Oxfam, Amnesty, and a Collective Crisis of Conscience

The recent Charity Commission report into Oxfam’s mismanagement of serious sexual misconduct by its staff in Haiti highlighted a "culture of poor behaviour" in one of the UK’s leading humanitarian organisations. This poor behaviour included covering up allegations of abuse and a failure to adequately investigate claims that Haiti country-director Roland van Hauwermeiren had been using prostitutes as young as 12 years old throughout Oxfam’s response to the 2010 earthquake. In response to the report, the UK government has now given Oxfam three weeks to clean up its act, or to risk losing hundreds of millions of pounds of funding in programmes.

This catastrophic failure of safeguarding procedures calls into question not just Oxfam’s policies and processes, but those of the entire international humanitarian sector. Arriving on the heels of an independent report undertaken into the “toxic” workplace culture of Amnesty International following the suicide of two employees in 2018,  and the Save the Children sexual harassment scandal in which 1 in 5 staff members reported workplace harassment or discrimination in the previous three years, this report added fuel to the fire of a burgeoning distrust of the humanitarian sector more generally. For a system that aims to uphold human rights and international law, such failures do more than damage an individual’s or organisation’s reputation; they threaten the whole system’s capacity to function.

The Overseas Development Institute hosted an event on the 11^th of June 2019, coincidentally the day of the release of the Charity Commission report on Oxfam, in which the future of the humanitarian system was discussed. Representatives from several big players in the humanitarian sphere, including Mercy Corps, Solidarités International, and Christian Aid, were to debate the merits of merging International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) in order to streamline international aid. The conversation quickly transitioned towards the wider issue of legitimacy in the humanitarian sphere.  

As these recent damning reports against massive global organisations such as Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Save the Children highlight, a scandal in one place can severely damage effectiveness across the entire programme. In the wake of the scandal, Oxfam immediately saw a drop of 7,000 regular public donors, whilst Save the Children saw revenues drop from £406m in 2017 to £303m in 2018. But more than any one organisation, this issue weakens trust in the entire system.

Large INGOs are no strangers to controversy, alternately being accused of cultural imperialism and promoting neoliberalism in developing countries, all whilst impeding development in local actors by preventing growth of local economies and skills. Meanwhile, ODA and government-led agencies are contributing to the politicisation of aid, detracting from the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality that supposedly guide the sector. As a result, developing countries are increasingly turning their backs on the international humanitarian system.

But it doesn’t need to be like this.

In large part, the current crisis in the sector has been caused by the hubris of some of the big “celebrity” INGOs, whose focus has drifted away from the beneficiaries of humanitarian aid towards their own reputations. This, they might argue, is out of necessity. Oxfam executives might look to justify ignoring allegations of sexual misconduct if the revelation that they were true would prevent the continuation of the other good work being done in the country. For an organisation that requires access to a community of people in need, a good reputation is everything. But a good reputation cannot come at the cost of the principle of “do no harm”. When humanitarian agencies are covering up the exploitation and abuse of local populations, or managers are pushing workers to breaking point in order to achieve results, we must acknowledge that the ends no longer justify the means.

As Nasra Ismail, Acting Director of a Somalian NGO Consortium, pointed out in the debate at ODI, some of the brightest NGOs, that produce the best results, are largely invisible in the field. She argues that for the most part, this is because effective INGOs work extensively through local networks and smaller NGOs that are already embedded in the communities they serve. These individuals and groups are far better equipped to deal with the unique complications of their own situation, especially when guided by the backing and technical knowledge of an effective global partner.

Localisation of humanitarian action has the dual benefit of improving the actual work itself – by reinforcing local skills, building on local knowledge, and allowing international actors to learn from traditional and local methods – and reducing the power imbalance between international and local people that can breed misconduct. A strong, well-vetted partnership empowers community members to lead their own response and reduces the capacity for international aid workers to exert undue influence over the affected population. Having multiple organisations involved in the process also limits the opportunity to cover up a case of abuse or exploitation, as was the case with Oxfam in Haiti, because partner agencies can provide oversight of each other’s actions.

The humanitarian system must always make sure that humans are put first in its priorities. Competition for funding, positive headlines, and goodwill has led some of the larger NGOs to lose their way in this regard.

As with many issues facing humanitarian crises globally, the answer is local.