- (required)
- required
- optional
- required
Comments on the ODI blog are moderated. ODI will post as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee to publish them all.
Coopted by the UN? Time for NGOs to take up the challenge, argues Eva von Oelreich
Disparate NGOs or Co-opted by UN - Where is the debate?
In a recent paper on the Future of Humanitarian Action Peter
Walker from the Feinstein International Center
at Tufts University claims that “the present
‘international humanitarian community’ is an unplanned agglomeration of
disparate parts evolving out of the post-WWII consensus”. He says it is time to move on, time for a
greater diversity of humanitarian actors to act with more coherence and “for
individual agencies to trump agency growth with contribution to the common
good”.
Meanwhile, at the 4th Autumn School of Humanitarian Aid of
URD in Provence in late September, a group of humanitarian practitioners and
researchers, including from NATO, discussed if humanitarian space is in
jeopardy and also looked at possible threats of becoming part of one big UN
humanitarian machinery with risks of being instrumentalized, causing loss of
identity and independence.
Are NGOs disparate parts of an unplanned agglomeration or
climbing to sit on the UN lap? What
lies between the extremes? Probably a
huge area waiting for initiative. A lot
of analysis is going on right now in the hundreds and hundreds of humanitarian
organisations, which make up the exponentially growing non-UN humanitarian
sector. Some of these organisations are larger than UN agencies and are continuing
to grow? What are the issues? What factors are decisive for NGO decisions
for the future? Where is the debate?
Most of the open debate has so far been about how to relate
to three UN humanitarian reform pillars:
Clusters, CERF and Humanitarian Coordination. ERC, Jan Egeland, added a fourth informal
pillar about partnerships with NGOs, when it became obvious that the reform was
seen as UN-centric and that the invitation to non-UN actors was felt as conditioned.
It is high time for NGOs to take up the challenge and more
clearly articulate their position: how
to relate to other humanitarian actors, the UN as well as fellow NGOs and the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. “What does the UN want from NGOs with the
clusters?” was a question often repeated this spring. Time to turn the question
around and look at what NGOs see as essential for global humanitarian response
to be as good as it gets. NGOs, large
and small, northern and southern, need to take a hard look at where they want
to be in the coming years, and what type of relationships they need to
contribute to humanitarian response optimally.
Are “implementing agency” and “service-provider” becoming
obsolete? Are we not hearing about being
equal partners…?
Maybe the first important relationship to consider is
increased dialogue and interaction between non-governmental humanitarian actors
themselves? In the URD
Autumn School
the researcher Xavier Zeebroek from GRIP in Brussels put forward the idea of creating and
reinforcing networks of humanitarian NGOs “on the ground” to lobby together and
put pressure for change in countries, when and where integrated missions
override humanitarian needs. NGO
national fora may be an essential starting point for other reasons too – to get
greater diversity by including national NGOs in the discussion, to link NGO and
INGO discussion, to initiate relevant partnerships on an equal footing with the
UN and to test them on operational realities.
This will take place as a follow up to the NGO, UN and Red
Cross dialogue 12-13 July 2006. The so-called Global Humanitarian Platform will
look at principles and realities of cooperation in operational countries as
well as in its platform meeting next July.
But surely it is not only about global platforms. It is time
to think of flexible, “light-footed” mechanisms that work for a specific
situation. IWG, the Interagency Working Group of seven large NGOs working
together on an Emergency
Capacity Building
initiative, may be an example of such an “energy grouping”. Time to show more
clearly what diverse and complementary action means in practice for NGOs. Time to show what is missing on the UN
agenda. And time to fill more capacity gaps? Food security and livelihoods are
continuously mentioned as gap areas. The cross-cutting issues (gender,
environment, human rights, HIV/AIDS) continue to fall through the cracks. And yet there is NGO expertise in these
areas, ready to be identified.
And finally how can the huge area around quality, standards
and accountability to the affected and assisted population be brought back as
centre-piece in the discussion?
So where is the reflection and debate among ourselves to
sharpen views and come forward with solutions between the extremes? The analysis is there in individual
organisations - now share it.
Time to have the NGO side of things.
Eva von Oelreich
SCHR - Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response
The views expressed do no necessarily represent those of
SCHR
Footnotes :
URD – Urgence, Réhabilitation Développement, Plaisians, France
GRIP – Groupe de recherche et d’information sur la paix et
la sécurité, Brussels, Belgium
