National Societies to base their own future strategic plans

on Strategy 2020, and to report on progress under the framework of the Federation-

wide reporting system,’

109. In our view, the follow up on this decision has been inadequate. There was not then, inside or outside Strategy 2020, any explanation of what ‘to base’ a strategic plan on Strategy 2020 entails. The National Society Strategic Planning guidelines, while making frequent reference to Strategy 2020, are not precise on what needs, and does not need, to be included from Strategy 2020.

110. There appears to be no ambition from within Strategy 2020 itself, or in the related General Assembly Resolution, to require any particular response from National Societies

1. 24 General Assembly Resolution 14 of 2009

14. To what extent do the National Societies and the Secretariat consider that Strategy 2020 has made them more effective?

15. What further support do National Societies need in order to deliver against Strategy 2020, either from the Secretariat, via National Society peer to peer support, or otherwise?

16. What other external partnerships does the IFRC need to develop in order be able to deliver against Strategy 2020?

17. What challenges have National Societies faced in implementing their own strategies? 18. To what extent would it be helpful to develop indicators for measuring the impact of Strategy

2020? 19. Have indicators developed for the sub-strategies developed under Strategy 2020 been used? 20. Are there measurable results attributable to the adoption and use of Strategy 2020? 21. To what extent has the Secretariat reported results and expenditure against Strategy 2020

strategic aims/impacts/enabling actions?


National Societies judge that Strategy 2020 has helped their planning to become more relevant to the most vulnerable in their society but, in the MTR interviews, National Societies did not claim to have the evidence to show that this has made their work more effective. Results cannot be attributed to Strategy 2020 and unless monitoring systems improve, results will still not be measurable at the end of the decade. Insufficient support is the principal challenge identified by National Societies in their application of Strategy 2020. If indicators from strategies developed under Strategy 2020 are being reported at global level, the MTR did not locate the corresponding reports. National Society respondents identified: ‘Preparing and responding to disasters and crises’, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction’ and ‘Volunteers and Communities’ as the top priorities for the further implementation of Strategy to the year 2020. Reporting at global level of the progress of the application of Strategy 2020 across the Federation has been very limited.


23

to Strategy 2020. This provides a challenge for the MTR and any future assessments of the impact of Strategy 2020 because there is no benchmark against which to measure compliance with, or performance against, Strategy 2020.

4.2.2 National Society alignment with Strategy 2020

111. Once developed, a National Society’s strategic plan naturally takes precedence over Strategy 2020 and becomes its key reference document. ‘We looked at Strategy 2020 before doing our own plan’, was a typical statement. It is not to be anticipated that Strategy 2020 will be uppermost in the thinking of National Societies on a daily basis and this makes it all the more important that, when it is used, Strategy 2020 makes an impact on the planning process.

112. National Society strategic plans do not, and need not, resemble Strategy 2020 exactly. In practice, National Society strategic plans tend to be informed by; elements of Strategy 2020, the National Society analysis of community needs, the national development agenda, the legacy of past activities, and by an estimate of the financial resources likely to be available from domestic sources and, where applicable, other National Societies and donors.

113. The concept of alignment with Strategy 2020 was frequently discussed during the course of the MTR but without agreement of what ‘alignment’ meant. Nor has the IFRC attempted to define it. It was, reportedly, suggested by Secretariat senior management that strategic plans should be assessed against whether they incorporate the ‘spirit’ of Strategy 2020. This has also not been defined, and perhaps cannot be.

114. Both ‘alignment with’, and ‘spirit of’, hint at the possibility that there are core elements of Strategy 2020 that National Societies are expected to incorporate in their plans. When asked about priorities for the future of Strategy 2020, survey responses included ‘Stop planning and get to work’, and ‘Implement it!’, while the MTR Advisory Group commented: ‘Strategy 2020 is not optional’. This again points to an expectation that National Societies should use Strategy 2020 and that a core of set of requirements could be derived, despite not having been so far.

4.2.3 Implementation Challenges

115. Table 2 shows how National Societies ranked the challenges they have experienced in applying Strategy 202025:

Table 2: National Society challenges in applying Strategy 2020

Q8. Which of the following challenges have you experienced in applying Strategy 2020 to your National Society? (Select all statements your National Society agrees with)

Per cent

We have not received sufficient support to implement Strategy 2020 51

Strategy 2020 is missing some of our National Society priorities 39

Strategy 2020 is not focused enough to help us make strategic choices 39

We do not have the technical expertise to implement Strategy 2020 38

Parts of Strategy 2020 are not in line with our Government’s policies or plans 34

Strategy 2020 is difficult to understand 14

116. Half of all National Societies indicated that they had not received sufficient support. (The question did not distinguish between the need for technical support and financial support).

1. 25 Challenges were ranked from a pre-set list included in both the National Society and Secretariat surveys


24

Table 3 shows the results for corresponding question in the Secretariat survey (highest scores only):

Table 3: Secretariat ranking of National Society challenges in applying Strategy 2020

Q9. Which of the following challenges have limited the application of Strategy 2020? (Select all statements you agree with)

Per cent

National Societies do not have the technical expertise to interpret and implement Strategy 2020

66

The Secretariat has insufficient capacity to support National Society implementation of Strategy 2020

64

National Societies have priorities that do not appear in Strategy 2020 59

The Secretariat has not been clear internally about how to support the implementation of Strategy 2020

58

117. As the table shows, the Secretariat considers that National Society technical expertise is the most important limiting factor affecting the application of Strategy 2020, followed closely by the limited capacity of the Secretariat to support National Societies.

4.2.4 Strategy 2020 Supporting Strategies and Tools

118. Strategy 2020 was not designed as a ‘how to’ guide. The IFRC has put considerable effort into the development of many policies, frameworks, strategies and tools since the adoption of Strategy 2020, with the aim of equipping National Societies in their interpretation and implementation of Strategy 2020,26 (see box below). The Secretariat has also developed a 40-minute online interactive training course on Strategy 2020, available on the IFRC FedNet learning platform27.

IFRC strategies, policies, and frameworks developed since 2010 to support Strategy 2020

119. MTR results with regards to the utilisation of these strategies are unclear. We did not find evidence of the application of these various tools being coordinated at the country level and, in our interviews and visits, we found that they were generally unknown by National Societies. However, this does not tally with the National Society survey, where these documents received moderately high ratings for their level of use, with the National Society Development Framework, the Principles and Rules for RCRC humanitarian assistance, and the Volunteering Policy all receiving the highest rating of 72 per cent, i.e. ‘Used’, and none being poorly rated.

1. 26 Some of these documents include sector-specific indicators but if any of these are being reported at a global level, we did not find evidence of it.

27 The learning platform carries several other online courses relevant to Strategy 2020: Disaster Risk Reduction, Health Care in Danger, Principles and Rules of Humanitarian Response, Influencing Behavior, Advocacy, and others.

IFRC strategies, policies, and frameworks supporting Strategy 2020 include, but are not limited to: Community Resilience Framework; Federation-wide resource mobilisation strategy; Framework for community resilience; IFRC contingency planning guide; IFRC recovery programming guidance; Maternal, newborn and child health framework; National Society development framework; National Society strategic planning guidelines; Principles and rules for RCRC humanitarian assistance; Programming through a livelihoods lens: A livelihoods approach for the IFRC; Promoting safe and sustainable national blood systems; Safer access framework; Strategic framework on gender and diversity issues; Volunteering policy; Youth engagement strategy. Youth policy.


25

4.2.5 Federation Wide Reporting System

120. The Federation Data and Reporting System (FDRS) was established under the General Assembly resolution on the adoption of Strategy 2020, and was intended as a means to report National Society progress against Strategy 2020.

121. FDRS has not been developed to a point where indicators have been set against the Strategy 2020 impact statements or other elements of Strategy 2020. No indicators of progress were defined. The first and only IFRC Annual Report since 2010 was published in 2013, using data from FDRS.

122. In 2011, the Secretariat produced the report ‘Aligning with Strategy 2020’, which documented National Society strategic plan conformity with Strategy 2020. Unlike most reports on National Society performance, this was not a self-assessment but was compiled by the Secretariat in Geneva through a review of National Society strategic plan documents. Since then, some Regional Conference papers have also attempted to track progress against Strategy 2020 by self-assessment. Otherwise there have been no progress reports on Strategy 2020 to the General Assembly or the Governing Board. Notably, the Secretary-General’s report to the 2013 General Assembly did not include the biennial progress report on Strategy 2020 called for by the General Assembly’s 2009 resolution.

123. While FDRS has not functioned as a tracking tool for progress against Strategy 2020 Strategic Aims and Enabling Actions so far, as intended by the General Assembly, an increasing number of National Societies are submitting strategic plans, annual reports and financial statement to FDRS28. The first IFRC ‘Everyone Counts’ of 2014 summarised data on seven key indicators submitted National Societies29. Submissions to FDRS have increased significantly and all NS report now report on at least one indicator, while 79 per cent of National Societies report on all seven30. Data is held on www.ifrc.org/data and is publically available. FDRS data on the seven indicators is used to report to the Governing Board and the General Assembly and is also considered during IFRC regional conferences.

124. The second version of the Everyone Counts, due for publication in October 2015 and based on 2013 data, will include some performance data related to the Strategic Aims and Enabling Actions31. The improvements in FDRS have been favourably noted by DFID in its Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) report on the IFRC.

4.2.6 The Role of Regional Conferences in advancing Strategy 2020

125. IFRC Regional Conferences take place once every four years in each of the four IFRC statutory regions32 and significant effort by the Secretariat and working groups of National Societies goes into preparing them. Regional conference agendas generally

1. 28 at the last count, 152 strategic plans, 118 annual reports for 2013., and 141 audited and unaudited financial statements from National Societies

29 The seven indictors are: Number of People Volunteering Their Time; Number of Paid Staff; Number of People Donating Blood; Number of Local Units; Total Income Received (CHF); Total Expenditure (CHF); People Reached by Disaster and Early Recovery Programmes.

30 The Compliance and Mediation Committee is reported to be considering performance against reporting to FDRS as a criterion for Governing Board membership.

31 To assemble the data, the Secretariat analysed 120 publications from the period 2010-2014 and draw on data from Secretariat departments and from the 13 RCRC reference centres worldwide. 32 Middle East and North Africa is not a formal region within the IFRC structure

http://www.ifrc.org/data

http://www.ifrc.org/Global/rw/data/en-2/









26

show a strong link with the themes of Strategy 202033 but they do not provide a systematic or comprehensive means of advancing Strategy 202034. A National Society survey comment makes the point well: ‘In our view, the regional conferences did not (maybe until now) have a clear mandate to interpret and put into action the Strategy 2020’. However, the content was always very much in line with the Strategy 2020’.

126. General Assembly Resolution 14 of 2009 includes:

‘encourages and requests National Societies to utilise Strategy 2020 in setting the agenda for statutory regional conferences and in developing regional approaches to tackle challenges in common, through regional solutions and cooperation, where it is appropriate and effective to do so.’

127. This is far from a request for regional conferences to ensure that Strategy 2020 is systematically implemented in their regions. Therefore, the General Assembly cannot look to the regional conferences as a means of implementation for Federation-wide strategy.

128. The Inter-Americas Framework for Action (IAFA) 2016-2020 maps out actions to be taken under each Strategic Aim and Enabling Action of Strategy 2020. This systematic approach may provide a model for more comprehensive application of Strategy 2020 for other regions to follow. So far, the IAFA lacks quantifiable indicators but an IAFA implementation guide, with indicators, is to be introduced in 2016.

129. In the online surveys, regional conferences were given neutral ratings in relation to helping National Societies to interpret Strategy 2020 in the context of the region, or to understand Strategy 2020, or to apply it. Both National Society and Secretariat surveys gave regional conferences ratings of only 50-55 per cent in this regard.

1. 33 Eg 9th Asia Pacific Conference in 2014 - Beijing, China Workshops: Innovative and Sustainable Partnership; Climate change and Urbanization; National Societies development framework and youth engagement strategy; Volunteers the backbone of community based initiatives; Community resilience: Integrating Health and disaster risk reduction; Engaging with New Technology and developing an innovative mind set; New strategic directions for disaster management and resilience agenda in Asia Pacific; Understanding civil military relations during natural disaster. 34 Conference papers from the four statutory IFRC regions reveal that: Asia Pacific region strategies, plans and reports are compatible with Strategy 2020. They may have been derived from Strategy 2020 but they do not use Strategy 2020 as the framework, making tracking of progress against Strategy 2020 difficult. Surveys of National Societies have been used in preparation for the regional conferences to assess their progress against specific commitments, again loosely derived from Strategy 2020. The Pan African Conference Plan of Action 2012 is compatible with Strategy 2020. It was inspired by Strategy 2020 but PAC has not used Strategy 2020 as the framework, and there is no directly traceable link between the POA and the Strategy 2020 strategic aims and enabling actions. The Inter-American Conference bases all of its planning explicitly on Strategy 2020, has done so since 2012, and will continue to do so until 2020. (There seems to be some mismatch between the Montrouis Conference commitments and the IAFA.) Europe’s Florence Call for Action focuses on migration, an issue highlighted in Strategy 2020 but otherwise makes no reference to Strategy 2020.


27

4.3 Utility of Strategy 2020

130. The MTR questions on Utility were:

4.3.1 Promotion of Strategy 2020

131. Strategy 2020 was very well promoted in multiple IFRC conferences, events, and trainings, at least initially, although some Secretariat regions put more effort into promotion than others. There was a considerable investment in printing and circulating Strategy 2020 documents. A total of 20,800 copies of Strategy 2020 and 8,850 Strategy 2020 ‘House’ posters35 were circulated, in four languages. However, attention to Strategy 2020 is reported to have reduced since 2010-2011 and several Secretariat informants considered it time for a ‘restart’ to re-energise awareness and use of Strategy 202036.

132. Following the adoption of Strategy 2020, the Secretariat provided support to National Societies with embedding the strategy into their strategic planning during 2010-2011, using a network of trained personnel from National Societies. This could have been a key accelerator in the utilisation of Strategy 2020, but only ten National Societies took advantage of the service, including some of the National Societies that supplied the

1. 35 The Strategy 2020 ‘House’ is well known (although not amongst volunteers) and has proven an excellent simplified representation of Strategy 2020, used as a visual aid during planning sessions. For some, Strategy 2020 is the House diagram. 36 Some of the National Societies interviewed stated that they had read Strategy 2020 back in 2009/2010 but no longer recalled the details, and in some cases had read the document in detail for the first time in preparation for the MTR discussion.

22. To what extent has the Secretariat been able to set its own institutional strategies based on Strategy 2020?

23. To what extent and in what ways has the work of the National Societies and the Secretariat been changed by the adoption of Strategy 2020?

24. To what extent have National Societies and the Secretariat developed sub-strategies to interpret, develop and implement Strategy 2020’s 3 strategic aims, and the 3 enabling actions?

