Terre des Hommes Strategic plan 2016 2020 General Assembly Workshop, 14-15 th November 2014, Berlin 1. Introduction, objectives of the GA and expected outcomes The General Assembly 2014 held in Berlin was a milestone event in the history of Terre des Hommes. Never have we had so many people together to discuss our common future. Two important celebrations also took place in November, both very relevant to our work and to the people with whom we work; The 25 th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall (9 th November 2014) and the 25 th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (20 th November 2014). The GA took place between these dates on the 14 th & 15 th. TDHIF General Assembly 2014 - Brandenburg Gate, Berlin Some 50 staff and volunteers from the Member Organisations and the International Secretariat of Terre Des Hommes International Federation gathered together to reinforce trust between the Federation members, agree on strategic ambitions and mark the pace for the inclusive process that will lead to a MO owned strategic plan 2016-2020 (The detailed process timeline is given in annex 1). To kick off the meeting and get conversations going we created our own TDH timeline. The people who had joined TDH longest ago stood at one end of the room and then others formed a line across and around the meeting space until we reached those that joined most recently. People talked about their motivations for joining TDH and their best or funniest memories. It was a lot of fun and brought people quickly together. Very hard to capture the dynamic in an image, but here is one very nice shot with dinosaurs on the left! 1
Before going into the summary of the discussions it is import to summarise what we were trying to achieve The objective of the Strategic Plan The 2016 2020 strategic plan will seek to further strengthen the federation in delivering impact for children and communities by building on synergies of working together, committing to priority common goals and sharing capacity. Any adjustments to governance, culture, ways of working (processes & resourcing) and investment in building people capacity will be linked to the priority, common ambitions. The objective of the GA workshop To prepare the foundation for building the TDHIF 2016-2020 strategic plan, to provide first indications of priorities to be addressed and give guidance to the broader consultation that will take place until March 2015. This, while further building the level of common understanding between member organisations. Expected outcomes of the GA workshop A common understanding and commitment to the strategic planning process upon which we are embarking Agreement on the main lessons from the past and some elements of common diagnosis as regards the current internal and external environment First ideas on the main elements of a long term ambition for the TDHIF Guidance for the next stage of the process through providing 1. A list of priorities for which there is a high degree of convergence at the GA with some conditions for success 2. A list of issues that should be further debated or addressed during the broader consultation phase of the process (January March) This report will provide a summary of the outcomes of the TDH General Assembly. It will try to capture both the content and spirit of the discussion that took place without trying to represent every detailed point made or input given. The summary will follow the structure of the GA itself covering: Reflections on the 2012-2014 Strategic Plan External Environment Internal Environment Long Term Ambitions Strategic Priorities Finally the document will conclude and recap the next steps of the process. 2. Reflections on the 2012-2014 Strategic Plan The 2012 strategic plan was regarded as core initiative to drive increased cooperation and interaction between MOs. During the past years relationships have grown; we have launched highly participative, co-owned international campaigns (Destination Unknown, Children Win); developed common Child Safeguarding Measures ; deepened our external engagement with UN and other 2
international initiatives; increased and systematised our humanitarian coordination and increased field project synergy in a wide range of contexts. The support for and between MOs has also been substantially reinforced by the work of the international secretariat. In short, we have come a long way. This said, it is important to acknowledge has happened with many people not even knowing we had a strategic plan 1 and even fewer actively using it. Certainly it informed the IS activities, which in turn directly impacted the outcomes, but still, organisation-wide co-ownership was very poor. While we made progress on a number of the objectives, we were quite ad hoc and we did little in terms of unifying our external image and did not progress far in opening up, or expanding the TDH network beyond the current membership. Notwithstanding developing the common CSM, the progress on quality standards was also very modest. Probably the most important lesson we can take away is that we need to ensure co-ownership from the outset of strategic planning. We also need a longer term view of where we might be going in which to locate priorities and to help us identify emerging opportunities during implementation. Issues such as a unified Logo, setting standards or new membership cannot be dealt with in isolation, but rather on the basis of added value to mission impact. This will mean setting clear priorities and more of a piloting approach to change. 3. External Environment Terre des Hommes is working in a fast-changing and increasingly unpredictable environment. The overview of presented at the general assembly is shown on the below map: 1 Based on pre-ga interviews conducted in October 2014 3
From this overall picture, the major changes in which we are to frame our child focussed work seeking to make the greatest difference include: Inequality: While greater ambition is expected for a post-2015 agenda, with the eradication of extreme poverty as a possible new goal, in many countries around the world, the space for civil society is shrinking. If business as usual is the order of the day, such goal will never be reached. Poverty eradication, at any level of ambition, will not happen without addressing the more challenging issue of global inequality. Planetary disruption: Climate change is the most obvious sign that we are over-exploiting our planet in unsustainable ways and are putting in danger the future generations. Our unsustainable lifestyles threaten humanity s very survival. For those reason it is imperative to link Child right to environmental rights. Digital revolution technological disruption: The interventions and models of action of Terre des Hommes will be increasingly under pressure with the development of internet platforms, direct donor contact with