ALNAP: Key messages from its 8th RHA

The 8th edition of ALNAP's Review of Humanitarian Action series has come out in July 09. As of yet only available electronically, but soon also in printed edition (Aug 09).

The 8th Review contains three in-depth studies.
The first study is on humanitarian performance and provides a wide-ranging overview of the performance agenda - at the heart of ALNAP's work - drawing on experiences from the private, public and development sectors.
The second study focuses on improving humanitarian impact assessment, and provides a comprehensive framework to help bridge theory and practice in operational settings.
The third study is a systematic review of innovations in international humanitarian response, which presents ways to think about and strengthen innovations across the sector.

ALNAP: Humanitarian Performance Project

As part of its Humanitarian Performance Project (HPP), ALNAP is currently piloting a mechanism which aims to provide a regular assessment of system-wide humanitarian performance. The project will compile some fundamental measures of the composition and performance of the international humanitarian system, providing a baseline for assessing future progress. They want to get as diverse a range of actors as possible to participate, especially field-based practitioners, and invite you to complete a short survey which should take no more than 20 minutes. Click here to begin. A French version is also available and can be accessed here.

DfID's new White Paper

On Monday, July 06, the UK government presented its new White Paper on International Development. The paper, Building our common future, focuses on the following areas:

• poverty reduction
• promoting economic recovery and greener growth
• sustainable development
• building peaceful states and societies
• keeping up with previous commitments
• reforming the international humanitarian system
• improving methods of delivery

For some first reactions by Alison Evans, see ODI's blog. One of concerns raised is that the new white paper lacks strategic selectivity. This may lead to DfID loosing its asset of effectiveness, as it overstretches its capacities (in particular in the current financial environment) in attempting to reach out to all possible humanitarian challenges.

Comments on the high focus on conflict-affected and fragile states have been made by Alex Evans on the Global Dashboard.

IASC Annual Report 2008

The first IASC report produced for the wider humanitarian sector, and includes items on:

• 'Humanitarian reform - no longer a trend, but the way we work'
• 'Discussions on humanitarian space with DPKO'
• the Early Recovery cluster

Download the report from Reliefweb.

Disasters virtual edition: The Indian Ocean Tsunami

This virtual issue brings together articles on the impact of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, preparedness for it and efforts of the affected people, civil society, governments and international agencies to provide immediate relief and gradually rebuild.

Articles include:

• Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerabilities of coastal communities to tsunami in Sri Lanka - Jorn Birkmann, Nishara Fernando
• Effects of the tsunami on fisheries and coastal livelihood: a case study of tsunami-ravaged southern Sri Lanka -D.A.M. De Silva, Masahiro Yamao
• Ethnicity, politics and inequality: post-tsunami humanitarian aid delivery in Ampara District, Sri Lanka -M.W. Amarasiri de Silva
• Tsunami mortality and displacement in Aceh province, Indonesia -Abdur Rofi, Shannon Doocy, Courtland Robinson
• The international humanitarian system and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis -John Telford, John Cosgrave
• Implementing cash for work programmes in post-tsunami Aceh: experiences and lessons learned - Shannon Doocy, Michael Gabriel, Sean Collins, Courtland Robinson, Peter Steve

Read the edition online.

UN-OCHA: Humanitarian Coordinators Pool Mapping Exercise Report

This report outlines the evolution of United Nations humanitarian leadership; reports key outcomes against the plan; reviews current leadership development across the humanitarian system (UN, NGOs, IOM, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement); and highlights issues of concern and ways forward for consideration of the IASC HC Issues Group and the IASC. It goes on to outline recommendations regarding the continuation of the HC Pool and the creation of an IASC Humanitarian Coordinators Assessment Panel.

More than 200 stakeholders were contacted, from operational humanitarian United Nations agencies on the IASC, International Organizations (ICRC, IFRC, IOM), NGO Consortia, key NGO humanitarian agencies and large Red Cross National Societies, key donors on UNOCHA support network, and humanitarian standard and quality projects dealing with personnel.

Read more on Reliefweb.