25. How often is Strategy 2020 referred to in the daily work of the National Societies and the Secretariat?

26. Has Strategy 2020 been useful in raising resources for the IFRC and its members?


The MTR has identified specific elements of Strategy 2020 that have influenced National Society strategic plans. The Secretariat has developed many, perhaps an excess of, good quality strategies and tools to assist with the application of Strategy 2020. Considerable resources have been devoted by the Secretariat in support of some aspects of Strategy 2020, though not in a clearly planned way, and not always with clarity about what it was trying to achieve. For the National Societies, their own strategic plan, once developed, is their key reference document, with Strategy 2020 moving in the background once it has been used to inform the National Society strategic plan. In the survey, 77 per cent of National Societies had updated their strategic plans since 2010, 14 per cent had not, and 9 per cent had no strategic plan. National Society strategic plans vary considerably in how they have appropriated S2020.


28

trainers37. Since then, many National Societies have used consultants to help them revise their strategies. It may be that they are more comfortable with external consultants assisting them with strategic planning than other National Society staff, however well qualified38. At least some IFRC regional offices keep track of the state of development of National Society strategies and help to orchestrate support at the appropriate moments.

133. In the Secretariat survey, respondents agreed that the ‘Secretariat has insufficient capacity to support National Society implementation of Strategy 2020’ (64 per cent) and that ‘National Societies do not have the technical expertise to interpret and implement Strategy 2020’ (63 per cent). In the National Society survey, there was equal numbers of respondents saying they felt well and poorly supported to implement Strategy 2020, leading to a neutral response overall (51 per cent).

4.3.2 Influence of Strategy 2020

134. Many National Societies indicated that Strategy 2020 had helped them to become more relevant and more targeted towards those most in need. They tended not to claim that they have become more effective as a result.

135. Our interviews indicated that the following areas have gained ground in National Society planning since 2009:

National Societies have engaged in both longer-term social development and in

disaster management.

Humanitarian diplomacy was much discussed during the MTR. National Societies are

enthusiastic about strengthening their voice in favour of the most vulnerable as the

‘Changing Minds’ dimension of Strategy 2020 has taken root. The meaning and

practice of humanitarian diplomacy is not clear to all National Societies, and there is

an appetite to learn more39.

Auxiliary role, another topic raised frequently in the MTR, appears to be under

discussion of how to strengthen the auxiliary role of National Society is taking place

across all levels of the Federation40.

Vulnerability assessment and social inclusion, while not new in Strategy 2020, have

gained more attention. For example, European countries have had to strengthen

their programmes at home in response to a rapid increase in the numbers of

extremely vulnerable people. Some National Societies are looking for more help in

applying these concepts.

Community Resilience, especially with the boost in attention due to the One Billion

Coalition.

Youth engagement. Youth as Agents of Behaviour Change (YABC) has gained ground

and was the most talked about IFRC tool41. Youth have been given more prominence

and a greater voice in IFRC governance.

1. 37 The group of facilitators set up by the secretariat in 2010 later formed the core of the OCAC facilitators’ team. 38 The MTR has no data on the extent of external consultant support to Strategy 2020.

39 40 Strategy 2020 was the first IFRC ten-year strategy to be developed since the 2007 RCRC International Conference Resolution 2 on the Auxiliary Role, which provided important clarifications on the role. (International Conference Resolutions are binding both on governments and on the Movement partners). 41 YABC was developed before Strategy 2020, not as a result. However, its use has broadened considerably in support of the Youth Action priority under Enabling Action 1.


29

4.3.3 Humanitarian Diplomacy

136. While humanitarian diplomacy was not identified as a top priority for the remainder of the decade, there is significant interest and attention being paid to humanitarian diplomacy by National Societies. Some National Societies do not find balancing the mixed objectives of; influencing decision makers, profiling the role of the RCRC, and increasing resources and partnerships, to be straightforward1. Some National Societies mentioned that they would welcome more guidance from RCRC partners on dealing with various stakeholder types, whether national government, local government, military, local NGOs/CSOs, embassies, the private sector, or RCRC Movement partners. They would value support in the form of in-person accompaniment in meetings with stakeholders.

4.3.4 Strategy 2020 and IFRC Secretariat Planning

137. The adoption of Strategy 2020 led to parts of the Geneva Secretariat being reorganised around the Strategic Aims. This was expected to result in an integrated approach to National Society Knowledge Development but it was reported to the MTR that this did not take place. The Secretariat’s planning and budget process was not reshaped to match the structure of Strategy 2020 and, in practice, the Secretariat budget has continued to be organised more along the lines of S2010 than those of Strategy 2020.

138. In 2010, the Secretary-General decided to organise the planning of the Secretariat around five Business Activity Lines42, intended to support the Secretariat’s support to the implementation of Strategy 2020. Some MTR informants considered that the business lines had a strong internal logic but the mismatch with the structure of Strategy 2020 made it hard for the Secretariat to plan, budget or report against Strategy 2020. The majority of Secretariat informants to the MTR felt that the business activity lines had been more of a distraction than a help in focusing on support to Strategy 2020. We understand that the business activity lines have, effectively, been dropped.

139. Looking back from a 2015 perspective, it is not clear to what extent Strategy 2020 has helped to prioritise Secretariat support. There has been a good deal of energy, especially initially, to supporting Strategy 2020 overall, but is not evident that there was a planned prioritisation by the Secretariat of its support for themes within the Strategy. There was certainly a de facto prioritisation, in that some Secretariat managers and senior staff have taken the opportunity presented by Strategy 2020 to advance their field of work actively, for example, volunteering, youth, and community resilience but in the Secretariat survey, 58 per cent agreed with the statement: ‘The Secretariat has not been clear internally about how to support the implementation of Strategy 2020’.

140. A new Secretariat planning exercise for the period 2016-2020 has been running in parallel with the MTR, and is titled “Partnering for More Resilient Communities”. One of the main goals of the planning process is to produce one coherent plan for the Secretariat, rather than separate HQ and region plans, which has been the tendency in the past. The planning exercise takes account of ‘five priorities for Secretariat action’ agreed between the Governing Board and the Secretary-General at the November 2014 Governing Board meeting43, which relate to the Enabling Actions of Strategy 2020.

1. 42 The Business Activity Lines were as follows: BL1.Humanitarian Standards, BL2.Disaster Management Services, BL3.Sustainable Development, BL4.Humanitarian Diplomacy, BL5.Cooperation and Coordination. 43 1. Build strong National Societies, 2. Bring the Secretariat much closer to national societies and increase its effectiveness and credibility, 3. Strengthen Governance and the leadership of the Governing Board, 4. Maximise Movement coordination by promoting and protecting the sovereignty and dignity of all 189 National Societies and strengthen cooperation with ICRC in a mutually respectful way. 5. Engage in dynamic humanitarian diplomacy and fundraising.


30

141. The draft of the plan shared with the MTR team is directly informed by Strategy 2020 but not immediately structured around Strategy 2020. Instead, it is based on three areas of focus and three strategies for implementation44.

4.3.5 Strategy 2020 and Resource Mobilisation

142. In the National Society survey, respondents disagreed moderately with the statement: ‘Strategy 2020 has been helpful to us in mobilising financial resources’ (44 per cent). Strategy 2020 does not claim to be a tool for resource mobilisation, and it is not clear that it succeeds in raising the profile of the Federation with donors.

4.3.6 Adaptations of Strategy 2020

143. National Society strategic plans take many and various forms even after ‘alignment’ with Strategy 2020. Many National Society plans have been built directly on the structure of Strategy 2020 but, as more than one commentator pointed out, using the structure of Strategy 2020 is no guarantee of serious reflection on the content of Strategy 2020 having taken place in the planning process.

144. National Society plans often take a simpler form than Strategy 2020 itself. The 3+3 strategic aim and enabling actions format of Strategy 2020 is often not followed. National Societies tend to opt for their own simpler structures. For example, National Society development might be adopted as a fourth aim, and the rest of the enabling actions dropped or built into the other aims. Elements of Strategic Aim 3, which includes many of the qualitative aspects of Strategy 2020, may be built into operational goals rather than kept separate, or elements of SA3 and the enabling actions may be grouped together under ‘cross cutting issues’.

4.3.7 Strategy 2020 and National Society planning focus

145. During the MTR, we saw examples of both well-focused and less well focused strategic plans. While a focused, limited and targeted strategic plan may be regarded as the ideal, National Societies do not always consider focus to be the best approach where financial resources are scarce. The best strategy in this case may be to make the National Society strategic plan as broad as possible to help the National Society net whatever income may be available.

146. Strategy 2020 does not make clear whether National Society strategic plans are expected to cover everything that Strategy 2020 covers, or to make a selection from it. In practice, many National Societies make choices from amongst the spectrum of activities and priorities, just as the IFRC National Society strategic planning guidelines encourages them to do: ‘The National Society…has to prioritize and decide which opportunities to engage in..’ (page 23).

147. It would certainly be helpful for the IFRC to clarify whether Strategy 2020 is intended to provoke National Societies to cover all elements of the strategy, or National Societies are expected to focus down on a few priorities.

1. 44 The draft Secretariat Plan for 2016-2020 moves away from the structure and headings of Strategy 2020 to a new schema of 3 Areas of Focus and 3 Strategies for Implementation. We think the original Strategy 2020 headings should be retained as is, and endorse the statement in one of the plan and budget preparatory papers: ‘It is strongly recommended to maintain the original wording of Strategic Aim 3, to ensure the fullest possible alignment with Strategy 2020 and to avoid any confusion by introducing new terminology’ (emphasis added).


31

5 Further Discussion

148. In this section, the MTR team offers additional reflections on the MTR findings, directly relevant to the Terms of Reference. This section provides a bridge to, and supporting rationale for, the conclusions and recommendations that follow in Sections 6 and 7.

5.1 Challenges to National Society Development

149. Some of the principal challenges facing substantial numbers of National Societies are well summarised in the National Society Development Framework of 2013. Many of the challenges relate to a lack of financial self-sufficiency:

Threat of bankruptcy and hence either dormancy or dissolution.

Lack of finance, financial dependency and weak organisational capacities...often

reflecting broader issues of a National Society’s identity, relevance and image within

its domestic environment.

Largely or wholly dependent on the limited funding provided by Movement partners,

with National Society identity determined by funding availability.

Fail[ure] to meet basic standards required for Certification under the Organisational

Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC) process, suggesting widespread

systemic weaknesses across National Societies45.

5.2 IFRC Approach to Capacity Development

150. Under Enabling Action 1, ‘Build strong National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’, Strategy 2020 sets out a number of principles for what makes a strong National Society. These were further developed in the National Society Development Framework (2013), which we consider provides a sound framework46. Many of the IFRC guidance materials on National Society development are very well developed and in line with best practice in the field of organisational development. However, our visits and interviews indicated that National Societies often do not know about these materials (at least at senior management level)47.

151. All IFRC policy documents recognise the importance of strong National Societies as the foundation of the RCRC. Financial resources are being invested in organisational development through several channels, from domestic resources, bilateral support, from the ICRC, and from the donor-supported Capacity Building Fund.

152. Without hard evidence on how National Society development is progressing, the level of on-going demand for support and the continuing unease about the weakness of a large proportion of National Societies indicates to us that the current development approaches may not be the most successful.

153. We are not aware of any recent evaluation of the IFRC approach to National Society development, and a review of National Society development approaches is outside the

1. 45 page 2, text shortened 46 The National Society Development Framework helpfully distinguishes between capacity building and organisational development, which it describes as a deeper, more strategic process: ‘Often, fundamental issues must be addressed that require high-level engagement with much deeper issues within the National Society: its identity, its long-term strategic direction, its basic organizational model and the relationships between different parts of the organization, or between the National Society and its environment. Such significant, deep-rooted change, and the second approach to development work, is referred to as Organizational Development’ (page 23). 47 The Geneva secretariat was sometimes criticised for generating too much guidance material: ‘Geneva is a paper factory’.


32

scope of this MTR. However, as IFRC is well aware, a heavy reliance on the issuance of guidelines, followed by training, by itself, is rarely an effective method for addressing deep-rooted organisational problems.

154. One of five priorities set for the Secretariat by the Governing Board in 2014 was to ‘Bring the Secretariat much closer to National Societies and increase its effectiveness and credibility’. We suggest that National Society development could be enhanced by placing more advisers in–region and in-country48. This might be a more expensive approach to National Society development than generating guidelines and training courses, but likely to be more effective49. We also consider that far more use can be made of peer-to-peer support between National Societies, with the Secretariat acting as a knowledge broker, bringing experience and personnel from other National Societies to help with specific aspects of National Society development, for example; volunteer motivation, local fund raising, or technical programme areas.

155. As in other organisations, organisational development can be easily frustrated by the lack of an enabling environment. Even a skilled delegate50 can only make progress in helping a National Society to develop where leadership has entered into commitments with the Secretariat and partner National Societies on the direction of change and concrete steps to be taken, and where Movement partners are committed to seeing the local National Society develop.

5.3 Organizational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC)

156. The Secretariat provides organisational development support on an on-going basis to National Societies by facilitating the OCAC process51. OCAC was developed following the adoption of Strategy 2020, in response to the General Assembly resolution:

‘requests the Secretary General to develop an independently validated Federation-wide peer review mechanism to accredit and rate National Societies for approval by the Governing Board’.

157. OCAC has become a cornerstone of the IFRC support to the development of National Societies52. More than 75 National Societies have been through the Phase 1 self-assessment process since 2011, which means that more than 100 National Societies have not53.

158. The OCAC process is highly valued. Several, but not all, National Societies reported that OCAC helped them to understand their strengths and weaknesses and to plan for

1. 48 There are pros and cons to in-country versus in-region presence. If delegates have too many countries to cover they cannot visit each country often enough, but if they are placed in country, there is a risk that the delegate becomes too familiar to the National Society and comes to be seen as just part of the National Society team, not as an objective third party helping the National Society to reach IFRC standards. Therefore, a group of advisers, each covering a group of countries, may be optimal.

49 We noted that local staff have sometimes been successfully recruited into organisational development positions, which shows that these roles do not always have to be filled by relatively expensive expatriates. However, even when using local staff, our assumption is that maintaining staff in-region and in some countries would be more expensive overall than the current regional training of trainers approach, but we do not have CHF figures to demonstrate this, hence ‘might be more expensive’.

50 We noted examples of locally recruited IFRC delegates – these do not always have to be international staff. 51. OCAC is a new initiative that builds on previous tools such as the Characteristics of a Well-Functioning National Society and the NS Self-Assessment 52 The main objective of OCAC is to “enable National Societies to assess their own capacity and performance so as to determine the best approaches for their self-development”. 53There are two further and separate phases in OCAC, Phase 2 – Peer Review and Phase 3 – Governing Board certification. Fewer National Societies undertake phases 2 and 3 than phase 1. So far two National Societies have completed phase 2 and are awaiting a decision on certification from the Governing Board.


33

future development. Experienced facilitators add to the quality of the outcome, helping the National Societies to assess themselves against a comprehensive set of 85 ‘attributes’54.

159. Strategic planning is discussed as one of many elements in OCAC. OCAC originates from, and is generally consistent with Strategy 2020 but the OCAC process does not take the National Society through Strategy 2020 step-by-step to allow the National Societies to review its alignment with Strategy 2020. If OCAC had done so, this might have resulted in more consistent conformity of National Society strategic plans with Strategy 2020.

160. OCAC is meant to lead to an organizational development process and we believe that the link between OCAC, as an assessment of organizational capacity and performance should be more explicitly built into a broader, more developmental initiative. In this context, we are uneasy about the third stage, Certification, and would suggest that this process should be clearly separated from assessment/development.

