Trends in Humanitarian Action EUPRHA NOHA conference: The Humantarian Action Qualifications Framework: A useful tool for the quality assurance of the humanitarian sector? Dr Sarah Collinson Research Associate, Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI Brussels 4 June 2014
Trends in. Humanitarian action? The humanitarian sector / system? (Or systems?) Humanitarian principles or principles of humanitarian action? Humanitarian space? 3.. Whose space? Which system? Which actors?
What kinds of trends? Internal / systemic trends - e.g. emergence of new actors, securitisation of aid delivery, professionalisation, increased funding, changing technology, institutionalisation of coordination, evolution of humanitarian principles and their application. External / contextual trends - e.g. Western interventionism / stabilisation / retrenchment, population growth, urbanisation, escalating or repeating cycles of conflict, climate change, religious extremism, political & military barriers to humanitarian access, shifts in respect for IHL & human rights standards Humanitarian trends (local / national / regional / global) - e.g. escalations in forced displacement, greater vulnerability to extreme weather events, or exposure of populations to violence or human rights abuses and dynamic interactions and interplay between all three 4
Are perceptions of change based on evidence? Shrinking humanitarian space.? YET Rapid expansion of the humanitarian and wider aid industry into conflict zones / challenging environments and responses to natural disasters Geographical reach Funding Numbers of organisations and aid personnel Variety of organisations (which are humanitarian?) Ambitions of aid actors & range of activities donors & agencies 5
Fragmentation and complexity within the sector: Need to understand configuration and operation of HA sector itself High levels of inter-actor competition + networks-based governance: no overarching governing authority or rules-based regime & actors self-regulating Relationships between networks are fluid and dynamic and rely on voluntary compliance, reflecting value pluralism within the system Adherence to common standards and principles is often weak and uneven in practice, and adherence to principles of humanitarian action inherently political in practice Official humanitarian aid concentrated among a small number of dominant organisations (aid establishment or aid oligarchy ) with high levels of sub-contracting to smaller organisations Around 90% frontline aid workers are local or national staff or subcontractors, and many not recognised as humanitarian workers at all Humanitarian action is much wider than what HA sector does: many overlapping spheres of action and intervention 6
7
8
9
and need to understand true nature of humanitarian action and how it has changed Understanding the system trends depends on a sense of history (or histories): Highly restricted humanitarian access during Cold War: just a few agencies focused on refugee assistance across borders From mid-1980s: negotiated access and the expansion of international humanitarian system into active conflict zones Abandonment of neutrality in the face of protection failures and the expansion of UN peacekeeping in 1990s Post-9/11 shift: Western-led stabilisation, expansion of the Western security umbrella and the perceived shrinking of humanitarian space The shift to remote management and the new security paradigm: to stay and deliver in non-permissive environments 10
Expanded engagement in nonpermissive environments means tensions between staying and staying safe Unprecedented exposure of aid personnel to security and other risks (but has aid work actually become more dangerous?) Growing tensions between accepting risks and remaining safe: expansion in security risk management Progressive bunkerisation of international staff & growth in remote management Proliferation of partnership and subcontracting arrangements & growing reliance on national / local aid workers & organisations Dominating preoccupation with gaining or maintaining access, sometimes at cost of civilian protection and other humanitarian imperatives: humanitarian space conceived as agency space 11
12
Security versus wider hazards Priority of physical access & presence focused attention on managing and mitigating most immediate operational security risks Less consideration to other types of risk and the potential to do harm (in contrast with the do no harm agenda of the 1990s) Presence doesn t always equate with proximity many international aid organisations and personnel may be physically or institutionally present but also remote from their client populations and/or national and local employees 13
14
You can live your life in Juba without leaving the compound go to work, exercise, shopping, partying Juba interview, November 2012
Hazards of remote presence? Poor contextual knowledge & analysis and weak information base to support programming and decision-making Weakened relations and engagement with client populations & external stakeholders and heightened risks of doing harm Securitised and privatised aid presence and delivery Hierarchies of protection and risk transfer within remote management arrangements Weakened control of aid delivery chains and distorted aid programming and coverage 16
Significance for HAQF Given the growing size, reach and complexity of the sector and importance of action in politically challenging or non-permissive environments, consider: Highlighting importance of a critical understanding of the sector itself and how it functions: beware of QF simply recycling founding myths Incorporating negotiation skills and understanding of the local political economy / context as key competencies to support effective and principled humanitarian action Emphasising an understanding of the potential to do harm and the competencies to ensure that programmatic harm and other risks are minimised 17
Significance for HAQF Incorporating knowledge and understanding of related sectors and other actors & key stakeholders, including responsibilities of other actors: duties of state and armed actors under IHL, international refugee & human rights law, UNSC action and peacekeeping Developing the HAQF and implementation approach that includes, supports and enables local and national aid workers and partner or subcontracted organisations Resolving potential problems with listing local context knowledge as a low level competency versus general humanitarian knowledge as a high-level competency Addressing tensions between recognition and support of non-formal learning versus emphasis on high-level educational qualifications 18
Significance for HAQF Exploring potential take-up & potential implementation of the HAQF among the many humanitarian actors who remain outside the mainstream sector (peacekeepers, private security companies, consultancy companies, religious and other civil society groups, human rights organisations, etc. and other regional organisations ASEAN, OIC, AU, etc.) Incorporating knowledge of the use of new and changing technologies in crisis contexts Ensuring an inclusive rather than exclusive QF: beware of reinforcing existing international / national / local fault-lines within the sector, but beware also of inappropriate imposition on other actors Ensuring strategic links and complementarity with other learning, accountability and QA initiatives and networks across the sector Ensuring effective implementation: what next? 19
It all comes down to individual leadership their experience and exposure, willingness and commitment to the job. You ll find a lot of people less experienced, less committed, more thrillseeking and less risk-seeking. If a manager is smart, he ll look for people willing to rough it out. Bor interview, November 2012
ODI is the UK s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. We aim to inspire and inform policy and practice to reduce poverty by locking together high-quality applied research and practical policy advice. The views presented here are those of the speaker, and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ T: +44 207 9220 300 www.odi.org.uk/hpg s.collinson.ra@odi.org.uk