'Eroding humanitarian principles: Who's to blame?'

By Samir Elhawary, Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI

This article is in response an earlier article expressing serious concern at current UN humanitarian reforms that seek to enhance coordination among humanitarian agencies and establish more effective funding mechanisms for emergencies, which views these latest reforms as an attempt to further align political, military and aid objectives.
Access the original article via Humanitarian Practice Network
Access the response via Humanitarian Practice Network

A recent article by members of the well known humanitarian agency Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) expressed serious concern at current UN humanitarian reforms that seek to enhance coordination among humanitarian agencies and establish more effective funding mechanisms for emergencies. It views these latest reforms as an attempt to further align political, military and aid objectives. This, they argue, blurs the lines between political and humanitarian action, fostering an environment that isn’t conducive to upholding the core humanitarian principles of independence, impartiality and neutrality. These principles are understood as vital to ensuring access to affected populations and the security of aid workers.

Reform of the institutional framework to enhance strategic coordination isn’t new, as the authors acknowledge. It’s part of a trend since the mid-1990s that seeks to achieve greater coherence among humanitarian, development, military, diplomatic and commercial interventions. This attempt to bridge aid and politics stems from the general acceptance among Western states – especially since 9/11 – that ineffective or failed states can no longer be ignored or simply provided with relief. The thinking is that instability creates fertile grounds for radicalisation which, in tern, poses severe threats to the liberal democratic world.

Afghanistan and Iraq are some of the most recent interventions that are symptomatic of this trend, and the places in which aid workers have expressed most concern over their ability to operate. In fact, in 2004 MSF pulled out of Afghanistan after several of its aid workers were killed. This would tend to reinforce concerns that greater coherence and the consequent blurring between political and humanitarian interventions are eroding humanitarian principles and hindering the ability of aid workers to save lives.

However, while the evidence suggests that there has been a loss of ‘humanitarian space’, two qualifications need to be made. Firstly, as emphasised recently by Laura Hammond, increasing attacks on aid workers are more likely to be due to the considerable benefits that can be gained by those who carry out the attacks – namely, massive publicity which can be used to promote a particular message – rather than because of any erosion of principles. Attacking aid workers can also be a way to send a powerful message in terms of showing military prowess and, in effect, become a strategy of war.

Secondly, apart from those organisations that espouse a relatively strict adherence to principles of independence and neutrality, some agencies have started to actively take sides, supporting what they perceive as ‘good’ political objectives in their advocacy campaigns; such as calling for intervention in Darfur. Others have pursued a development or social justice agenda that seeks to transform the societies they engage in through ‘conflict resolution’, ‘recovery’, ‘reconstruction’ and ‘peace-building’ interventions. In such a context, talk of neutrality makes little sense. There is a need to move away from the current tendency to solely blame the role of the ‘system’ and/or other political/military actors and emphasise the fact that it is often the agencies themselves that are the prime drivers in politicising aid.

These trends raise important questions with regard to the relevance of applying humanitarian principles in the current environment. Should agencies pull out, reject funds or suspend activities if they feel the principles are being overly compromised? Or is there a case for enhanced coherence between political and humanitarian objectives in order to support the long term welfare of these societies – and perhaps also their security in the shorter-term? Until such dilemmas are resolved we will continue to see a humanitarian enterprise that is deeply divided.

TUFTS: Humanitarian Agenda 2015--The State of the Humanitarian Enterprise

Humanitarian Agenda 2015: The State of the Humanitarian Enterprise describes the challenges faced by humanitarian actors striving to maintain fidelity to their ideals in a globalized world. The report highlights persisting tensions in the relationship between “outsiders” and local communities, encroachments of political agendas – particularly as a result of the war on terror – and the deteriorating security climate for humanitarian workers on the ground. Humanitarian action, the authors argue, needs to be more in sync with the aspirations of the people it aims to help and more open to non-western humanitarian coping strategies and traditions. Talking "principally to the like-minded, shunning different or dissenting voices" ultimately undermines humanitarian principles and causes "misunderstanding, false expectations, and delusions of grandeur."

