Sudan Campaign:Evaluation case study

Hugh Mouser

Global Witness

25th January 2011

• Aim: To ensure that Sudan’s oil revenues are used to help maintain peace and prevent further conflict between North and South

• Tactics: Research, policy & advocacy

The campaign at a glance

What was required for the campaign aim to be met:

- Clear and fair figures on the who, where, when and how much of oil extraction and trade

- Equitable revenue sharing

- Peace to be maintained

4. Public backing from donors for audit recommendations to be adopted and new wealth sharing agreement to include transparency requirements

Activities:1. Research & publish a briefing

outlining continued discrepancies in oil figures

1. Extensive advocacy targeting US, Norway and UK decision makers, as well as International Finance Institutions

Campaign objectives & activitiesObjectives:

1. Backing from key donor governments and institutions

2. Strong Terms of Reference for an audit drafted by a donor-backed team, and accepted by the Sudanese govt

3. The audit to be carried out, to include strong recommendations, and its results to be made public

Evaluation challenges and solutions

Challenges:• Assessing and communicating

contribution;• Making the process light touch;

Solutions:• Campaigner self-assessment

to be scrutinised by management;

• How long it took - 1-2 hours for campaigner, 1 hour for management; • What happened next - Campaigns Director reviewed alongside other campaign evaluations; overall summary assessment sent to senior management for review

So what

did we learn?

Objective 1 – Met

“Backing from key donor governments and institutions for a transparent audit with strong ToR.”

Activities• Research new evidence of oil discrepancies. • Lobby for language in US Appropriations legislation to force the US to

act.

Outputs• Short briefing using research published.

• Story covered by at least three high impact international, and three well known Sudanese media outlets.

Progress towards objective• Backing secured

Objective 2: Partially met

“Strong ToR drafted by donor-backed team, and accepted by the Sudanese govt”

Activities• Lobby IFIs, US government, Norway. • Lobby Sudan govt, South Sudan govt, Chinese / Malay authorities.

Outputs:• US private commitment to push Sudan govt to accept audit ToR. • Norway govt confirms that audit has been drafted. • Commitments from Sudan govt, South Sudan govt, Chinese / Malay

authorities.

Progress towards objective• Text drafted, but decision now rests with Sudanese president’s office.

Now behind on ambitious schedule.

Objectives 3 & 4 – Not met

“The audit to be carried out. ”

“Public backing from donors for audit recommendations to be adopted and new wealth sharing agreement to include transparency requirements”

Activities• Lobby US govt, IFIs, Sudan govt.

Outputs• Commitment from donors secured to press Sudanese govt,

commitment from Sudanese govt secured to carry out audit / adopt recommendations.

Progress towards both objectives• None.

Any contingency actions or course corrections?• South Sudan’s first ever petroleum policy; satellite photography

research; unable to get visas for Sudan

How was our overall progress?• Some good progress & reputation improving – helped get the audit

drafted and public calls for action. Still disappointing slow rate of change however

What kind of a difference were we making?Positive – in terms of positioning:• Raising awareness of transparency issues in Sudan• Working towards getting an audit carried out • Being poised to influence South Sudan’s first ever petroleum policy• Securing language in US appropriations act to get the govt to act on

corruption issues in South Sudan

Negative:• Delays in getting visas!

What else did we find out?

What evidence did we have for our effectiveness?

Private congratulations on our work:

Off record: Donor government

A major Sudan expert said: “Congratulations on your report! It was an amazing piece of work, and has had a larger impact than any other public report that I can think of on Sudan, and that's no small feat!”

Donor government: our Sudan campaigner was referred to as “a force of nature” on the issue of transparency in Sudan.

Public calls following GW lobbying:

Senior political figures in South Sudan

International Assessment and Evaluation Commission reports

UK’s Africa Minister, Glenys Kinnock

Several UK Lords

Policy tracking:

UK Associate Parliamentary Group on Sudan report namechecks our work and mirrors many of our policy calls.

Media presence and response:

Sudanese United government energy minister invites GW to Khartoum to inspect the oil books, in a live TV debate with our Sudan campaigner on BBC Arabic TV

So what did we know after 6 months?• Positive impact?

– Not yet. Continual monitoring necessary.

• Positive outcomes? – Yes - incremental improvements, but not as much as we had hoped– No – delays in getting hold of visas!

• Contribution to outcomes? – Yes. Disappointed with progress but knew we had done a good job – of course

our work had raised the heckles of North Sudan and prevented us from getting visas.

• On schedule? – To the greatest extent, yes, and all activities carried out

• How did this help us? – Informed tactics: US & Norway were now more responsive to our work– Helped us show our effectiveness and secure new funding for 3 years

• When would we be able to evaluate impact? – When improvements are secured in people's lives.

How did this contribute towards building a learning culture?

• Review of findings and process with individual Campaign Managers individually and together

• Encouraging staff to gather attributions as they go along

• Organisation-wide presentation to follow each round of assessments summarising where the organisation is at

• End of year internal report and external annual review to explain better the timeline of activities leading to outputs, outcomes and chances of impact

What should I take away from this?

• Gather attributions as you campaign

• Keep evaluation light-touch

• Try to ensure someone neutral checks your evaluation

• Build a picture of the consequences of your work