Oh Oxfam. I love you. And I hate you. I love that you were a pioneer in international development, that you were an organisation built on solidarity, education, empowerment – convincing British people that they could genuinely help people in other parts of the world.

I love your recent campaign on inequality, choosing to pay attention to one of the world’s most pressing and invasive issues. But sometimes, I hate what you’ve become – a big corporate brand, competing for funds, dominating civil society voices and dictating the terms of engagement to others. I remember ringing you a few years ago when I was director of a small organisation to share our research on an issue we planned to campaign on, suggesting we collaborate. Your response? “We’ll ring you if we need you.”

You never did, in spite of the fact you ended up campaigning on the same issue, two years after we had started. This wasn’t a one-off, either. I, and others, both north and south, had similar experiences on many occasions.

Quick guide How dependent are UK NGOs on the government? Show Hide How dependent are UK NGOs on the government? Last year the UK government dedicated £13.3bn to international aid, with a significant chunk spent through UK charities. But these millions of pounds of aid money are now at stake, following reports of sexual exploitation by Oxfam staff in Haiti. The government has threatened to cut funding to Oxfam unless the charity shows “moral leadership”. In 2016-17, Oxfam’s total income was £408.6m, according to its annual report, which includes £31.7m from the UK Department for International Development (DfID). In addition to money from governments, international organisations and foundations, Oxfam generated £90m last year through its shop and trading network. Around £1.2bn of UK aid is spent annually through NGOs. In 2016, Save the Children secured multi-year contracts worth £91m with the UK government. It describes itself as one of DfID’s “key civil society partners”, which implements around 60 UK government-funded projects in countries such as South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen. In the same year, the British Red Cross received £16.3m in DfID funding. Around one fifth of Christian Aid’s income came from the department, which provided £20.1m in the year 2016-17. Christian Aid reported in its 2016-17 annual report that donations had dropped 13%, which it said was due to “fewer high-profile humanitarian crises”. Some have voiced concerns that as NGOs have become more reliant on government funding, they have also become less willing to criticise its policies. Charities are also nervous that the UK’s aid budget, even before the Haiti sexual misconduct scandal, has been under increasing scrutiny. Last year, the UK was one of only six countries to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid, a target set by the UN decades ago. Penny Mordaunt, secretary of state for international development, has said the UK remains committed to this target, despite some conservative MPs calling for it to be dropped. In a recent interview with the Telegraph, she said Britain will cut foreign aid spending to wealthier developing countries if they fail to “take responsibility”.

I have no doubts about the sincerity of many who work for and with Oxfam, or that they’re stunned, that they wish it hadn’t happened, that they want to do better. The majority of people work in this sector because they believe they can make a difference, however small. Oxfam and the sector do some great work. But arrogance and power have got in the way and could now seek to undermine its mission.

The Haiti scandal is not only big for Oxfam – it has implications far beyond, amplifying the vilification of the aid sector, which has repercussions for the UK charity sector as a whole.

#MeToo strikes aid sector as sexual exploitation allegations proliferate Read more

Twenty years ago, I was involved in a project to set up an international ombudsman for humanitarian assistance, of which Oxfam was a collaborator. In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, humanitarians were genuinely concerned that sometimes they caused more harm than good. They wanted to do better.



An institution was set up, which ultimately became a voluntary standard for the humanitarian sector to sign up to – an important step, and one that includes standards of behaviour, including a system to prevent sexual exploitation. But did it go far enough? Organisations don’t seem much different now than they were then.



What Oxfam and the wider sector have failed to do is to genuinely address their own power in international development. This is the systemic failing at play, not the sexual misconduct on its own.

Decisions and actions by the larger agencies often continue to be based on arrogance and a “we know what’s best” approach, rather than something that is accountable to those most in need and the communities in which they’re working. So it’s no surprise that their response to the Haiti situation was wanting. They tried to hold on to the power and control of the issue and were caught out.

So how should Oxfam, and the international development sector respond? Could this #MeToo moment actually be the genuine catalyst for change that should have happened years ago?

The starting point is in responding to the crisis not as a one-off situation that could have been better handled, not as reputation control and damage limitation. But by opening up, listening to critics and putting the power into the hands of those in the global south – social justice movements, civil society groups, marginalised activists. A group of actors in philanthropy, as it happens, is doing just that, through the #shiftthepower movement.

This won’t be easy – once an organisation falls from the perch, trust is difficult to reclaim. And in this case, trust in the UK international development sector is already eroding. If Oxfam rises to the challenge, however, its actions could actually serve to restore faith in the sector, and indeed wider civil society, over time.