The report builds on 12 case studies of local perceptions of the work of humanitarian agencies, conducted in as many countries. The country studies and final report are based on interviews with more than 2,000 recipients of humanitarian aid, as well as aid agency, donor and government staff.

Read more on the Tufts website.

Global Humanitarian Assistance 2007/2008

Published in March 2008, Global Humanitarian Assistance 2007/2008 is the fifth in a series of reports produced by Development Initiatives as part of the wider Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme.

Chapter 1 attempts to quantify and analyse long-term trends in humanitarian assistance. How much official humanitarian assistance is there? How does it compare with aid expenditure as a whole? How generous are donors in terms of expenditure per citizen or as a share of gross national income (GNI)? What about other sources of humanitarian assistance? How does the bilateral allocation of humanitarian assistance reflect the humanitarian priorities defined in the UN consolidated appeal process (CAP)? Is it reaching everyone in need?

Chapter 2 looks at the latest developments in humanitarian assistance financing and policy. What are the implications of the 2007 introduction of new rules for reporting and analysing official humanitarian assistance and aid? Are the funding mechanisms such as common (pooled) humanitarian funds (CHF) and Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) achieving their objectives to strengthen humanitarian response? What steps are being taken to improve predictability, response capacity and coordination?

Further details and supporting data are available online at:

www.globalhumanitariandonorship.org

Tufts: Humanitarian Agenda 2015

This report summarizes the findings of the first phase of a major research project on the challenges and compromises that are likely to affect humanitarian action in the next decade.
The issues are organized and analyzed around four interrelated “petals”: the universality of humanitarianism, the implications of terrorism and counter-terrorism for humanitarian action, the search for coherence between humanitarian and political agendas, and the security of humanitarian personnel and the beneficiaries of humanitarian action.

Six case studies—Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia, Liberia, northern Uganda and the Sudan—provide the basis for the analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Additional case studies—Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Occupied Palestinian Territories— are planned as part of phase two of the research.

The approach is evidence-based. The focus is on local perceptions. Generic and country-specific findings are distilled through an inductive process involving interviews and focus group meetings at the community level aimed at eliciting perceptions of local people on the functioning of the humanitarian enterprise. Additional data was gathered through interviews with aid community staff and an electronic survey of headquarters personnel. Readers are encouraged to make their own assessments of the field data, which is available on the web.

The findings highlight the crisis of humanitarianism in the post-9/11 world. They show that action aimed at alleviating the suffering of the world’s most vulnerable has been for the most part incorporated into a northern political and security agenda.

Read more on the Tufts website.

Forced Migration Review: Humanitarian Reform, fulfilling its promise?

For those who believe in it, it’s about fixing things and improving on them. For the sceptics, it’s about changing things for the sake of change, or replacing one slightly dysfunctional system with another equally dysfunctional one. For those opposed to it, it’s about replacing systems that work (in spite of all their faults and weaknesses) with inappropriate ones that are bound to fail because they have been dreamt up by people in ivory towers who have little real understanding of the situation on the ground.

So it is with humanitarian reform: you have the believers, the sceptics and the opponents. Fortunately, the vast majority of humanitarian practitioners believe in the need for change and adaptation. They recognise the need to improve the way humanitarian organisations do business. They are all too aware of the continuing proliferation and sometimes fragmentation of humanitarian actors and the problems that arise when there is a lack of operational capacity, planning, predictability and coordination. They have seen what happens when some categories of people (such as the internally displaced) are not dealt with in a systematic way or when particular sectors receive inadequate attention. They are all painfully aware of the failings that we have seen in recent years in places like the Congo, Darfur, Liberia and northern Uganda.

The package of humanitarian reforms put forward by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)1 in 2005 and 2006 is ambitious and far-reaching. It falls into three main areas: first, achieving more adequate, flexible and timely humanitarian financing; second, strengthening the ‘Humanitarian Coordinator’ system; and third, ensuring more systematic and predictable attention to all the main sectors of response, in what has come to be known as the ‘Cluster Approach’.2 Underpinning all this is the need to strengthen our interface with governments and to forge stronger partnerships amongst humanitarian actors – particularly between UN and non-UN actors.
As with any reform process, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So the question now is whether or not the reforms are working.