161. MTR Advisory Group members suggested that it might be possible to prioritise some of the 85 OCAC attributes for special support and monitoring to the year 2020. Using the priority development needs listed below (see 7.2), our view is that this could be done.

5.4 Improving International Cooperation between National Societies

162. In addition to National Society development, a second priority for attention in the period 2016-2020 is the subsection of Strategy 2020 Enabling Action 3 on ‘Working together in partnerships and alliances’.

163. Many National Societies provide financial and technical assistance to other National Societies, often, but not only, at times of crisis. This is a vital element of the efficient functioning of the Federation and a principal sign of solidarity between its members. Many of the Federation’s achievements could not be realised without these resource transfers.

164. Yet international cooperation between National Societies can face serious challenges, especially during major emergencies, when pressure is on the Federation to perform effectively in its designated role in the coordination of disaster management55.

165. The capacity of the Secretariat to coordinate in these situations has reduced as even the traditional National Society supporters of the multilateral approach have ’gone bilateral’, with an increasing proportion of projects by-passing the Secretariat56. For its support to emergencies, in particular, the Secretariat depends on recharges from Appeal income, and so is incentivised to promote both Federation appeals and its operational participation in them.

166. A limited number of unilateral actions by foreign National Societies, acting without consultation or coordination with the local National Society, attract particular attention and disapproval from Federation members. However, more commonly challenges arise with bilateral support, where, in response to major emergencies, the local National Society may find itself coordinating ten or more National Societies operating on its territory.

167. Foreign National Societies can be driven as much by the priorities of their own donor government as by those of the local National Society and a focus on delivering against

1. 54 We heard of examples of facilitators with good skills but very little knowledge of the Federation. Ideally, they should have both. 55 MTR team members are well aware of the challenges in National Society international cooperation from previous work with the IFRC, but the same challenges were highlighted again during the MTR. 56 Foreign National Societies have even formed consortia, often with ECHO funding, that provide a substitute coordination structure to the one the Secretariat would normally provide.


34

project goals can go against the best interests of the local National Society. Foreign delegates are expected to prioritise the delivery of ‘their’ projects. Delegates are often not briefed or trained on how to assist the local National Society to develop through the crisis response.

168. This situation can lead to a stand-off, as the local National Society insists on its sovereignty status and demands that it receives a portion of foreign funding, while foreign National Societies find themselves hindered in responding to humanitarian need. The Secretariat can find itself using up considerable time and energy mediating between the two sides.

169. Even for those foreign National Societies genuinely interested in contributing to the development of the National Society, cooperation may be hampered by the local National Society not having a well-constructed development plan, or being unwilling to share information about its strengths and weaknesses, so hampering the formation of real partnerships with other National Societies and reducing trust. The end result can be fractious relationships, lack of coordination, duplication, suboptimal use of resources, which, in turn, can lead to presenting a fragmented approach to non-RCRC partners. At root, the issue is a clash of institutional interests.

170. The on-going discussions on the Movement Coordination Agreement (MCA), involving the ICRC, are designed to provide for an improved agreement between the IFRC, ICRC and local National Society to address some of these challenges. For such an agreement to be successful, it will need to include all National Societies currently or likely to be present or funding activities in that country during emergencies. We suggest that any new form of agreement between National Societies and the IFRC Secretariat should be based on:

Respect for both the local National Society and its development, and respect for the humanitarian imperative

Medium term financial and, where necessary, technical support, before and after crises

A well-developed strategy for National Society development that all parties are ready to invest in

Full disclosure by the local National Society concerning its development needs and challenges

Financial resources for the Secretariat to play its designated role in coordination and organisational development.

5.5 Creating a Reliable, Credible IFRC Humanitarian Response

171. Disaster Management, as described in Strategic Aim 1 remains the core of IFRC business and the area where National Societies continue to seek the most support, as survey results confirmed (see 5.12 below). According to Strategy 2020 (p20):

During disasters, due to natural and human-made hazards, or in crises that arise from violent conflicts, the immediate imperative is to save lives, reduce suffering, damage and losses, and to protect, comfort and support affected people.

172. Where all parts of the Federation work well together, the response can be very successful, as, by some estimates, the IFRC response was for the Ebola crisis.

173. However, neither Strategic Aim 1 nor Enabling Action 3 include a commitment that the Federation will respond at scale to major disasters and crises. Enabling Action 3 has a soft interpretation of the Humanitarian Imperative:

‘The imperative to tackle major but avoidable suffering is a Federation-wide obligation. Thus, in circumstances where serious needs and vulnerabilities arise that have not been foreseen,


35

the National Society concerned may request special operational alliances to provide additional resources that go beyond what is locally available. This should allow the IFRC to collectively scale up in order to tackle the particular challenge’ (emphasis added)57, 58

174. The question of whether National Society preferences in asking for international assistance trumps the imperative to meet humanitarian needs is a long-running discussion in the Federation. The implication of the Strategy 2020 text is that the Federation may or may not respond at the scale the crisis demands. Even as the Federation tries to build its credibility further in a competitive world, on this point Strategy 2020 leaves it vulnerable to responding inadequately, or too slowly, to major crises.

175. We suggest an alternative approach whereby the Federation network reinforces its capacity to deliver on Strategic Aim 1 through a concentrated programme of risk assessment and collective preparedness, by: Making use of publically available data on disaster and conflict risks59 Mapping those risks onto the response capacity of National Societies in the highest

risk countries Devising a contingency plan for Movement partners to mount a major response to

the highest risk countries (or perhaps sub-regions)

176. In this way, the Federation could undertake collective emergency preparedness for, say, the highest risk 20 countries. For countries already in crisis, this would provide a chance to optimise the international cooperation between RCRC partners.

177. As a complement to the suite of disaster response tools and mechanisms the IFRC already has at its disposal, these risk mapping and collective preparedness exercises could significantly boost the speed and scale of response and enhance the standing of the IFRC with its non-RCRC partners and donors.

5.6 Encompassing Humanitarian Action and Development

178. By pursuing Strategic Aims 1, 2, and 3, National Societies are effectively becoming organisations that combine development and humanitarian action60,61,62. According to Strategy 2020, the IFRC defines development as: “Enabling everyone to achieve their full potential, and lead productive and creative lives with dignity according to their needs and choices, whilst fulfilling their obligations and realising their rights”63.

1. 57 Strategy 2020, page 29 58 The Principles and Rules for Red Cross and Red Crescent Humanitarian Assistance carry a balancing, but similarly limited, clause, 3.8: ‘Where the International Federation considers that a National Society has not requested international assistance adequate to the scale and impact of the disaster, the International Federation shall make its concerns known to the National Society and propose appropriate action to be taken in order to respond to the humanitarian needs of the affected people’. 59 In the past 7-8 years, great strides have been made in mapping risks of all kinds at country level, and in publishing the data. See for example http://www.inform-index.org/ 60 Survey comments indicated some unease with the RCRC as a development organization. For example: ‘The RC is not a poverty reduction organisation’. However, this is not the sense in which Strategy 2020 speaks of development. 61 In the same vein, we heard a few comments questioning whether the RCRC should go beyond disaster management and crisis response. 62 According the RCRC Approach to Sustainable Development (2011), the RCRC considers development to encompass “disease prevention and health promotion, water and sanitation, blood donor recruitment, food and nutrition, disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, social assistance, as well as protection for poor, vulnerable, and marginalised groups through promoting social inclusion, and a culture of non-violence and peace”. 63 Strategy 2020, page 11

http://www.inform-index.org/


36

179. There are a number of compelling reasons why the RCRC should encompass both humanitarian action and development64:

Building Comparative advantage. By having on-going community presence and activity in normal or peace-time as well as during crisis, National Societies maintain levels of access, trust and local intelligence that few other organisations can match.

Addressing resilience demands it. Resilience involves the ability of communities to absorb shocks and the ability to increase and sustain various forms of assets. This requires developmental and response capacity.

Maintaining an active volunteer network. Having meaningful and satisfying ‘things for volunteers to do’ between emergency events is identified by National Societies as important in maintaining the motivation and engagement of its volunteers. If volunteers are not able to take part in activities on an on-going, if still occasional, basis, they may lose interest. Having a range of on-going activities, in addition to disaster and emergency training and drills, helps to prevent this.

5.7 Strategy 2020 as a communication tool

180. The IFRC needs to maintain its relevance and comparative advantage, including through the use of Strategy 2020 to position itself, as demand for its services increase. As the international architecture for humanitarian response evolves, the Federation will need better linkages to other international organisations, while maintaining its distinctive values and mandate.

181. Elegant as it is, Strategy 2020 is arguably too lengthy a document to communicate easily and clearly what the Federation stands for, how it adds value, and its areas of focus. Another document that summarises the key messages on the values and functions of the Federation may be required to play this role. If the Federation were able to agree a few, specific targets for the next five years, this would make Federation messaging still more powerful and strengthen the hand of the IFRC in its communication and negotiation with donors.

5.8 Role of the IFRC Secretariat

182. According to both National Society and Secretariat informants, the role of the Secretariat needs better definition. The Secretariat has been through challenging times since 2010 both for financial reasons and because of difficulties presented by its decentralisation process. In MTR discussions with National Societies, they were not always satisfied with the performance of the Secretariat in its principal role of coordination.

183. The challenges faced by the Secretariat go well beyond issues of financial resources. The quality of human resources will be critical in being able to carry out the high value added tasks required in supporting the application of Strategy 2020; in National Society development and in international coordination, in resource mobilisation and other tasks.

184. The Secretariat has continued to insist on taking an operational role, which brings with it a share of appeal income. This can appear to some National Societies, including the local National Society, as the IFRC competing with them for resources and no longer acting as a disinterested party. Some Secretariat survey comments point to this as a fundamental issue: Should the Secretariat be operational or not?

1. 64 In some cases, the mandate assigned to the RC by government constrains it to certain activities. In these circumstances, the breadth of strategic aims 1,2,3 cannot be covered, unless the mandate can be renegotiated.


37

185. The Secretariat seems to be reasserting its coordination and support role. For example, the Secretariat accepted the leadership in establishing the migration crisis coordination cell, in response to the growing crisis in the Mediterranean, which, we were informed, has been welcomed by the National Societies concerned.

5.9 Strategy for the RCRC Movement

186. A new willingness by the leaders of the IFRC and the ICRC, reinforced by financial and political pressures, is leading the IFRC and ICRC to work more closely together65. As natural disasters and conflicts are often closely intertwined, it becomes inevitable that the two organisations will be working with the same National Societies in an increasing number of countries. The clear delineations of responsibility set out in the Seville agreement and the Supplementary Measures are considered by many in the Secretariat to be less relevant in the current operating context.

187. The Strengthening Movement Cooperation and Coordination (SMCC) process has four work streams: Strengthening leadership and coordination, Operational plans tools and mechanisms, Communication internal and external, Resource mobilisation, all of which have potential overlap with Strategy 2020 implementation. The results of the SMCC, which are not yet known, will be presented to the Council of Delegates in late 2015. One of the more relevant items for the MTR is the possibility of a Movement Cooperation Agreement as a new form of country-level agreement between IFRC, ICRC and National Societies.

188. In the MTR, the possibility of a Movement Strategy for the next decade, rather than an IFRC ‘Strategy 2030’, was tested through the level of agreement with the statement ‘For the period 2020-2030, there should be one Movement-wide strategy’. In the National Society survey, this statement received 78 per cent support and in the Secretariat survey, 70 per cent66. Between the two surveys, this represents the strongest endorsement of any of the opinion-based survey questions.

189. At the same time, the obstacles to joint working between ICRC and IFRC remain significant, given their very different cultures, ways of working and mandates, despite the goodwill of the heads of the two organisations. Examples of close ICRC-IFRC cooperation at country level can be built on, including the increasing number of trilateral ICRC-IFRC-National Society agreements on roles and responsibilities. The imbalance of resources between the organisations can also be a challenge. ICRC is sometimes better resourced for National Society development and is present in more places than the IFRC, even though the IFRC is responsible for supporting National Society development.

5.10 Youth and Volunteering

190. In the MTR, the creation and maintenance of a strong volunteer network emerged as one of the main priorities for National Societies.

191. In 2011, IFRC estimated the value of the total RCRC volunteer inputs to be $6 billion per year, 35 per cent in health, and 25 per cent in disasters. While volunteers are said to be the heart of the organisation, the trend in volunteer numbers is unclear. The IFRC Secretariat is unsure whether volunteer numbers are decreasing or increasing overall. In 2014, the Secretariat completed a global review of RCRC volunteering, which found that there were an estimated 17.1 million volunteers67, with ten National Societies accounting

1. 65 Some progress has been made in jointly supported appeals for example in ICRC supporting the IFRC appeal for the Ebola crisis, and the IFRC supporting the ICRC appeal for Yemen. 66 There is no up to date Movement strategy. The last strategy update dates from 2005. 67 Providing more than 4 hours per year


38

for 75 per cent of all volunteers in the RCRC network, and another 100 National Societies combined having only 1.25 per cent of the total68. This marked imbalance could be interpreted as indicating an urgent need to build and harness volunteer capacity in at least half the National Societies. Certainly, all the National Societies interviewed considered growing their volunteer base to be a high priority69.

192. Since 2010, the participation of youth in conferences has increased significantly. We heard a concern that youth programmes and youth conferences and meetings were at risk of becoming a parallel programme, not integrated into either programmes or volunteer activities in the IFRC. Comments were made about youth meetings taking place at the same time as regional conferences but without the events being linked in terms of content or participation. If youth is to contribute to the next generation of leadership and to intergenerational dialogue, the IFRC will need to ensure that the two types of events are well connected.

193. According to the IFRC Youth Engagement Strategy, youth can be volunteers, beneficiaries, leaders or all three. Much the same could be said for all volunteers. We are not sure that there is a need for separate volunteer and youth strategies, especially given the strong overlap between them; most volunteers are also youth. There is potential for confusion between overlapping youth and volunteer strategies.

194. The MTR Youth and Volunteer survey received more than 2500 responses, with the following main results (see also Annex 7): The median age of respondents was 18-30 years, so the volunteer survey was also,

broadly, a survey of youth. The average length of service was 6 years. 56 per cent of respondents were female.

36 per cent did not know if their National Society had a strategic plan, while 26 per cent were consulted on the development of the strategic plan (30 per cent did not know if they had been). 48 per cent were not aware of Strategy 2020, while 8 per cent had a very good understanding.

Respondents identified the top three priorities for their National Society as vulnerable and excluded communities, opportunities for young people, and disasters and conflicts70

In their National Societies, volunteers wanted to see more attention given to staff and volunteer capacity development, volunteer recruitment and fund raising 71

47 per cent recorded that there was youth representation on their board (43 per cent did not know)

1. 68 We understand from the Secretariat that some National Societies prefer to hire staff rather than find more volunteers because they need professional skills to keep up with increasing expectations of professional assessment, planning monitoring and reporting, and the need for sectoral expertise. (We did not interview any National Societies in this category).

69 As an aide for National Societies, the IFRC has developed a Volunteering Development Learning Engagement Plan. 70 The top three priorities: 1) ‘Finding and helping the most vulnerable and excluded communities’ (57 per cent), 2) ‘Helping young people to have opportunities to improve their lives’ (56 per cent) 3) ‘Preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters and conflicts’ (53 per cent) 71 The top three organisational capacities for their National Society to develop were: 1) Staff and volunteer capacity (58 per cent); 2) Recruiting volunteers (48 per cent) 3) Fund raising (42 per cent)


39

The top reason for volunteering, by a good margin, was ‘To help improve lives day to day’, (67 per cent). ‘To gain experience that will help me to get a job’ scored only 18 per cent.

