|
|
|
Blogroll
- Elsewhere on the internet
|
|
A call for regulation in humanitarian action and a ‘high level panel’
(note: this blog was written by Maurice Herson and John Mitchell)
At yesterday’s meeting at the ODI, there surfaced some new perspectives on an old dilemma about managing the quality of humanitarian action. The meeting was called by ALNAP, under the title ‘The limits of humanitarianism’, with Hugo Slim and Tony Vaux presenting, and Randolph Kent in the chair.
Predictably there was a range of views expressed on how successful the current form of the humanitarian enterprise is. Tony Vaux sees the glass as almost empty, and sees no role for regulation of the system in improving it. Hugo Slim on the other hand, holds a more optimistic view, and is in favour of regulation as a means to help to keep the glass filling up.
The debate about the worth and the practicality of some sort of regulation of the international humanitarian system is of course not new, and the range of opinions given, and questions posed, both by the panel and the many people who took part in the discussion didn’t propose a magical resolution that will satisfy and convince us all. It was helpful, though, to consider the question against the background of a synopsis of recent performance, views of trends in the context within which we work, and thinking about what the limits of humanitarian action, if not humanitarianism, are.
One of the ideas that has been floated inside ALNAP, and particularly in response to the findings of last year’s Tsunami Evaluation Coalition reports, is the establishment of what has been called a ‘high level panel’ to which the elements of the humanitarian system would ‘report’ in some way on a regular basis. This is not exactly regulation; no doubt many people would dismiss it for having no teeth, at least not literally. It might however in time develop some political, if not procedural, teeth.
It’s certainly worth considering whether this is a viable and feasible idea. At the moment we are challenged to be accountable to various constituencies, and we all know that the ways that this is managed are not good enough, and, as Tony Vaux says, result in distortion of the system. What if there was a requirement to make an account of the performance, changes, improvements and challenges in international humanitarian action, that was in turn required to reflect back to us what that should mean in terms of what we need to be doing next? Not regulation, but a way of both channelling the diversity of accountability and side-stepping some of the distorting effects, and thus with a regulating effect.
One of the challenges at last night’s meeting was about innovation and the inward-lookingness of the system. If there was to be such a high level panel, it would have to include both people with credibility within the existing system and also people who could bring other forms of discipline; Hugo Slim made some suggestions such as someone from the PR world who is used to methods of ascertaining the views of stakeholders. It could be an exciting way of breaking the introspective modes we often feel we are stuck in.
And what would be the nature of the regular report to such a body? It would have to draw on work already being done by existing initiatives and forums, for example HAP, People in Aid, Good Humanitarian Donorship and others. But it would also be able to push us to find ways of taking up other important issues that do not have such a dedicated focus within the humanitarian system yet, such as disaster risk reduction.
Given the incoherence of the international humanitarian system, such a high level panel would act as a semi-regulatory process, and in effect be a proxy for the people or group for whom and on whose behalf humanitarian action is intended. It would not supersede other accountabilities, indeed it couldn’t; but it could monitor those other accountabilities and give the elements of the existing system guidance, channel a measure of increased coherence, put some pressure on to reduce the causes of the distortions that Tony Vaux has identified, and help us to be clear about what the system is good for and good at, and what it’s not.
Risk takers sign up here ….
Comments
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.
re: A call for regulation in humanitarian action and a ‘high level panel’ @ Monday, April 02, 2007 3:09 PM
If anyone needs some brain-jogging on more of the issues that came up in the refreshing and stimulating talks by Tony Vaux and Hugo Slim, we've mentioned it on Reuters AlertNet:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1264/2007/03/2-122943-1.htm
Is humanitarian aid a complete failure?
re: A call for regulation in humanitarian action and a ‘high level panel’ @ Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:45 PM
It is early in the morning, and we cannot seem to access the comments section, but here is our pennyworth.
The critical issue for us is whether humanitarianism is framed in a 19th Century national sovereignty argument or a 20th Century human rights argument. Respectively, under current humanitarianism, these are perhaps represented by ICRC and the MSF family. Before there are squeals of anguish, let us starkly say we regard both institutions as modern in manner but they are used, yes used, by the bilateral donors, the drivers of the global humanitarian system primarily through primarily the United Nations system, in different ways. If this seems a little abstract, try a case study.