communities, the rise of social networks as powerful platforms for campaigning, the rapid circulation of information... The role of Terre des Hommes, as of many organisations, is under threat but can find opportunities to change within this digital revolution. Development cooperation is driven by the need to become more effective and efficient and is progressively going through fundamental reviews of development policy. Tendency is for fewer partner countries, for areas of work with identified added value, for funding of alliances of organisations and increasingly cross-sectorial alliances, matching with other means of implementation (such as the private sector). Children, youth and youth social movements increasingly see no sense in discussing future developments without recognition of their role as young people that can and must play as assets and problem-solvers in development. Children and young people with fewer opportunities, including those living in poverty, conflict or post-conflict situations, and/or those living far from global decision-makers, must be able to have their voices heard and find opportunities in society. The way children and youth use and are influenced by technology as well as the trends of the population dynamics (of which child and youth migration) set challenges and opportunities for Terre des Hommes. A number of specific comments were made in the plenary such as thinking through the position of TDH on our European programs and highlighting the child specific focus, or youth focus of some MOs. The cross cutting conclusion is that we need to tackle the challenges of being a (child) focused Federation, while aspiring to a holistic approach and adapting to the fast changing environment, this while embracing our diversity. Each MO has its particular focus and interpretation of the TDH mission and so the challenge is work out how best to use this diversity to ensure a complementary approach to our overall (Federation-wide) programmatic impact. As a start all MOs need to understand better how others are making a difference in their approach, how this will be focussed in the coming years and from there we can embrace the diversity we need and challenge diversity that we do not think adds value. 4
4. Internal Environment The internal environment of TDH is complex. The MOs may not so diverse geographically, but they are very diverse in terms of their internal structure, mission focus, operating models, culture, size and capacity. That said, the participant interviews and GA sessions revealed a lot of key elements we have qualities in common beyond just a name. These include; A ambition to impact on the most vulnerable; primarily children A shared imperative to act with people and to passionately advocate truth to power The principle of humanity, acting in proximity and solidarity with children and communities A desire to retain our agility and avoid central bureaucratic hierarchies An integrity and thoughtfulness that means we only speak about what we really know/experience A modesty that acknowledges we are a small part of a big environment We do have differing views on how to balance direct engagement with our work with partners; the place of political engagement; a child versus community focus as well as other issues. We have made progress on having multiple MOs in the same countries, but we still have a tendency of imposing our internal complexity on settings that are already very complex; we are long way from achieving complementarity. In short, our challenge is to make this diversity our strength and not our weakness. It should foster learning, synergy and positive competition to do the best for those we assist. We must avoid isolation, negative competition, in-transparency and stop judging each other based on caricatures instead of evidence. The sense is that while we call ourselves a federation, we are still not living the dual citizenship that this implies. Each member of staff and each team need to feel and act both as a member of an MO and a member of the federation we all share; tailored to their role and the job they need to do. While a lot was recorded in preparation for the GA (see annex MAP), some of the priority challenges emerging were; Mission: What are the boundaries of our diversity and how do we define impact regardless of our operating model? Structure & Systems: How will we need to adapt and streamline our structures and support systems to ensure our chosen priorities are resourced, managed efficiently, realised and are accountable? This includes having a nuanced view on the role of the IB and secretariat in their governance, leadership and support functions. How will we ensure complementarity in our work and increase sharing of knowledge & experience? This includes both where we might choose to work together and where we are obliged to inform when our independent actions may impact other MOs. How will our future structures accommodate new members or alliances when we choose to develop them? How will we achieve a governance architecture that mirrors and includes the diversity of the contexts in which we work? 5
Culture: How can we further develop a culture of transparency and move away from negative competition in favour of complementarity and sharing expertise. How can we live the dual citizenship that will enable us to multiply our individual MO experiences into powerful international initiatives? Capacity: How to manage the differences in capacity across our network? How do we ensure that our internal capacity building is done in service to external needs and not for purely internal reasons? 5. Long Term Ambitions Drawing on one of the key lessons of the last strategic plan, the GA conducted a working session to define some longer term ambitions for the federation as a whole. The idea was to build a picture that looked beyond 2020; a direction that would provide a framework in which to locate shorter term priorities. The outcomes are presented on the following map. 6
There was a considerable amount of convergence between the prepared direction and that of the workshops. However, in addition to adjusting and improving the content, groups identified some questions requiring further discussion Mission We need to discuss core values further. Are values framed by Child rights sufficient? We need to discuss and understand the scope of our diversity. For example, while youth seems to be an accepted focus are there limits to how broad the TDH mission should be? For example, how far should we go in terms of community focus, political engagement, addressing socio-economic root causes and climate change issues? Organisation: How far should we have the ambition to coordinate resource generation and allocation? External Perception Is being a meaningful, go-to organisation for child rights and youth protection sufficient as a unique value of TDH? 6. Strategic Priorities Having had some discussion looking at the past, present and long term ambitions of the federation, the next phase of the workshop focussed on developing indicative strategic priorities for 2016 2020. Based on the pre GA interviews and endorsed by the workshop outcomes so far To enable TDHIF to grow together to improve impact for children we must 1. Optimise the relevance and effectiveness of international campaigning and advocacy. 2. Invest in project country programmatic collaboration and cooperation between TDH MOs 3. Proactively share expertise, knowledge and build interaction between MOs 4. Grow the size and/or influence of TDHIF network to benefit from internal and external alliances The following page shows an overview of some of the emerging ideas of issues and initiatives that may fall under these priorities. 7