63 per cent recorded that they were ‘very likely’ to continue to volunteer.

5.11 Monitoring the progress of Strategy 2020

195. One of the MTR review questions is: ‘To what extent would it be helpful to develop indicators for measuring the impact of Strategy 2020?’ This turns out to be far from straightforward. Without indicators for results coming from the Federation’s application of Strategy 2020, the Federation has no information to demonstrate to itself or other parties that it is making a difference at a global scale through Strategy 2020. While some strategies agreed as part of the implementation of Strategy 2020 have included indicators, these have not yet been reported at a global level.

196. The capacity does not yet exist across the Federation network for global reporting against a defined set of performance indicators for Strategy 2020, even if such a set were to be agreed. A more realistic target might to be to aim to expand National Society data collection systems, in line with plans to expand FDRS, to allow for a universally applicable set of programmatic outcome indicators to be applied after 2020.

5.12 Potential Gaps in Strategy 2020

197. The MTR makes no specific recommendations with regard to any additions or modifications to Strategy 2020. However, we record here the main gaps in Strategy 2020 raised with us during the MTR:

Education sector. Many National Societies are active in informal education,

interacting with school children inside and outside the classroom, and sometimes

acting as providers of education services. National Societies train children in first aid,

life-saving, humanitarian law, community cohesion, peace, risk reduction, etc., and

on occasion RCRC related subjects become part of the official curriculum. This

interaction with school children can be a powerful tool for influencing the attitudes

of young people and engaging them at a formative stage makes them much more

likely to volunteer for the RCRC.

Blood services. Strategy 2020 states (p15) that ‘We also promote voluntary non-

remunerated blood donation, and advocate for the safe provision of blood and

blood products.’ However, many National Societies are taking, processing and

providing blood products. While recognising the very important function played by

some National Societies in blood services, this is not a function the Federation has

wanted to promote as a role for the membership as a whole, given the high risks

associated. We understand that there is a measure of peer support between

National Societies engaged in blood services.

Older people. People over sixty make up eleven per cent of the world population

today. By 2050, this figure will be 22 per cent. While Strategy 2020 puts great

emphasis on youth engagement, it has much less on recognising older people as a

resource and engaging older people as volunteers.

The most common forms of violence. While Strategy 2020 introduced a much

greater emphasis on how the Federation can promote non-violence, it makes no

mention of the most widespread, endemic forms of violence: gender-based violence

and domestic violence.


40

5.13 Length of the Term of Strategy 2020

198. The MTR team was asked to give a view on the length of term of Strategy 2020 as a corporate strategy, given that, with fast moving global events and changing operating environment, ten years might be considered too long a term for an IFRC strategy. Set against that view, National Societies have updated their plans only gradually since 2010, in line with their planning cycles, informed by Strategy 2020. In the National Society survey, 77 per cent of respondents reported that they had updated their strategic plan since 2010, while 14 per cent had not and 9 per cent had no strategic plan. A faster IFRC planning cycle might leave a good proportion of National Societies only adopting a new Federation strategy as the its successor was being introduced.

199. A shorter term, say five years, would only be appropriate if all National Society strategic plans were updated in line with a new global strategy within 1-2 years of its adoption, rather than waiting for National Society strategic plans to be updated according to their normal planning cycle, typically 4-6 years. This would mean, essentially, that National Societies would need to align their planning cycles. Otherwise a shorter term for a Federation strategy would be unrealistic.

5.14 Survey results on priorities to the year 2020

200. In the online surveys, the National Societies and Secretariat were asked to rank 20 elements of Strategy 2020 in order of priority for attention during the next five years. The same three topics emerged as the top priorities from both the National Society and Secretariat surveys72.

Preparing for and responding to disasters and crises, Disaster risk reduction, and Volunteers and communities.

201. As noted above, volunteers responding to the survey set the top priority for their National Society as: ‘’Finding and helping the most vulnerable and excluded communities’.

202. Climate change was identified by only 40 per cent of National Societies as a priority. The lowest score in the National Society survey was for ‘intercultural dialogue’ (15 per cent), which also received the least support in the Secretariat survey. Summary results are shown in Table 4 below and the full results in Figures 273 and 374 following:

Table 4. Priorities for the implementation of Strategy 2020 for the rest of its term 75 Priority Nat Soc Survey Sect Survey

Preparing and responding to disasters and crises 71 84 Disaster Risk Reduction 66 80 Volunteers and Communities 62 83 Monitoring and Evaluation 49 77 Disaster Management Systems 48 79 Youth Action 48 77 Auxiliary Status of the National Society 47 79 Humanitarian diplomacy/advocacy 46 72

1. 72 although not in the volunteer survey, where the related question was formulated differently

73 Based on National Society Survey Q11. ‘If Strategy 2020 is to be fully implemented, which of the following elements require the most attention from your National Society from now to the year 2020?’

74 Based on Q12. If Strategy 2020 is to be fully implemented, how important is it that the Secretariat gives greater support to the following elements of the strategy between now and the year 2020?

75 Survey respondents’ priorities selected from a list of Strategy 2020 subheadings in response to the question ‘If Strategy 2020 is to be fully implemented, how important is it that the Secretariat gives greater support to the following elements of the strategy between now and the year 2020?’


41

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Preparing and responding to disasters and crises

Disaster Risk Reduction

Volunteers and Communities

Monitoring and Evaluation

Disaster Management Systems

Youth Action

Auxiliary Status of the National Society

Humanitarian diplomacy/advocacy

Climate Change

Application of the fundamental RCRC principles

Cooperation and partnerships within the Movement

Better integration of disadvantaged people

Education and Health Promotion

Better Health

Psychosocial intervention and support

Livelihoods

Cooperation and resource sharing with non RCRC partners

Communications

Recovery

Logistics

Intercultural dialogue

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Preparing and responding to disasters and crises

Volunteers and Communities

Cooperation and partnerships within the Movement

Disaster Risk Reduction

Application of the fundamental RCRC principles

Disaster Management Systems

Auxiliary Status of the National Society

Monitoring and Evaluation

Recovery

Youth Action

Communications

Cooperation and resource sharing with non RCRC partners

Better Health

Education and Health Promotion

Humanitarian diplomacy/advocacy

Climate Change

Livelihoods

Better integration of disadvantaged people

Psychosocial intervention and support

Logistics

Intercultural dialogue

Figure. 2: National Society perceptions of Strategy 2020 elements requiring most attention to the 2020 (per cent selected)

Figure 3: Secretariat rankings of priorities for support to the year 2020 (per cent agreement)


42

6 Conclusions on the progress of Strategy 2020 in the period 2010-2015

203. In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the MTR looks back at progress made since the adoption of Strategy 2020, as discussed in this Section 6, and forward to how Strategy 2020 can best be advanced, which is covered in Section 7 below.

204. The MTR team has reached the following conclusions regarding the progress of Strategy 2020 since its adoption:

6.1 Strategy 2020 is akin to a visionary strategic framework

205. Strategy 2020 is not a strategy in the traditional sense of setting out ‘How’ various aims and objectives are to be achieved and results to be measured. It is more akin to a vision statement or strategic framework, albeit a long one. This may well be appropriate for a global network of 189 different organisations that operate in very different contexts and have variable capacity.

6.2 For a majority of National Societies Strategy 2020 is popular, inspiring, and relevant

206. Strategy 2020 was well consulted in its preparation and it resonates with most, but not all, National Societies. Strategy 2020 seeks to inspire and, for a significant proportion of National Societies, it has succeeded in doing so. Strategy 2020 is considered still to be relevant today and to have anticipated global trends well. It has articulated very well the principles and values of the RCRC, and how National Societies should work, both individually and together. Strategy 2020 was well promoted and is referred to consistently in all IFRC documentation since its release.

207. For a minority of National Societies, and for some Secretariat staff, Strategy 2020 is ‘all things to all people’, very broad, frustratingly imprecise, and not useful for strategic planning because its lack of a focus around which the Federation can rally.

6.3 Strategy 2020 does not set priorities

208. Strategy 2020 does not require any particular action by National Societies, at any particular time. It reflects well the National Society preference for a demand-driven, flexible IFRC approach to the implementation of a Federation-wide strategy. Strategy 2020 does not set priorities for National Societies but allows them to take what they require from it.

6.4 Elements of the Strategy 2020 agenda have progressed

209. Some elements of Strategy 2020 have gained currency with National Societies, including humanitarian diplomacy, strengthening the auxiliary role, community resilience, vulnerability and social inclusion, although some National Societies acknowledge that they do not always fully understand or know how to operationalize these concepts.

6.5 Progress against Strategy 2020 is difficult to assess

210. It is not clear which, if any, parts of Strategy 2020 are intended to be applied to all National Societies, and which elements are to be pursued depending on context, national priorities, and the preferences of the National Society. This makes any assessment of progress difficult—compounded by a lack of agreed targets against which to measure progress.

6.6 The IFRC has not followed up on Strategy 2020 as intended

211. Under current arrangements, the IFRC statutory machinery cannot deliver a Federation-wide strategy effectively. IFRC governance has taken a laissez-faire approach to all aspects of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution 14 of 2009


43

regarding Strategy 2020. The concept of National Society ‘alignment’ with Strategy 2020 has not been defined nor tracked at global level, as the General Assembly resolution intended. There is no specification of what ‘implemented’ means in relation to Strategy 2020. There has been only one report of National Society planning alignment with Strategy 2020, submitted to the General Assembly in 2011.

212. The Federation-wide Data and Reporting System, established under the same resolution as Strategy 2020, has so far yielded very limited information on the progress against the Strategy 2020 Strategic Aims and Enabling Actions. As National Societies submit more and better information to FDRS, successive ‘Everyone Counts’ reports are likely to include fuller information on levels of activity under these aims and actions, starting with the 2015 edition.

213. Regional conference agendas generally show a strong link with the themes of Strategy 2020 but the conferences themselves do not provide a systematic or comprehensive means of advancing Strategy 2020. They could become a suitable vehicle for advancing Strategy 2020 more fully in the regions, if they were re-tasked to do so. The Inter-American Framework for Action could be taken as the basis for the development of a regional planning and monitoring mechanism.

214. With the current absence of monitoring mechanisms for Strategy 2020, a final evaluation of Strategy 2020 will be unable to assess the impact of Strategy 2020 on National Society planning or on the impact of RCRC programmes.


44

7 Conclusions and Recommendations for the period 2016-2020

216. The MTR team offers the following conclusions regarding the furtherance of Strategy 2020 to the end of its period, together with a limited set of recommendations. These have been formulated for consideration by the IFRC and with the aim of creating greater impact through Strategy 2020.

7.1 There is no case for revising Strategy 2020

217. The MTR team considered whether there was a case for crafting a new or revised IFRC strategy for the five years to 2020. While we found a number of weaknesses and gaps in Strategy 2020, as discussed in Section 5, we conclude that any benefits to revising the document would be outweighed by the cost and effort of doing so. Revising Strategy 2020, which has proven popular with National Societies, might cause confusion and a loss of momentum in its application. Therefore, the production of a revised document at the mid-term, as per ‘Federation of the Future’76 is not advised.

7.2 Prioritising National Society development

218. While all elements of Strategy 2020 have merit, the first priority for the advancement of Strategy 2020 for the remainder of its term lies in Enabling Action 1, ‘Build Strong RCRC National Societies’. Without a stronger network of National Societies, neither Strategy 2020, nor any other corporate strategy, can be delivered. National Society development remains both the fundamental enabler and constraint on the Federation’s future achievements.

219. It is important that all foreign National Societies contribute to the development of the local National Society and this is not seen as the responsibility of the IFRC Secretariat only. To this end, all delegates should be briefed on the importance of their National Society’s contribution, and the role they are expected to play in supporting the development of the local National Society before they are deployed.

220. Within National Society development, financial self-sufficiency is the top priority, especially domestic income generation. National Societies face increasing competition in their home markets, yet the Federation-wide Resource Mobilisation Strategy does not address domestic income generation and we could not locate any IFRC guidance on domestic income during the MTR. This is one area where we consider the generation of new IFRC guidance material is justified, given its seeming absence.

1. 76 Federation of the Future was developed as a supplementary strategy to Strategy 2010, after the latter’s mid term review

Recommendation 1: Build Strong National Societies

Place the development of strong National Societies ‘front and centre’ for the period to the year 2020, based on the current IFRC guidance on organisational development. The highest priorities within National Society development are, in order:

1. Financial self-sufficiency, especially through domestic income

2. Skilled and principled leadership and governance 3. Volunteer recruitment and retention

4. Statutes, legal basis, and definition of the auxiliary role with government, including advocacy

with national and local government

5. Transparent, accurate financial and narrative reporting, including resolution of integrity

issues

Where Movement partners are active in a country, they should agree and document with the local National Society how these priorities can be met, including support to organisational development and financing for programmes. All foreign delegates should be briefed on how they are expected to contribute to the development of the local National Society before they are deployed.

As one means of tracking progress, the OCAC attributes that correspond most closely to the priority development needs listed above should be prioritised for monitoring, with reporting of results across all OCAC exercises to the Governing Board each year for the next five years.


45

221. We consider that peer-to-peer learning between National Societies could be very effective in increasing capacity to raise domestic income. During the MTR, we heard examples of National Society success in generating income from, for example: focused campaigns, membership fees; government subventions; fees for services and products; percentage contributions from bingo, telephone, lottery, and credit card sales; private sector sponsorship; and from property and land rents.

7.3 A more holistic approach to National Society Development is required

222. The IFRC Secretariat has generated a large number of high quality guidelines and tools, to support the application of Strategy 2020 by National Societies77. There are almost certainly too many guidelines for the majority of National Societies to absorb successfully, or even be aware of, and we conclude that the Secretariat should reduce its generation of guidelines and tools significantly and shift more of its effort to National Society development through an accompaniment approach.

223. Some elements of Strategy 2020 need further explanation, especially Strategic Aim 3 and the Enabling Actions. This can best be achieved by peer-to-peer exchange amongst National Societies and by the Secretariat collecting and sharing National Society good practice examples.

224. One of five priorities set for the Secretariat by the Governing Board in 2014 was to ‘Bring the Secretariat much closer to National Societies and increase its effectiveness and credibility’. We suggest that this priority could be addressed in two ways; by increasing peer-to-peer support between National Societies, with the Secretariat acting as a knowledge broker, and by placing more advisers in–region and in-country .

225. For organisational development to be most effective, it should incorporate a holistic and comprehensive approach to the development needs of the National Society. As already discussed, the National Society Development Framework and other tools appear to be very sound, but they sometimes lack the foundation of commitments by National Society leadership. We propose that investment in organisational development be based on an assessment of needs, which OCAC provides, with a funded agreement between the National Society, the Secretariat, and other Movement partners, as relevant.

226. National Societies and the IFRC Secretariat should invest in organisational development where there will be a return on investment, and not be afraid of determining criteria for investment. These might include: demonstrated and documented commitment to change by the National Society leadership; openness and transparency78, and realistic development plans.