Available for download from the Forced Migration Review website.

Migration

• The UNHCR have published a discussion paper on their strategy for dealing with increasing numbers of mobile people, and
• The Forced Migration Review No. 29 is jam-packed with interesting articles about humanitarian reform and its impact on migration, and asks - Is it fulfilling its promise? The contents list is in the longer post (click the link to read it).
  

Forced Migration Review contents:
- Humanitarian action: a Western-dominated enterprise in need of change by John Holmes
- The Global Humanitarian Platform: opportunity for NGOs? by Elizabeth Ferris
- Challenges of collective humanitarian reponse in Sri Lanka by Firzan Hashim
- Unity in diversity - the One UN, UNHCR, and Rwanda by Tim Maurer
- UNHCR, IDPs and humanitarian reform by Jeff Crisp, Esther Kiragu and Vicky Tennant
- Is humanitarian reform improving IDP protection and assistance? by Anne Davies
- Reform in focus: the IFRC perspective by Robert Mister
- Integration and UN humanitarian reforms by Eric Stobbaerts, Sarah Martin and Katharine Derderian
- Insecure environments: the missing piece? by Matthew Benson
- Iraq: towards a field-focused humanitarian reform by Cedric Turlan
- Strengthening the Humanitarian Coordinator system by Claire Messina
- Neglecting the third pillar by Manisha Thomas
- Humanitarian reform: a view from CAR by Toby Lanzer
- Humanitarian reform: saving and protecting lives in DRC by Ross Mountain
- Assessing the impact of humanitarian reform in DRC by Nick Bennett
- The state of humanitarian funding by Peter Walker and Kevin Pepper
- Worlds apart? Muslim donors and international humanitarianism by Mohammed R Kroessin
- Cluster approach - a vital operational tool by Allan Jury and Giammichele De Maio
- Early recovery from disaster: the Pakistan earthquake by Andrew MacLeod

Advocacy and Darfur seminar - a summary

HPG event: Humanitarian advocacy and Darfur
Wednesday 17 October – ODI offices, 111 Westminster Bridge Road

A really interesting seminar exploring the difficulties of advocacy within an increasingly insecure environment. There were three speakers; Sorcha O’Callaghan, Research Fellow, Humanitarian Policy Group, Brendan Cox, Executive Director, Crisis Action and Rebecca Dale, Independent Policy Advisor on Sudan. I particularly liked Rebecca who spoke with great clarity and had some thought provoking points to make. To see a summary of their comments, read my blog post below:

Sorcha:

• Focussed on the fact that agencies have now become relatively silent compared to three or four years ago when press releases and public advocacy was at its peak. Agencies are increasingly being pulled into political and military discussions. This is undermining their ability to operate and is manifesting itself in the form of growing insecurity for aid workers, increasing problems with access and further restrictions being imposed by the Sudanese government.
• Maintaining neutrality whilst conducting advocacy – not easy when the Sudanese President claims that the aid agencies are the real enemy of the state. A clearer definition is needed of what advocacy is.

Brendan:

• Representing Crisis Action, a campaigning coalition on armed conflict that works behind the scenes to engender change.
• No clear line between humanitarian action and political advocacy. Agencies must be responsible for their actions. He cited the example of MSF denouncing sexual violence – they could not have chosen a more politically sensitive topic.
• The issue is not with principles but with judgement. Judgement in making decisions needs to be improved, further resources are required and greater professionalisation.