It is important to note that all of these priorities connect with and complement each other. This must be reflected when expanding the plan 8
Terre des Hommes Strategic plan 2016-2020 GA summary Final for circulation In addition to these areas of convergence, a number of questions emerged related to the overall direction as well as the four priorities in themselves. Overall Considering the changing external context and the needs of children and communities, in which programmatic areas/themes should Terre des Hommes be prioritising our work? Is the current statutory position on economic social and rights sufficiently clear and supported? 2 How to stimulate and harvest focussed innovation? How to achieve complementarity without losing energy in heavy processes of unification? Priority area 1 International campaigning and advocacy How best to identify/set the agenda for international campaigning topics? What is the best approach for managing international campaigns and measuring their performance? What should be the role of the secretariat in managing/supporting/leading international advocacy? Priority area 2 - project country programmatic collaboration and cooperation between TDH MOs What criteria should be applied to identifying priority countries What are the countries that can serve as flagship projects now? Should we be doing more to standardise how we measure the impact and quality of our respective operational approaches? Priority area 3: Proactively share expertise, knowledge and build interaction between MOs What do we already know about the capacity and expertise across TDH? What would be the mechanisms to optimise interaction/sharing, common research and reducing duplication of effort? How do we make such changes really live and become routine ways of working? Priority area 4: Grow the size and/or influence of TDHIF network What are the types of partners with whom we might have strategic alliances? (NGOs, civil society bodies, loose networks, private sector, governments?) What criteria or considerations should we have when considering new TDH MOs? (eg programs, income, knowledge, advocacy?) What should be the geographic focus for such growth, especially as regards southern countries? 7. Conclusion and next steps of the process The above report has been written to succinctly cover the main outcomes so no attempt at further simplification will be made here. What we can say is that this milestone GA was highly successful and serves as a solid platform from which to launch the next phase of the process. 2 TDH Statutes referring to social mission: Article 2.2. - This work is rooted in a clearly focussed mission (both in programmatic work and advocacy) to promote concrete conditions for the full respect and implementation of child rights within a context of human rights based approaches to sustainable and equitable development embedded in economic, social and cultural rights. 9
Terre des Hommes Strategic plan 2016-2020 GA summary Final for circulation From this workshop we have some clear areas of convergence as presented in the maps under each section that can be tested in the broad consultation phase of the process in January- March next year. The exception would be the external environment where we still need to know more about how each MO will focus its work in the coming strategic period. For each section we also have a number of questions that we must now select from and, or adapt to further frame the broad consultation phase. It was noted that in the broad consultation phase we must aim to stimulate people more by asking questions oriented towards action that will make things happen and less through open questions. We must target all levels of the organisation, especially program countries to be sure that the strategic plan we create is matched to the reality in which we run operations. We must be prepared to welcome new ideas and initiatives that will start cooperation so that elements of the strategic plan can come alive even before final approval next year. In the final session people were given the opportunity to comment on how they were feeling about progress. What came through strongly was a sense that people felt like equals at the table, regardless of size, while recognising that capacities for implementation differed across MOs. People rarely spoke with an MO identity, but rather from the perspective of TDH as a whole. Building on this will be an important part of developing a stronger common culture. Keeping this spirit throughout this process will be important MOs, big and small are crucial to ensuring a strong TDHIF in future The next steps of the process were presented as follows; Write up a summary of GA (finalise by 30 th November) Individual reflections were welcomed by Adrio, the consultant working on the SP (adrio.bacchetta@sandstone-consulting.com) 26 November : SPWG meeting to adjust or reaffirm process details December : SPWG/IS preparation of tools for broad consultation 14 January : SPWG finalises package for consultation launch 16 January : Launch of broad consultation April/June: work on governance and resource, first draft of Strategic Plan Before closing it was acknowledged that success in the process would not only come from the coordination and leadership of the IB and SPWG. It would mostly come from the leadership and momentum driven by people, especially those that have joined the GA. Having had the privilege to attend, we all now had a duty to act as ambassadors to engage others; choosing our moments to optimise energy and input. The final input of the meeting was from the President, thanking all for their energy and productivity during the workshop and looking forward greatly to the next phase of the process. Report prepared by the Strategic Planning Working Group with input from the IB Lysiane Andre (TDH France) Danuta Sacher (TDH Germany) Vito Angelino (TDH Lausanne) Supported by TDH International Secretariat Adrio Bacchetta (Consultant) December 2014 10
Terre des Hommes Strategic plan 2016-2020 GA summary Final for circulation Annex 1 Process Timeline 11