1. 77 The MTR team was struck by the number of documents (studies, assessments, tool kits, guidelines) that were available and emerged in successive interviews. This suggested to us that even in the Secretariat the wealth of information and useful tools is not well known or effectively exploited. We believe the Secretariat should organise and promote the materials that already exist rather than creating more.

78 Sharing financial accounts and OCAC results, for example


46

227. OCAC, which was developed following the General Assembly’s 2009 request for an

‘independently validated Federation-wide peer review mechanism’, is highly valued by National Societies. We note that less than half of all National Societies have undertaken Phase 1 of OCAC and, therefore, we encourage its wider application to NS where it will be viewed as relevant and add value. We also consider that OCAC could be used to bring greater alignment with Strategy 2020.

7.4 Improving Cooperation within the Movement

228. The MTR identifies the second priority for the advancement of Strategy 2020 for the remaining term of Strategy 2020 as Enabling Action 3, ‘Function Effectively as the IFRC’. While we consider all aspects of Enabling Action 3 to be important, the MTR team has developed a specific recommendation with regard to ‘Cooperation within the Movement’.

Recommendation 2: Strengthen IFRC Organisational Development

The IFRC should take a holistic approach to the organisational development of National Societies, including the following steps:

1) Reduce the production of IFRC guidelines and tools and focus on the implementation of those already agreed.

2) Base organisational development investments on assessments of need and written agreement between the National Society and the IFRC Secretariat, ideally with including all Federation partners ready to invest in organisational development, and including the ICRC where possible.

3) Increase the use of peer-to-peer learning between National Societies, and collect and share good practice examples, including for the elements of Strategy 2020 that are less well understood.

4) Rebalance the Secretariat support to National Society organisational development in favour of greater in-region and in-country presence of delegates with the requisite experience.

Recommendation 4: Strengthen international cooperation on emergency response

The IFRC should ensure full coordination of all National Societies preparing for, or responding to, an emergency, to ensure that the Federation; responds to the humanitarian imperative, makes the best use of resources available, maximises results for the people affected, and enhances the reputation of the Federation. Ideally, the ICRC should be part of such cooperation in complex emergency situations.

Further, the cooperation should be based on an agreement between the relevant parties that respects both the local National Society and its development needs, and the imperative to meet humanitarian needs at a scale commensurate with those needs. The agreement should cover:

1) Preparedness and recovery, not just emergency response; 2) Medium term financial and, where necessary, technical support, before, during and after

crises; 3) A well-developed National Society development strategy that all parties are ready to invest

in; 4) Full disclosure by the National Society concerning its development needs and challenges; 5) Sufficient financial resources for the Secretariat to play its designated role in coordination

and organisational development.

Recommendation 3: Expand and the use of, and modify, the OCAC process

1) Further encourage the use of OCAC by National Societies, expanding Secretariat resources to support a faster roll out of at least Phase 1, as required.

2) Adjust the OCAC process to allow National Societies to make an explicit self-assessment of their alignment with Strategy 2020, not just of their strategic planning in general.


47

229. The Movement Cooperation Agreement (MCA), currently under consideration by the SMCC process, may provide the basis of such an agreement. However, the new form of agreement proposed here includes contingency plans for practical implementation going well beyond in-principle definitions of roles and responsibilities in the case of an emergency. Whether or not the MCA provides a solution, some form of country-level cooperation agreement is required.

230. It is proposed that the most difficult or contentious crisis situations should be avoided when testing such an agreement in case difficulties in concluding an agreement in these situations leads to the idea of the compact being set aside.

7.5 Collective, reliable preparation for disaster response is required

231. Acting collectively, the RCRC has the potential to be the largest, most important and most effective disaster response network in the world but it remains vulnerable to responding too slowly or at inadequate scale because the Federation allows the preferences and capacities of individual National Societies to determine the nature and scale of IFRC response, understanding that governments may limit the scale and nature of the activities of the National Society.

232. For countries with high-risk environments, the IFRC has inadequate risk assessment, capacity assessment of National Societies, and joint planning between Movement partners. Improvements in collective preparedness could considerably enhance the collective performance of the Federation and the credibility of the RCRC with governments, donors, UN agencies, and other partners.

233. A new financing arrangement that makes the Secretariat less dependent on emergency appeals will be required if the Secretariat is to have the capacity to play its international coordination role in preparedness and response.

7.6 Specifying and monitoring alignment with Strategy 2020

234. We believe it is both possible and desirable for the IFRC to clarify the meaning of National Society ‘alignment’ with Strategy 2020. We propose that a set of 10-12 elements be derived from Strategy 2020 that should appear in every National Society strategic plan. These elements could be expressed as ‘alignment criteria’ with short descriptive indicators to help National Societies understand the criteria. The Secretariat could then be asked to monitor and report on the alignment of National Society strategic plans.

Recommendation 5: Ensure collective preparedness

The IFRC should ensure that, collectively, its members are ready to respond to emergencies in the 20 most at-risk countries or sub-regions by:

1) Mapping the most important disaster and conflict risks in that country or sub-region, using freely available data on multi-risk assessment of countries, combined with local knowledge and assessments.

2) Comparing the likely crisis scenarios against local National Society response capacities 3) Planning how to meet the likely scenarios by supplementing local capacity as required using

the collective capacity of RCRC network,

The resulting collective preparedness plans should result in readiness to respond at a certain scale and set targets for financial contributions from the parties involved, in the event of a crisis, while making advance investments in local capacity in preparedness (See also Recommendation 4).


48

235. It would also be possible for the General Assembly to encourage, and, if necessary, depending on progress, require all National Societies to reassess their strategic plans against the alignment criteria, within a defined period, and adjust the plans as necessary. This would almost certainly have a positive impact on the quality of National Society strategic plans but would require a more assertive approach by IFRC governance to the application of Strategy 2020 than it has shown so far, which itself may meet resistance from some members.

7.7 Setting a few major targets the Federation network

236. Ideally, indicators and means of verification should have been devised at the time of the adoption of Strategy 2020 for each of its eighteen expected impact statements. Given that this did not take place, and that the IFRC’s capacity to monitor its collective programme outputs is only gradually emerging, we consider that it is not realistic for the IFRC to establish, monitor and report on a comprehensive set of indicators for Strategy 2020 by the year 2020. As a more realistic alternative at the Strategy 2020 mid-term, we propose that the IFRC agree a few major and motivational targets for the Federation network to achieve collectively over the next five years, along the same lines as the One Billion Coalition, and with voluntary participation from the membership.

Recommendation 6: Further align National Society planning with Strategy 2020

The IFRC should encourage National Societies to align themselves more closely to Strategy 2020 by:

1) Developing a set of 10-12 alignment criteria 2) Encouraging all National Societies developing new strategic plans before 2020 to ensure

they meet the alignment criteria 3) Encouraging all National Societies that have already revised their plans using Strategy 2020

to verify that their plans meet the alignment criteria, and to make adjustments if need be. 4) Requesting the Secretariat to generate an annual report on the degree of alignment of the

current set of National Society strategic plans for the consideration of the Governing Board.

15. Depending on the results of the annual report, the Governing Board might decide to require all National Societies to review their plans against the alignment criteria and revise them as required.

Recommendation 7: Set Federation-wide targets for achievement by the year 2020

Adopt a few (maximum three-four) key Federation-wide quantifiable targets, and mobilise financial resources for them, in addition to the One Billion Coalition commitment, with perhaps one target per Strategy 2020 Strategic Aim. Illustrative candidate targets might include:

1) One of the pledges in the IFRC Declaration on the post-2015 humanitarian agenda: ‘We commit to enabling every community in high risk areas to have a capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters’, or ‘We commit to having a volunteer in every community in which we work who is responsible for facilitating access to basic health services’.

2) Other targets could be derived from Strategy 2020, for example, ‘to reach 1 million people with a message on peace and non-violence by 2020’.

3) Given the priority of increasing domestic income, a target could be for National Societies to increase domestic income by an agreed percentage, either individually or collectively

4) One of the targets might be set jointly with the ICRC around an area of common interest, for example, and again illustratively, one aspect of health, or water and sanitation.


49

7.8 Setting Secretariat Priorities

237. The MTR findings and the current draft Secretariat Plan and Budget are already relatively well aligned. As the Secretariat concludes its planning process, the MTR team would like to emphasise the importance of allocating resources to certain Secretariat roles to further the utilisation and impact of Strategy 2020.

7.9 Communicating the Federation mandate and comparative advantage

238. Feedback from external stakeholders indicates that the IFRC is not communicating its distinctive role strongly enough. While the IFRC rightly emphasises it principles and values within the Federation, and Strategy 2020 provides a basis for general communication of the mandate and ways of working of the Federation membership, the IFRC must reach greater clarity on its identity and be ready to communicate more clearly and forcefully to external audiences. Its ability to raise financial resources for the future will be critically dependent clear, high quality communication. The Secretariat itself needs to regain clarity of purpose and to communicate this through the organisation.

Recommendation 9: Communicate confidently the unique identity, role and mandate of the Red Cross Red Crescent

The IFRC should develop a clear and confident communication strategy as the basis for fundraising and as a foundation for new partnerships, with different communication strategies for communicating with 1) governments, 2) humanitarian partners, and 3) donors. The World Humanitarian Summit offers an opportunity for the Federation to clarify its position and comparative advantage in relation to other humanitarian actors. The Secretariat must also communicate internally to re-establish its sense of purpose and direction and raise the morale of staff.

Recommendation 8: Align the Secretariat Plan and Budget with the MTR

Further align the MTR findings with the Secretariat Plan and Budget by ensuring resources are devoted to core Secretariat roles, especially:

1) National Society development priorities, as noted in Recommendation 1; 2) Data management, especially with regard to the alignment of National Society strategic

planning with Strategy 2020, and to ensure the expansion of FDRS progressively captures programme results against the three Strategy 2020 Strategic Aims;

3) Knowledge brokering, especially knowledge exchange between National Societies and integration of the varied and extensive IFRC guidance materials, and

4) Coordination of preparedness and response.


50

Annex 1 – Terms of Reference Terms of Reference

for the Mid-term Review of Strategy 2020

Summary

1.1. Purpose: The purpose of this review is to assess the achievements to date of the IFRC and its members against the strategic aims, enabling actions, and expected impacts articulated in Strategy 2020. It is further expected to provide recommendations for improving or adjusting the strategy to remain a useful guiding document until 2020.

1.2. Audience: The intended audience for this review are National Societies and the IFRC Secretariat through the Secretary General.

1.3. Commissioner: This review is being commissioned by the Secretary General on behalf of the General Assembly of the IFRC.

1.4. Reports to: Oversight for this review will be provided by an Advisory Committee, chaired by the Under-Secretary General of National Society and Knowledge Development. Day-to-day management of this review will be handled by the Head of the Planning and Evaluation Department.

1.5. Duration: A total of 70-80 working days is allocated to cover this review, from the point of inception through to final report, inclusive of any related travel and a range of technical inputs.

1.6. Timeframe: It is anticipated that this review will take between four and five months to complete. The final report and any related activities should be completed by 15th July 2015.

1.7. Location: The work related to this review will take place in Geneva

(Switzerland), with likely travel to four or five additional locations. These locations may include member National Societies and IFRC Secretariat offices.

2. Background

The General Assembly of the IFRC in 2009 in Nairobi formally “adopted” Strategy

2020. The decision sheet, as the official record of the session, further states that the

General Assembly “requests the Secretary General to prepare a mid-term review in

2015”79.

The practice of using 10-year strategies has been well established at the IFRC over recent decades. Strategy 2020 was itself informed by a review of Strategy 2010.

Prior to that strategy there was the Strategic Work Plan for the Nineties. As a membership organization the IFRC uses these long-term strategies to define the mission and strategic directions for not only the IFRC as an international organization, but also for all the national societies which are member of the IFRC.

The General Assembly Decision sheet in 2009 specifically “encourages and requests

National Societies to base their own future strategic plans on Strategy 2020” and to utilize it in “setting the agenda for statutory regional conferences and in developing regional approaches to tackle challenges in common”.

1. 79 IFRC -17th session of the General Assembly – Decision sheet


51

When Strategy 2020 was approved it became the basis for strategic plans of National Societies. It is therefore described as a “dynamic framework that is responsive to differing contexts and changing circumstances”.

Strategy 2020 itself recommends the practice of taking stock of how the strategy has been able to influence the work and results of the IFRC and its members. Half-way through the period covered by Strategy 2020 a review is to be carried out looking into achievements so far and recommendations for the remainder of time left under the Strategy. The final report will form the basis for discussions and decisions at the General Assembly in 2015.

3. Review Purpose & Scope

3.1. Purpose (overall objective)80.

The overall purpose of this review is to assess the achievements to date of the IFRC and its members against the strategic aims, enabling actions, and expected impacts set out in Strategy 2020. It is further expected to provide recommendations for improving or adjusting the strategy to remain a useful guiding document until 2020.

3.2 Scope.

The primary unit of analysis for this review is the IFRC, as the international organisation defined by the Constitution, the National Societies as members of the IFRC and the Secretariat of the IFRC, including the Geneva office and the five zones. The period under review is from 2010 till the start of the review.

4. Objectives of the Review and Key Questions

As part of the process to meet the purpose stated above, the review will consider the following sets of questions:

Relevance

1. Has Strategy 2020 provided strategic direction to the IFRC and its members?

If so, was the direction focused enough or not?

2. Is Strategy 2020 still a relevant document today to guide the IFRC? Are there aspects of the work of the IFRC today which cannot be aligned with Strategy 2020?

3. Has Strategy 2020 given strategic direction to young people (under 30) working or volunteering with National Societies?

Effectiveness (and possibly impact)

4. What difference has Strategy 2020 made in the lives of vulnerable people?

Did Strategy 2020 contribute to saving lives and changing minds?

5. How clear are the indicators for measuring the impact of Strategy 2020? Have they been used and what are the results of such measurement? Should additional measurements be considered? If so how?

6. Is the IFRC doing more, doing better, reaching further since 2010? If so, how can this be linked to Strategy 2020?

Coherence

7. Has Strategy 2020 been seen as and implemented in a manner consistent with humanitarian principles and human rights based approaches?

Utility

8. Has Strategy 2020 been used by National Societies in setting out their own strategic plans? If so, how? If not, why?

1. 80 The wording of the Purpose was modified during the Inception Phase


52

9. Has Strategy 2020 been useful in raising resources for the IFRC and its members to implement programmes and services at community level?

5. Proposed Methodology

The methodology for this review will need to consider the fabric of the IFRC as an organisation with members that are legally independent of the IFRC. In addition to a desk review of documents and a selection of key informant interviews it is expected the methodology will allow for the collection of feedback from not only National Society leadership, but also from a broad selection of staff and volunteers.

With only limited time and resources available to carry out this review it is encouraged to make optimum use of opportunities that will present themselves in early 2015 during different fora and events where National Societies and the IFRC meet.

The use of social media and visuals for data collection will be highly encouraged and also the reporting on the review is expected to make use of visual materials. The review will be overseen by an Advisory Group, chaired by the Under-secretary General of the National Society and Knowledge Development division. For the day-to –day management the consultant(s) will work with the Head of the Planning and Evaluation Department.