Rebecca:

• Damned if you speak out, damned if you do not.
• Again underlined the responsibility of agencies for their actions. Link between field workers on the ground and advocacy campaigns at headquarters level needs to be strengthened. Those running advocacy campaign must fully understand the implications of their actions.
• ‘War on Terror’ has fundamentally changed the way international NGOs are seen. An association has been created between western politcal powers and NGOs, that they are now somehow instruments of government. The request by international NGOs for a non consensual military force to enter Darfur reinforces this – will an Iraq/Afghanistan type occupation follow this request?
• Are NGOs undermining sovereignty?
• A shift has occurred from NGOs needing to provide purely basic needs to now having to be involved in advocacy, understand the root causes of conflict and become involved in post conflict work.
• Support for humanitarian work is dependent on ease of involvement. There is nowhere near the level of engagement in the US on the humanitarian situation in Palestine compared to the massive engagement on Darfur.
• Agencies under increased pressure to speak out.
• If access is not improved the UN will impose sanctions, this puts a lot of pressure on NGOs to stay and improve access.
• Neutrality does not mean condoning violations of IHL.
  

ODI Online Exchange: Yet another arrogant move? MSF’s stance on its relationship with the rest of the international aid system

Eric Stobbaerts of MSF recently posted a piece on ODI's Online Exchange forum.

In a recent position paper MSF posed itself the question “…. what will better serve the populations in need: will MSF’s independent approach be beneficial to the most vulnerable at the end of the line? Or on the contrary, …is it indeed the collective effort, which will better serve the vulnerable?”

We came to the conclusion that the best service for populations in need will come as a result of independence of action rather than participation in an integrated effort. Hence our decision in the past years to decline the invitation to join the IASC both at headquarters and field level, to withdraw from SCHR and not to join clusters, meanwhile keeping an open and bilateral channel of communication with all major aid actors.

Just one more example of MSF isolationism and arrogance, or is this the only way of ensuring impartial provision of humanitarian assistance to populations at risk?

Read more on the ODI website.

Follow the Money: Tufts Review and Analysis of the State of Humanitarian Funding

A new Tufts briefing paper focusses on the financing of humanitarian action, asking:

• Is the pot of humanitarian finance able to meet present and projected global humanitarian needs?
• Do existing financing mechanisms ensure that money follows need?
• Do the present financing mechanisms promote quality aid, encouraging it to be timely, context-specific, evidence-based and rigorous in its application?
• Are the operational agencies capable of using the funding appropriately?
• More succinctly, is there enough money, is it going to the right people in the right places in the most efficient way?

The paper describes the present state of humanitarian funding—focusing on the global picture, key trends and recognized shortcomings. While it includes discussion of new financing mechanisms, such as the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and Common Humanitarian Funds, these are not the primary focus of the paper. Combined these tools account for perhaps 10 percent of official humanitarian aid. The analysis, by contrast, is concerned with the totality of humanitarian financing, and how the many different instruments and mechanisms used to disburse these funds interact with each other.

The paper is available for download from Reliefweb (169KB pdf).

HPG Policy Brief on coordination and leadership reform: Lost in translation

The latest HPG Policy Brief (No. 27, entitled 'Lost in translation - managing coordination and leadership reform in the humanitarian system') is now available for download from the HPG website.

The humanitarian sector has invested a lot in system wide reform over the past two years to improve humanitarian outcomes. The CERF has been expanded, cluster leadership implemented, efforts to strengthen the role of the Humanitarian Coordinator outlined, and experiments with pooled funding at country level have taken place. In the lead up to further deliberations on reform in Geneva next week — at the Economic and Social Council meetings and other events — it is imperative to consider the management of leadership and coordination reform in particular. Getting this right will improve reform efforts across the board.

HPG has produced a Policy Brief drawing on extensive document review and interviews in the field and at headquarters. It outlines key areas of ambiguity in the reform process and how effective reform management is critical to improved humanitarian outcomes.

Further information about the ongoing project, and related reports are also available from the link above.

Tufts lecture: Making our Principles Work in the Real World

The presentation given by Antonio Donino of the Feinstein International Center at the Global Humanitarian Platform Meeting in Geneva, 11 July 2007, is now available for download and raises some interesting questions.

The presentation deals with three related issues likely to affect the future of the humanitarian enterprise:

- How can we make it "of the world" rather than "of the North"?
- Has it become too institutionalized?
- Are we equipped for the black swans of the future?

Download the full document via Reliefweb.