6. Deliverables (or Outputs)

Inception report, due TBC with selected team

The inception report will include a description of the proposed methodologies, data collection, process to ensure learning, and dates for anticipated deliverables. The inception report should also elaborate on the structure and profile of necessary participants in the review. Any risks to the evaluation should be identified, such as outstanding technical needs, timing and travel.

Debriefings – workshops – progress reports. A schedule of formal presentations and updates on progress of the review.

Draft reports, first one due TBC with selected team.

Final report, due TBC with selected team.

In addition to the components described above in the Draft Report, the Final Report should include an executive summary, background of the review, description of the methods and limitations, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, recommendations, and appropriate appendixes, including a copy of the TOR, data collection instruments, and full citations for any cited resources. The recommendations should include detailed proposals on how Strategy 2020 can be elaborated or adjusted to ensure maximum relevance and utility for national societies and the IFRC as a whole for the period 2015-2020.

7. Proposed Timeline

This timeline should be reviewed, revised and presented in the inception report. The schedule below is for illustrative purposes only.

Time Schedule Activities Deliverables

Weeks 1- 2 1. Desktop study. 2. Development of detailed inception report

Inception report.

Weeks 3 - 4 1. Preparation of data collection tools. 2. Identify participants for interviews 3. Further document review

Data collection tools, List of participants.

Weeks 4– 10 1. Data collection (including field visits) 2. Analysis of financial data, 3.Modelling of different scenarios

Monthly progress reports

Week 11 Write draft report Draft 1of report

Week 12 1. Present draft findings and recommendations to the Governing Board

Recommendations from GB


53

Weeks 14 -15 1. Address feedback and revise report where appropriate

Draft reports

Week 16 Finalise report Final report

8. Evaluation Quality & Ethical Standards

The consultant(s) should take all reasonable steps to ensure that this review is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the consultant(s) should adhere to the evaluation standards:

1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.

2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.

3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.

4. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.

5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.

6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.

7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.

8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation. It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality. Further information can be obtained about these principles at: www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp”


54

Annex 2 – Interviewees

REGIONS

AFRICA

Anselme Katiyunguruza, Secrétaire Général, Croix-Rouge du Burundi

Alasan Senghore, Director, IFRC Africa Zone

Pamela Torko, Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Officer, Zimbabwe RCRC

Sidibé Hadoza, Secrétaire Exécutive, Niger RC

Pasteur A MBAO BOGO, Président, CAR – Croix Rouge Centrafricaine

Koffi Addo, Ghana RC

Osman Afar, Secretary General, Sudan RC

Mali Country Visit

Abdourahmane Cisse, President

Mamadou M. Traore, Secretary-general

Nouhoum Maiga, Programme Coordinator

Abdi Mohamed Dirieh, Deputy Head of Delegation, ICRC Mali

Marco la Pietra, Country Coordinator, Swiss Red Cross

Xavier Argoud, Country Representative Luxemburg Red Cross

Rudolf Visser, Delegate, Netherlands Red Cross

Ismaila Haidara, Resource Mobilisation

AMERICAS

Xavier Castellanos, IFRC Americas Zone Director

Daniel Lozano Aguilar, Director General CEO, Mexico Red Cross

Maria Cecilia Villafañe, Director General, Argentina RC

Lily Bowman, Director General, Belize RC

Dr. Abel Peña y Lillo Telleria, President, Bolivia RC

Gustavo Lara Tapia, Director General, Dominican Republic RC

Brad Gutierrez, Director, International Policy & Relations, America RC

Idalberto Gonzalez, Director General, Costa Rica RC

Costa Rica Country Visit

Idalberto Gonzalez, Director General, Costa Rica RC

Sr. Miguel Carmona Jiménez, President

Andrés Echeverría F. Country Coordinator Costa Rica and Panama

Andrés Morales, IFRC Volunteering and youth mobilization coordinator

Orlando Esquive, Deputy Director General

Carolina Vargas Orlando, Deputy planning Officer

Karla Henry Vargas, National Director of Resource Mobilization

Ana Artavia Duran, Assistant director CR RC Youth

Ana Betty Valenciano Moscoso, Head of Admin, San Antonia

Oscar Viquez. Admin

Carlos Barrantez Aluarez, Assistant Regional

Ronald Gonsalez Sanchez, Administrator

Grevin Vasquez. Volunteer

José Badilla Sandoval Driver

ASIA-PACIFIC


55

Mme Fatima Gailani, President, Afghan Red Crescent Society

Namulau’ulu Tautala Mauala, Secretary General, Samoa RC

Pum Chantinie, Secretary General, Cambodia RC

Clement Manuri, Deputy Secretary General, Soloman Islands RC

Gwendolyn Pang, Secretary General, Philippines RC

Richard Gordon, Chairman, Philippines RC

Peter Walton, Head of International Programme, Australia RC

Otohiko Hori, Director General, International Department, Japan RC

Undram Chinges, Youth Advisor, Mongolia RC

Mohammad Zaidi Arffin, Youth President, Singapore RC

Sevuloni Ratu, Youth Coordinator, Fiji RC

Nepal Country Visit

Ratna Dhakhwa, Secretary General, Nepal RC

Dibya, Head of Communications Department

Ms Puja, Governance Secretary

Mr Sudarshan, Director of OD

Ms Tara, PMER Officer

Els Schapendonk, Country Delegate, Belgium RC, Flanders in Nepal

EUROPE

Bas van Rossum, Chairman, European Coordination Committee

Ulrika Årehed Kågström, Secretary General, Swedish Red Cross

Dr Werner Kerschbaum, Secretary General, Austria RC

Dr. Victar Kalbanau Vassilievich, Secretary General, Belarus RC

Natia Loladze, President, Georgia RC

Patrizia Ravaioli, Secretary General, Italian RC

Dilorom Mirova, Deputy Director General, Tajikistan RC

Serbia Country Visit

Vesna Milenovic, Secretary General

Ljubomir Miladinovic, Head of International, Serbia RC

Simka Somer, Vice President

Sanja Drezgic Ostojic, Programme manager

Natasa Todorovic, Coordinator, Elderly Care Programme

Milutin Vracevic, Coordinator, Elderly Care Programme

Lidija Ric Rihter, Secretary, Vojvodina Red Cross

Aleksandar Pantelic, Secretary, Local Branch, Stari Grad and volunteers

Sasha Avram, International Relations and IHL Dissemination

Jelena Andjelic, International Relations Officer, Anti-trafficking Program Coordinator and volunteers

Gordana Milenkovic, Communications and Cooperation, ICRC, Belgrade

Marina Ivanovic, Head of Human Rights and Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MENA

Nabih Jabr, Under Secretary General, Lebanon RC

Mohammed Abdulsattar, Acting Secretary General, Iraq RC

Dr. Ghazale Nazifkar, Deputy Director General, Principles, Rules & IHL, Iran RC

Dr. Mohammed Bendali, Head of Programmes - Aid Division, Youth, Volunteering, Relief and Disaster Management, Morocco RC


56

Essam Abdulgalil, Head of Corporate Planning, Qatar/Doha RC

Egypt Country Visit

Professor Moamena Kamel, Secretary General, Egyptian Red Crescent Society

Governing board member/s Dr. Safaa El Baz, Mr. Aly Moubarak

Dr. Nehal Hefny – Projects & Programs Coordinator

Mohamed Mohei – Manager of Training Department

Mohamed Ahmed – Assistant Manager of Relief unit

Dr. Tamer Ahmed – Emergency Action Team Coordinator

Dr. Salma Abdel Aziz – RFL & Tracing Department

Dr. Basant Motawi – Monitoring & Evaluation Officer

Mr. Osama Youssef – HR Consultant

Dr. Elham Amin – Assistant to project director & volunteer

Ahmed Hos ni , Ministry of Education

Galal Eid El Sawaf, Ministry of Education

Abdallah Salah El Din, National Crisis Management Committee

Tarek Mohamed, National Crisis Management Committee

Dr. Ahmed El Ansari, Director, Egyptian Ambulance Organizations

Luc Haas, deputy head of delegation, ICRC

Ossama Abdel Razek, cooperation delegate, ICRC

Sherif Fetouh, UNHCR

Manal Arnous, UNRWA

Operational staff, Zeinholm Slum Development project

Branch director, operational staff and volunteers, Ismaileya Branch

SECRETARIAT

As Sy, Secretary-General

Matthias Schmale, USG National Society Knowledge Development

Walter Cotte, USG Programme Services

Joelle Tanguy, USG Humanitarian Diplomacy

Dennis Duffaut, IFRC Regional Representative, Central Africa

Awa Diagne, IFRC Organizational Development Manager, Sahel Region

Jagan Chapagain, Director, Asia Pacific Zone

Martin Faller, Head of Operations, IFRC-APZ

Naomi Akamatsu, Organizational Development, IFRC-APZ

Jim Catampongan, Health Coordinator, IFRC-APZ

John Gwynn, Organizational Development Coordinator, IFRC-APZ

May Maloney, Gender & Diversity Advisor, IFRC-APZ

Ritva Lahti, Head of Delegation, IFRC- Nepal

Maria del Mar Rodriguez, Advisor to VP, IFRC Americas Region

Anitta Underlin, Director, IFRC Europe Zone

Elias Ghanem, IFRC Zone Director, Middle East North Africa Zone

Josse Gillijns, Head, Planning & Evaluation

Scott Chaplowe, M&E Senior Officer, Planning & Evaluation Department

Mohammed Mukhier, Head, Community Preparedness

Roger Fiscli, Senior Officer, Performance & Development

Elise Baudot, Head, Legal Department


57

Frank Mohrhauer, Head, Governance Support

Rudina Pema, Senior Regional Advisor, Europe and Coordinator of the General Assembly 2015

Graham Saunders, Head IFRC Shelter Programme & Global Cluster Coordinator, Shelter Cluster

Geri Lau, Head, Youth Action & Volunteering

Stephen Omollo, Head of Strategic Partnerships & International Relations

Gabriel Pictet, Head, Health Department

Andrew Risk, Head, Finance Department

Giovanni Zambello, Public Communication Senior Officer

Mohammed Mukhier, Disaster Risk Reduction, Community Resilience

Mukul Bhola, Project Coordinator, Everyone Counts

Imon Choudhry, Consultant, Everyone Counts

Shaun Hazledean, Senior Officer, Volunteering Development

ICRC

Yves Daccord, Director General, ICRC

STANDING COMMISSION

Greg Vickery, Chairman/Secretary, Committee for Movement Coordination

EXTERNAL

Mukesh Kapila, former Under Secretary General, IFRC and principal author of S2020

MULTI-LATERAL AGENCIES

Paul Howe, Chief, Emergencies and Transitions Unit, Policy and Programme Division, WFP (written input)

Paulette Jones, Partnerships Officer, WFP Geneva (written input)

Tammi Sharpe, Chief of Partnership a.i., Governance & Partnership Service, Division of External Relations, UNHCR Geneva

Tiziana Clerico, Senior External Relations Officer, Governance & Partnership Service, Division of External Relations, UNHCR Geneva

DONORS

Anne de Riedmatten, First Secretary, Humanitarian Affairs Section, Swiss Permanent Mission to the UN

Joshua Tabah, Counsellor, Humanitarian Affairs, Permanent Mission of Canada, Geneva

Anna Thomson, Programme Manager Unit for Humanitarian AssistanceSwedish International

Development Co-operation Agency (SIDA)


58

Annex 3 - Documents Consulted

IFRC STRATEGIES/STRATEGY RELATED

Strategy 2020: Saving Lives, Changing Minds, IFRC 2009

The Business Model to realise Strategy 2020, IFRC 8 June 2010

IFRC Aligning with Strategy 2020: A brief review of National Societies' key documents, Geneva

October 2011

Community Preparedness and DRR contributing to Strategy 2020 (interpretation)

Community Preparedness and Risk Reduction Department: Roles and Responsibilities

Federation-Wide Resource Mobilization Strategy: Resourcing our shared future, IFRC

2011

IFRC Strategic Operational Framework for Health 2012

IFRC Strategic Framework on Gender and Diversity, 2013-2020

Youth Engagement Strategy, IFRC Geneva 2013

Strategy for Implementation 1: Support building of strong National Societies, draft

18 May 2015

Strategy for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Update 2005

Mid Term Review of Strategy 2010 2005

Federation of the Future, IFRC May 2006

Review of Strategy 2010 April 2009

Strategic Planning Guidelines for National Societies: Developing and Implementing a Strategic Plan in a National Society, IFRC

2012

Strategic Planning Toolkit: Tools & Resources for developing and implementing a Strategic Plan in a National Society, IFRC

2012

Strategy 2020 and Post 2015

Master Copy of Policy Strategy and Knowledge Management spreadsheet

GUIDELINES/POLICIES/PLANS

IFRC: Accountability and Transparency Plan of Action, July 4 2014

Project/Programme Planning Guidance Manual 2010

Draft Handbook for coordination: Working together in international disaster response

September 2010

Principles and Rules for Red Cross and Red Crescent Humanitarian Assistance 2013

Youth as Agents of Behaviour Change

IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 2014

2013 Risk Reduction Mapping: Growing our services for vulnerable people and strengthening our contribution to sustainable development

IFRC Humanitarian Diplomacy Policy

IFRC 2016-2020 Health Plan

National Society Development Framework 2013

IFRC Building Strong National Societies: Organizational Capacity Assessment and Certification

May 2014

Cover Note to National Societies, Vision Paper first consultation June 2015

IFRC The Way We Finance 2014

ISD Guidance for Planning Teams

Terms of reference for the Plan and Budget Review Committee 12 March 2015


59

IFRC Plan and Budget, 2014-2015

Plan and Budget 2016-2020, plus various background papers July 2015

2016-2020 Planning: Strategies for Implementation: Engage in dynamic humanitarian diplomacy, partner and mobilise people and resources

18 May 2015

2016-2019 Strategy for implementation: 3 Strengthening the IFRC by strengthening governance and the leadership of the governing board

12 May 2015

IFRC Template for 2016-2020 strategic plans: Area of focus 1 - DRR response and recovery draft

19 May2015

IFRC Plan and budget 2016-2019: Strategic Aim 3: Promote social inclusion and a culture of non-violence and peace

Towards 2016-2020 plan and budget: Partnering for more resilient communities

15 April 2015

RCRC Engagement in the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) 15 December 2014

IFRC and the Millennium Development Goals: Protecting Human Dignity

EVALUATIONS/REVIEWS/REPORTS

Learning from the Nineties, Evaluation Report Main Findings (draft), IFRC

IFRC Annual Report 2013

National Society and Knowledge Development Division Annual Report 2013

Governance Review: ‘Governing Board Performance Accountability, Evaluation and the Impact of Board Decisions’ Cossin, Strebel, Braga, Caballero

May 2013

Suggested action points for the follow-up to the IFRC governance review

Review of the Decentralization of the IFRC Secretariat, Accenture June 2013

Progress Report on Strengthening Movement Coordination and Cooperation (SMCC)

26 March 2015

Global Volunteer Review & Global Review on Volunteering: Semi Structured Interview Questions for National Societies

Youth as Agents of Behaviour Change, FedNet

Word Cloud Reasons Volunteers Leave

IFRC Terms of Reference for IFRC support Tropical Cyclone Pam response operation in the Pacific region

May 2015

Everyone Counts: Key data from 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies – a baseline

November 2014

Everyone Counts (draft): Due October 2015

Midline Review IFRC Strategy on Violence Prevention, Mitigation and Response

2015

Factsheet: Midline Review IFRC Strategy on Violence Prevention, Mitigation and Response

2015

CAMPAIGNS

The One Billion Coalition for Resilience – Safer, healthier and strong communities, IFRC

WCDRR – Questions and Answers about the One Billion Coalition Initiative, IFRC

The One Billion Coalition for Resilience: Discussion Paper on Levels of Resilience, IFRC

March 2015

BOARD/COUNCIL OF DELEGATES/GA

IFRC 17th

Session of the General Assembly, Nairobi, Kenya, Decision Sheet 18-21 November 2009

Movement Coordination and Cooperation, Summary of Findings, Council of Delegates, Sydney

17-18 November 2013


60

Strengthening Movement Coordination and Cooperation - Resolution, Council of Delegates, Sydney

17-18 November 2013

Vision for a strengthened Red Cross & Red Crescent humanitarian response, Council of Delegates, Sydney

17-18 November 2013

19th Session of the General Assembly, Sydney, Australia, 12-15 November 2013, Item 2.3 of the agenda, National Society development framework

2013

IFRC Decisions: 30th

Session of the Governing Board, Geneva 12-14 November 2014

IFRC Board Session: Strategy 2020 Mid Term Review (including report on the findings of the global review on Volunteering)

29 April – 1 May 2015

31st

Session of the Governing Board, Geneva, Switzerland,: “The World is Changing, Volunteering is Changing, Are We?” A summary of key findings from the Global Review on Volunteering

29 April-1 May 2015

MOVEMENT RELATED

Guidance Note, The coordination process for agreeing a Movement Coordination Agreement between the Components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

Movement Branding Initiative, Q & A 13 March 2015

Vision of the International RCRC Movement June 2015

Targets for RCRC Implementation-Final

RCRC: Movement Branding Initiative, Questions & Answers

Progress Report on Strengthening Movement Coordination and Cooperation (SMCC),

26 March 2015

Strengthening Movement Coordination and Cooperation (SMCC), Draft Report to the Reference Group

12 June 2015

Vision of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement June 2015

Federation and Movement coordination and cooperation 2016-2020

AFRICA

Sierra Leone RCS, Strategy Road Map 2014-2018: A Stronger Red Cross for a Risk-Challenged Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone Red Cross Society, Strategy Road Map 2014-2018 May 2014

Pan-African Conference 2012, Investing in Africa 2012

IFRC 8th

Pan-African Conference, Investing in Africa: Addis Ababa Plan of Action, 19-22

October 2012

Global Organizational Development pilot project: Building sustainable local capacity in the branches of the Ghana Red Cross, Evaluation report

2012

Working Together for a Better Africa : Africa Zone Humanitarian Diplomacy Planning Meeting, Addis, powerpoint

18-20 Mar 2014

Global Organizational Development pilot project: Building sustainable local capacity in the branches of the Ghana Red Cross: Evaluation report

2012

AMERICAS

Strategic Plan Argentina RC 2011-2015

Bahamas RC Strategic Plan 2011-2015

Antigua and Barbuda RC Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017

Red Cross Inter-American Framework for Action 2012-2016, XIX Inter-American Conference, Montrouis, Haiti

March 2012


61

XIX Inter-American Conference of the Red Cross, Montrouis, Haiti: The Montrouis Commitment

March 13-16 2012

XX Inter-American Conference of the Red Cross, Texas, USA: Houston Commitment

March 28-30 2015

Red Cross Inter-American Framework for Action 2016-2020, XX Inter-American Conference of the Red Cross, Texas, USA

March 28-30 2015

Evaluación del Marco de Acción Interamericano 2012-2015 (powerpoint)

ASIA-PACIFIC

Cambodia RC National Strategy, 2011-2020: Saving Lives, Changing Minds

Australian Red Cross Strategy, 2015: Working as One

New Zealand Red Cross Society International Strategy 2015-2018: Sharper Focus for Greater Impact

Fiji Red Cross Society Strategic Plan 2015-2019

Long Term Planning Framework, 2012-2015, Asia-Pacific Zone 21 March 2014

The Beijing Call for Innovation October 2014

9th

Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the RCRC: Beijing, China: Workshop 7: New Strategic Directions for Disaster Management and Resilience Agenda in Asia Pacific

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China , Workshop Background Paper, Innovative and Sustainable Partnership

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China , Workshop Background Paper, Climate Change and Urbanization

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China , Workshop Background Paper, National Societies Development Paper

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China , Workshop Background Paper, Volunteers, the Backbone of Community Based Initative

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China, Workshop Background Paper, Community resilience: Integrating Health and disaster risk reduction

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China, Workshop Background Paper, Engaging with New Technology and Developing an Innovative Mindset

21-24 October 2014

9th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Beijing, China, Workshop Background Paper, New strategic directions for disaster management and resilience in Asia Pacific

21-24 October 2014

EUROPE

British RC: Saving Lives, Changing Lives, 2010 – 2015

Macedonia RC: Improving Lives, Promoting Human Action, Strategic Plan 2020

8th

European Regional Red Cross/Red Crescent Conference, Vienna, Austria, Vienna Commitments and Resolution Adopting the Commitments

13-16 April, 2010

9th

European Regional Red Cross/Red Crescent Conference, Florence Call for Action and Resolution

3-6 June, 2014

MENA

Iraqi Red Crescent Strategic Plan: One Together, 2014-2018

Lebanese RC Strategic Framework 2014 – 2018: A Five-Year Perspective to

https://fednet.ifrc.org/FedNet/Our%20IFRC/Statutory%20Meetings/Governing%20Board/May%202014/AP09_WS5_Community%20resilience_Final_Final_clean_EN.pdf

https://fednet.ifrc.org/FedNet/Our%20IFRC/Statutory%20Meetings/Governing%20Board/May%202014/AP09_WS5_Community%20resilience_Final_Final_clean_EN.pdf


62

Achieve Sustainability, Impact and Self-Reliance with a Process of Reorganisation and Reform

Report on the Sixth Regional Conference for Red Crescent and Red Cross National Societies of Middle East and North Africa Zone (MENA Conference), Damascus, Syria Arab Republic

20-21 June 2009

VIIIth Asia and Pacific Regional Conference, Report on National Societies’ progress against the Amman Commitments

17-20 October, 2010

7th

MENA Conference, UAE: Concept Note 24-26 March 2011

7th MENA Conference: S2020 – MENA Alignment : The Way Forward Draft Concept Note

7th

MENA Conference, UAE, MENA Progress Review 24-26 March 2011

MISCELLANEOUS

RCRC Matters of Principle magazine, Issue 1, 2015

EXTERNAL PAPERS

The Future of Non-Governmental Organisations in the Humanitarian Sector: Global Transformations and Their Consequences, Humanitarian Futures Programme Discussion Paper for the Start Network

August 2013


63

Annex 4 – Revised Questions for the Mid Term Review of Strategy 2020

(from the MTR Inception Report)

Relevance

1. Is Strategy 2020 considered by National Societies and the Secretariat to be relevant in 2015?

2. To what extent do National Societies see their priorities reflected in Strategy 2020?

3. To what extent and in what ways has Strategy 2020 been used by National Societies and the Secretariat in setting out their own strategic plans?

4. Are National Society strategic plans built directly on Strategy 2020, or broadly consistent with Strategy 2020?

5. How inclusive was the consultation process for arriving at Strategy 2020?

6. Does Strategy 2020 accurately reflect the consultations with National Societies and the Secretariat that preceded its agreement?

7. Which elements of Strategy 2020 have been discussed at IFRC regional conferences and with what result?

8. How well does Strategy 2020 capture trends, opportunities, challenges and risks that affect the National Societies?

9. Does Strategy 2020 identify the most important global threats for the period 2010-2020? Have new threats emerged since?

10. How relevant is Strategy 2020 in the light of the new global development and agreements, e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals, the replacement for the Hyogo Framework, the New Deal for fragile states, the likely outcomes of the World Humanitarian Summit, Climate Change financing, etc.?

11. Are there priority aspects of the work of National Societies and the Secretariat that do not fit with Strategy 2020?

12. Has Strategy 2020 been interpreted by National Societies in a way that gives strategic direction to young people (under 30) working or volunteering with National Societies?

13. Are their elements of Strategy 2020 that are unclear in their meaning to National Societies and the Secretariat? Are there elements of Strategy 2020 that cannot be implemented for lack of clarity?

Effectiveness

14. To what extent do the National Societies and the Secretariat consider that Strategy 2020 has made them more effective?

15. What further support do National Societies need in order to deliver against Strategy 2020, either from the Secretariat, via National Society peer to peer support, or otherwise?

16. What other external partnerships does the IFRC need to develop in order be able to deliver against Strategy 2020?

17. What challenges have National Societies faced in implementing their own strategies?

18. To what extent would it be helpful to develop indicators for measuring the impact of Strategy 2020?

19. Have indicators developed for the sub-strategies developed under Strategy 2020 been used?

20. Are there measurable results attributable to the adoption and use of Strategy 2020?


64

21. To what extent has the Secretariat reported results and expenditure against Strategy 2020 strategic aims/impacts/enabling actions?

Utility

22. To what extent has the Secretariat been able to set its own institutional strategies based on Strategy 2020?

23. To what extent and in what ways has the work of the National Societies and the Secretariat been changed by the adoption of Strategy 2020?

24. To what extent have National Societies and the Secretariat developed sub-strategies to interpret, develop and implement Strategy 2020’s 3 strategic aims, and the 3 enabling actions?

25. How often is Strategy 2020 referred to in the daily work of the National Societies and the Secretariat?

26. Has Strategy 2020 been useful in raising resources for the IFRC and its members?


65

Annex 5 – General Assembly Resolution 14 of 2009

requests the Secretary General to develop, as quickly as possible, the Federation-wide performance management and reporting system along the lines of the principles agreed in Strategy 2020, for approval by the Governing Board,

encourages and requests National Societies to base their own future strategic plans on Strategy 2020, and to report on progress under the framework of the Federation-wide reporting system,

encourages and requests National Societies to utilise Strategy 2020 in setting the agenda for statutory regional conferences and in developing regional approaches to tackle challenges in common, through regional solutions and cooperation, where it is appropriate and effective to do so,

encourages and requests all Red Cross Red Crescent networks and centres to utilise Strategy 2020 in the further development of their activities,

requests the Secretary General to facilitate and support National Societies in developing their future strategic planning and Federation-wide reporting efforts,

requests the Secretary General to develop an independently validated Federation-wide peer review mechanism to accredit and rate National Societies for approval by the Governing Board,

requests the Secretary General to promote Strategy 2020 as widely as possible with all partners concerned, and to exercise his best efforts to support National Societies in the mobilisation of resources for implementing Strategy 2020,

requests the Secretary General to utilise Strategy 2020 in setting the International Federation Plan and Budget including specific commitments and targets, commits to have the implementation of Strategy 2020 as a standing item in future General Assemblies and requests the Secretary General, to prepare biannual consolidated reports under the framework of the Federation-wide reporting system,

requests the Secretary General to prepare a mid term review in 2015;


66

Annex 6 – IFRC Strategy 2020 MTR Management and Oversight

Advisory Group

The Advisory Group provided a sounding board for the Management Committee and the MTR team. It will have met three times during the review. Two progress reports were prepared for the AG during the process of the MTR. The group was comprised of senior management or governance of one National Society per region, plus a youth representative and an IFRC regional director, as follows:

Xavier Castellanos, Director, Americas Zone Office, IFRC Secretariat (Chair) Bas van Rossum, Chairman, European Youth Coordination Committee Daniel Lozano Aguilar, Director General, CEO, Mexico Red Cross. Fatima Gailani, President, Afghan Red Crescent Anselme Katiyunguruza, Secrétaire Général, Croix-Rouge du Burundi Årehed Kågström, Secretary General, Swedish Red Cross Moamena Kamel, Secretary General, Egypt Red Crescent

MTR Management Committee

The MTR team received extensive guidance and support from the MTR Management Committee throughout the MTR. The role of the committee was to make all key planning decisions concerning methodology, deadlines, names of interviewees, visit locations, etc., consulting the Advisory Group as necessary, and ensuring access all necessary documents and contact details. The members of the Management Committee were:

Scott Chaplowe, M&E Senior Officer, Planning and Evaluation Department, IFRC Sect. Geneva

Simon Eccleshall, Head, Disaster and Crisis Management, IFRC Sect. Geneva John Gwynn, Asia Pacific Organizational Development Coordinator, IFRC Sect. Kuala

Lumpur.

Mid Term Review Team

The members of the Vine Management Consulting Ltd MTR Review Team were:

Simon Lawry-White, Team Leader Piers Campbell, Strategy and Organization Specialist Judith Hushagen, Organizational Development and Facilitation Specialist Janey Lawry-White, Senior Researcher and Review Coordinator


67

Annex 7 - Summary Results from MTR Online Surveys

(Survey results were compiled across four language versions per survey).

239. Notes on interpreting the survey results:

All survey scorings have been amalgamated across the four language versions.

Two types of opinion question were used in the surveys. The first involved picking from an ‘all that apply’ list and the second a rating scale.

For ‘all that apply questions’, if the rating for 72% for disaster preparedness as a priority from now to the year 2020 means simply that 72% of respondents selected preparedness as one of the priorities from a list.

The rating scale type of question asked respondents to score various statements on a scale from eg Disagree Strongly to Agree Strongly. The original scores were: 1= Strongly Disagree,2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4= Strongly agree. Scores for these questions have been converted to percentages, so that: 0% equates to Strongly disagree, 33% to Disagree, 66% to Agree, and 100% to Strongly Agree. For example, where ‘Strategy 2020 helps us to feel part of the wider Red Cross Red Crescent network, a 73.7% score means that there was a slightly stronger then Agree level of agreement. It does not indicate that 73.7% of respondents agreed with the statement.

Open-ended responses to the survey are confidential and remain with MTR team.

Survey scores should not be regarded as highly accurate. Where respondents do not understand a question that they are not able to skip, they will tend to give a neutral answer. Respondents may not believe that the survey is really confidential and, if so, will tend to give the answer they think is expected.

National Societies

4. When did your National Society last update its Strategic Plan? Per cent

Before 2010 14.0

Since 2010 77.0

We do not have a strategic plan 9.0

5. How easy has your National Society found it to interpret and apply the different strategic aims and enabling actions of Strategy 2020?

Per cent

Strategic Aim 1 - Save lives, protect livelihoods, and strengthen recovery from disasters and crises

63.6

Strategic Aim 2 - Enable healthy and safe living 61.3

Strategic Aim 3 - Promote social inclusion and a culture of non-violence 52.2

Enabling Action 1 - Building strong National Societies 53.3

Enabling Action 2 - Pursue humanitarian diplomacy to prevent and reduce vulnerability in a globalized world

49.8

Enabling Action 3 - Function effectively as the International Federation 48.1

6. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the relevance of Strategy 2020?('We' 'us' and 'our' refer to the National Society)

Per cent

For the period 2020-2030, there should be one Movement-wide strategy, combining strategies for the IFRC and ICRC

78.1

Strategy 2020 helps us to feel part of the wider Red Cross Red Crescent network 73.7

The priorities of our National Society are reflected in Strategy 2020 70.6

Strategy 2020 is an improvement over Strategy 2010 70.5

Strategy 2020 is as relevant today as when it was adopted in 2009 69.1

There was full consultation with National Societies leading up to the agreement of Strategy 2020

68.4

The financial and technical support our National Society provides to other National Societies is influenced by Strategy 2020Ê(select 'not relevant' of your NS does not contribute resources to other NS)

67.5

Strategy 2020 is available in our national language 63.5

We refer to Strategy 2020 regularly 62.9


68

Our National Society strategic plan follows the same structure as Strategy 2020 62.5

Our volunteers know about Strategy 2020 43.6

7. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the application of Strategy 2020?

Per cent

Strategy 2020 was thoroughly discussed during the Organisational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC) exercise (select 'Not relevant' if OCAC was not done since 2010)

58.9

Because of Strategy 2020, our National Society has made important changes in its work 56.9

We are more concerned about implementing our own strategy, and less concerned with Strategy 2020

55.1

Our National Society has been well supported by the Secretariat in implementing Strategy 2020

52.6

We referred to Strategy 2020 when developing our strategic plan, but not since then 52.4

Our National Society has developed performance indicators based on Strategy 2020 50.8

Our National Society been well supported by other National Societies in implementing Strategy 2020

48.0

Strategy 2020 has been helpful to us in mobilising financial resources 44.2

8. Which of the following challenges have you experienced in applying Strategy 2020 to your national society? (Select all statements your National Society agrees with)

Per cent

We have not received sufficient support to implement Strategy 2020 50.6

Strategy 2020 is missing some of our National Society priorities 38.8

Strategy 2020 is not focused enough to help us make strategic choices 38.8

We do not have the technical expertise to implement Strategy 2020 37.6

Parts of Strategy 2020 are not in line with our Government’s policies or plans 34.1

Strategy 2020 is difficult to understand 14.1

9. How effective has your Regional Conference been in the following:? Per cent

Helping National Societies to interpret Strategy 2020 in the context of the Region 36.0

Helping National Societies to understand Strategy 2020 34.0

Helping National Societies to apply Strategy 2020 41.0

10. Since Strategy 2020 was adopted, the IFRC has approved a number of policies, strategies and tools to assist with the implementation of Strategy 2020. How useful have the following been to your national society?(Select 'Not relevant' if your National Society is not aware of or does not use the listed policy, strategy or tool).

Per cent

National Society development framework 61.0

Principles and rules for RCRC humanitarian assistance 57.0

Youth engagement strategy 56.0

Framework for community resilience 56.0

Volunteering policy 55.0

Youth policy 55.0

Youth as agents of behaviour change 53.0

IFRC contingency planning guide 53.0

IFRC recovery programming guidance 52.0

Federation-wide resource mobilisation strategy 51.0

Strategic framework on gender and diversity issues 49.0

National Society strategic planning guidelines 47.0

Programming through a livelihoods lens: A livelihoods approach for the IFRC 2013 41.0

Promoting safe and sustainable national blood systems 35.0

Maternal, newborn and child health framework 34.0

11. If Strategy 2020 is to be fully implemented, which of the following elements require the most attention from your National Society from now to the year 2020? (Select at least one and a maximum of 8)

Per cent

Preparing and responding to disasters and crises 75.5

Disaster Risk Reduction 70.2

Volunteers and Communities 66.0

Monitoring and Evaluation 52.1

Disaster Management Systems 51.1

Youth Action 51.1

Auxiliary Status of the National Society 50.0

Humanitarian diplomacy/advocacy 48.9

Climate Change 42.6

Application of the fundamental RCRC principles 42.6


69

Cooperation and partnerships within the Movement 42.6

Better integration of disadvantaged people 40.4

Education and Health Promotion 39.4

Better Health 38.3

Psychosocial intervention and support 37.2

Livelihoods 34.0

Cooperation and resource sharing with non RCRC partners 33.0

Communications 31.9

Recovery 29.8

Logistics 25.5

Intercultural dialogue 14.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

For the period 2020-2030, there should be one Movement-wide strategy

Strategy 2020 helps us to feel part of the wider Red CrossRed Crescent network

The priorities of our National Society are reflected inStrategy 2020

Strategy 2020 is an improvement over Strategy 2010

Strategy 2020 is as relevant today as when it was adopted in2009

There was full consultation with National Societies leadingup to the agreement of Strategy 2020

The support our National Society provides to others isinfluenced by Strategy 2020

Strategy 2020 is available in our national language

We refer to Strategy 2020 regularly

Our National Society strategic plan follows the samestructure as Strategy 2020

Our volunteers know about Strategy 2020

Agreement with the statements about the relevance of Strategy 2020

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strategy 2020 was thoroughly discussed during OCAC

Because of S2020, we have made made importantchanges in its work

We are more concerned with our own strategy,lesswith S2020

We have been well supported by the Sect inimplementing S2020

We referred to S2020 when developing our strategicplan, not since

We have developed performance indicators based onS2020

We have been well supported by other NS inimplementing S2020

S2020 has been helpful to us in mobilising financialresources

Q7. Agreement with statements about the application of Strategy 2020. (per cent)


70

Secretariat Staff and Delegates

1. Your location Per cent

Africa 11.1

Americas 12.2

Asia Pacific 21.1

Europe 10.8

Middle East North Africa 11.9

Secretariat HQ Geneva 32.7

Other 0.3

2. How long have you worked with the IFRC? Per cent

Less than 2 years 22.9

2-5 years 28.3

6-10 years 22.6

11-20 years 18.3

More than 20 years 7.9

3. How familiar are you with the contents of Strategy 2020? Per cent

Very familiar 26.5

Familiar 50.4

Not very famliar 21.3

Not at all familiar 1.7

4. Which of the descriptions below best fits Strategy 2020? Per cent

A strategic plan 30.3

A vision document 34.4

A general guiding framework 33.2

Other description, in your own words (optional) 3.5

5. How easy have National Societies found it to interpret and apply Strategy 2020, including the different strategic aims and enabling actions?

Per cent

Strategy 2020 overall 53.0

Strategic Aim 1 - Save lives, protect livelihoods, and strengthen recovery from disasters and crises

64.1

Strategic Aim 2 - Enable healthy and safe living 59.4

Strategic Aim 3 - Promote social inclusion and a culture of non-violence 48.2

Enabling Action 1 - Building strong National Societies 50.6

Enabling Action 2 - Pursue humanitarian diplomacy to prevent and reduce vulnerability in a globalized world

44.1

Enabling Action 3 - Function effectively as the International Federation 48.0

6. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the relevance of Strategy 2020 to National Societies?

Per cent

Strategy 2020 helps National Societies to feel part of the wider Red Cross Red Crescent network

67.9

There was full consultation with National Societies leading up to the agreement of Strategy 2020

65.9

Strategy 2020 is as relevant to National Societies today as when it was adopted in 2009 63.0

The priorities of our National Societies are well reflected in Strategy 2020 61.3

National Society strategic plans follow the same structure as Strategy 2020 50.2

The financial and technical support provided by National Societies to each other is guided by Strategy 2020

45.6

7. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the application of Strategy 2020 by National Societies?

Per cent

National Societies are more concerned about implementing their own strategy, and less concerned with Strategy 2020

60.8

Strategy 2020 is thoroughly discussed during the Organisational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC) exercises

59.6

Because of Strategy 2020, National Societies have made important changes to their work

51.9

National Societies have developed performance indicators based on Strategy 2020 45.3

Strategy 2020 has been helpful to National Societies in mobilising financial resources 45.1

8. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the relevance of Strategy 2020 to the Secretariat and its implementation?

Per cent


71

For the period 2020-2030, there should be one Movement-wide strategy, combining strategies for the IFRC and ICRC

69.9

Strategy 2020 is an improvement over Strategy 2010 65.5

Strategy 2020 has guided the strategic planning of the Secretariat 63.9

Strategy 2020 helps me to feel part of the wider Red Cross Red Crescent network 59.5

Strategy 2020 has had a positive impact on the work of the Secretariat 58.6

The Secretariat has developed performance indicators based on Strategy 2020 54.9

The Secretariat has supported National Societies well in their implementation of Strategy 2020

54.6

Because of Strategy 2020, the Secretariat has made important changes to its work 50.6

I refer to Strategy 2020 regularly 50.4

I received a specific briefing or training on Strategy 2020 45.1

9. Which of the following challenges have limited the application of Strategy 2020? (Select all statements you agree with)

Per cent

National Societies do not have the technical expertise to interpret and implement Strategy 2020

66.5

The Secretariat has insufficient capacity to support National Society implementation of Strategy 2020

63.8

National Societies have priorities that do not appear in Strategy 2020 58.8

The Secretariat has not been clear internally about how to support the implementation of Strategy 2020

57.7

Strategy 2020 is too broad for the Secretariat to be able to focus its support into a manageable number of priorities

45.8

Strategy 2020 is not focused enough to help National Societies make strategic choices 39.6

Strategy 2020 is difficult to understand 16.2

10. How effective have IFRC Regional Conferences been in the following:? Per cent

Helping National Societies to interpret Strategy 2020 in the context of the Region 54.5

Helping National Societies to understand Strategy 2020 56.0

Helping National Societies to apply Strategy 2020 49.7

11. Since Strategy 2020 was adopted, the IFRC has approved a number of policies, strategies and tools. In your view, how useful have these been in helping to implement Strategy 2020?

Per cent

Principles and rules for RCRC humanitarian assistance 64.3

Youth policy 62.7

Youth engagement strategy 62.5

IFRC contingency planning guide 62.5

Volunteering policy 62.4

National Society development framework 61.6

Youth as agents of behaviour change 61.3

IFRC recovery programming guidance 59.2

Strategic framework on gender and diversity issues 59.1

Framework for community resilience 59.1

National Society strategic planning guidelines 58.6

Maternal, newborn and child health framework 58.3

Promoting safe and sustainable national blood systems 56.7

Programming through a livelihoods lens: A livelihoods approach for the IFRC 2013 56.4

Federation-wide resource mobilisation strategy 46.9

Please mention any other IFRC policy, strategy, tool or document your consider especially useful to National Societies

12. If Strategy 2020 is to be fully implemented, how important is it that the Secretariat gives greater support to the following elements of the strategy between now and the year 2020?

Per cent

Preparing and responding to disasters and crises 84.4

Volunteers and Communities 83.1

Cooperation and partnerships within the Movement 81.9

Disaster Risk Reduction 79.8

Application of the fundamental RCRC principles 79.8

Disaster Management Systems 79.3

Auxiliary Status of the National Society 78.9

Monitoring and Evaluation 77.4

Recovery 77.1

Youth Action 76.6


72

Communications 75.2

Cooperation and resource sharing with non RCRC partners 74.5

Better Health 74.3

Education and Health Promotion 72.9

Humanitarian diplomacy/advocacy 71.8

Climate Change 70.8

Livelihoods 70.7

Better integration of disadvantaged people 70.0

Psychosocial intervention and support 67.9

Logistics 67.6

Intercultural dialogue 64.8


73

Volunteer Survey

1. Your location Per cent

Europe 72.1

Asia Pacific 9.5

Americas 6.2

Africa 6.1

Other 3.7

Middle East North Africa 2.1

Answered question 2537

2. Your age Per cent

Under 18 16.0

18-30 40.4

31-40 16.4

41-50 11.2

51-60 9.1

61-70 5.1

Over 70 1.9

3. How long have you been a Red Cross/ Red Crescent volunteer? Per cent

0-2 years 41.4

3-5 years 23.5

6-10 years 17.0

11-20 years 10.2

More than 20 years 7.9

4. Your gender Per cent

Female 55.9

Male 43.4

Other 0.7

5. Does your National Society have a Strategic Plan? Per cent

Yes 59.6

No 4.7

Don't know 35.7

6. If yes, were you consulted in the development of the Strategic Plan? Per cent

Yes 26.3

No 44.2

Don't know 29.5

7. Which of the following statements best describes your knowledge of the IFRC document ‘Strategy 2020’? Per cent

I am not aware of Strategy 2020. 48.3

I am aware of Strategy 2020 but know little about it. 29.2

I have seen Strategy 2020 and have some understanding of it 15.2

I have a very good understanding of the contents of Strategy 2020 7.3

8. Are you familiar with the diagramme of the Strategy 2020 ‘House’ (the graphical representation of Strategy 2020)? Per cent

Yes 17.5

No 66.4

Don't know 16.1

9. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: “My National Society understands the most important challenges faced by communities in my country” Per cent

Strongly disagree 4.5

Disagree 10.9

Agree 51.8

Strongly agree 21.4

Don't know 11.5

10. Where should your National Society focus additional effort during the next five years? (Choose at least one and a maximum of 6 from the list below) Per cent

Finding and helping the most vulnerable and excluded communities 57.0

Helping young people to have opportunities to improve their lives 56.1

Preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters and conflicts 53.4

Education (formal and informal) 45.9


74

Helping communities to protect themselves from disasters and conflicts 45.5

Preventing and treating diseases and injuries and providing other health services 42.7

Preventing violence and building a peaceful society 42.3

Helping to make sure the government serves the most vulnerable and excluded people 40.0

Communicating the Principles and Values of the Red Cross Red Crescent 37.2

Achieving equality between men and women, boys and girls 29.8

Addressing the effects of climate change 24.0

11. Please rate the overall capacity of your National Society to perform its duties Per cent

Very weak capacity 4.1

Weak capacity 21.4

Strong capacity 48.7

Very strong capacity 12.3

Don’t know 13.5

12. Which of the following organizational capacities need the most improvement in your

National Society during the next five years? (Choose at least one and a maximum of 4 from the list below) Per cent

Staff and volunteer capacity building 58.0

Recruiting volunteers 48.1

Fund raising 42.2

Strategic planning 36.5

Connecting with the global Red Cross/Red Crescent network 34.1

Management and elected leaders 33.6

Monitoring and evaluation 31.4

Influencing the government 28.2

Reporting 13.2

The legal basis for the National Society 10.7

13. Is there a youth or volunteer representative on the Governing Board of your National Society? Per cent

Yes 47.0

No 9.5

Don't know 43.5

14. Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statement: “I have the skills and training I need to be an effective volunteer with my National Society.” Per cent

Strongly disagree 4.3

Disagree 8.4

Agree 50.2

Strongly agree 32.3

Don’t know 4.9

15. For which of the following reasons do you volunteer with your National Society? (Select at least one and a maximum of 4 reasons) Per cent

To help improve lives day to day 66.8

To help save lives during times of crisis 49.6

To use my time productively 41.5

To make my life more meaningful 40.2

To improve my skills 38.3

To feel part of a movement 31.2

To make friends 19.7

To gain experience that will help me to get a job 17.6

Other reasons not listed here 17.1

Because the Red Cross/Red Crescent has helped me (or someone close to me) 12.8

16. How likely are you to continue to volunteer with your National Society in future? Per cent

Very likely 62.8

Likely 27.7

Unlikely 3.6

Very unlikely 2.8

Don’t know 3.0


75

Mid-Term Review of Strategy 2020 - ReliefWeb Midterm... · IFRC Mid Term Review of Strategy 2020 4...

Documents

Transcript of Mid-Term Review of Strategy 2020 - ReliefWeb Midterm... · IFRC Mid Term Review of Strategy 2020 4...