Over the last five years, there has been international attention on two humanitarian crises in Sudan. (We know of the problems in eastern Sudan but they have not surfaced to international attention). These crises are the southern Sudan chronic emergency and the acute emergency in Darfur, spilling over into Chad. Bilateral donors, supported by the African Union, had effectively prioritised the southern Sudan crisis over the Darfur crisis, a prioritisation that, in terms of humanitarian delivery, even if volumes delivered are greater in Darfur, is deeply regrettable. This is because the drive to maintain sovereign integrity is greater than the drive for human rights. In Khartoum, the Sudanese government must be amused as western diplomats, in our observation those from the United States, the British and the Netherlands, turn up to decry rights abuses but then argue the case for sovereignty. And, reflecting back to the ICRC-MSF family distinction, it is not by chance that ICRC has been the major player in southern Sudan and the MSF family in Darfur notwithstanding the excellent work both organisations have done in both places. What is at issue here is the politics of politics not the politics of humanitarian issues. It is not the Dunantian-Wilsonian division, which is about the stature of humanitarian agendas, but about the morality of intervention.
The politics of politics has many impacts but the one that concerns us is the impact on evaluations. What is not allowable in evaluations is to question the politics. The relevant questions have to do with the politics of humanitarianism, not the politics of politics. It is the questions not asked in evaluations that should cause the greatest concern. Reading the blog, we are struck by an implied managerialism, the Zeitgeist of our age, of humanitarian aid. We are conscious that so little has been achieved by managerialism in terms of real delivery in the two great public sectors, health and higher education, with which we are familiar in the United Kingdom, particularly if you discount the ransom of our future in Public-Private Initiatives (PPIs) that is a boon to private real estate developers.
As researchers and teachers of humanitarianism in action, we would draw your attention to three important evaluation conclusions about the politics of politics that we must use to frame further discussion. The first is from the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition but, if paraphrased, it would read thus: “When there is enough money, nobody works with anyone else”. And that was demonstrably true of a disaster, which cost US$ 9 billion but generated at least US$ 14 billion in response.
The second is from a recent paper:
[On] average the CAP has sought US$3.1 billion per year and received US$2.1 billion per year (68 per cent). As the appeals do not meet 100 per cent of their targets, several sectors or appeals have remained under-funded (Financial Tracking Service – FTS – 2006). Table 1 illustrates the percentage of CAP requests fulfilled per sector.
Table 1. Percentage of global CAP requests met per sector for 2003-05.
Sector Requests Met 2003 (%) Requests Met 2004 (%) Requests Met 2005 (%)
Food 91% 79% 73%
Shelter and non-food items
15%
22%
54%
Health 35% 31% 51%
Water and Sanitation
32%
33%
49%
Source: Adapted from The Global Humanitarian Aid Database, FTS, 2006.
The table indicates that there is a tendency for food aid appeals to be met through the CAP compared with, for example, water and sanitation, which has always received under half of its appeals. The links between these sectors are clear and the repercussions of insufficient humanitarian aid in one will detrimentally affect the others.
In the politics of politics, coordination becomes a mechanism to source funds, especially for the oligopoly of International Non-Governmental Organisations, those with Heads of Agreement with the UN humanitarian system, but there is never enough.
Finally, and perhaps to mark his transition to another important programme, the words of Niels Dabblestein, on the appearance of the second ALNAP Annual Review, need noting. “This year’s ALNAP review and synthesis of 55 evaluations points to a number of well known problematic areas: a lack of connectedness: a lack of attention to preparedness, rights-based approaches, targeting and gender equality: low levels of affected population participation: limited attention to indigenous coping strategies and limited coordination. Why is it that the humanitarian sector continues to face the problems?” The answers lie in the politics of politics beyond humanitarianism, driven by too much or too little money, where the key issue is coordination not management.
John Kirkby, Neil Middleton, Geoff O’Brien, Phil O’Keefe, Joanne Rose.
HAP Certification: a method for humanitarian regulation? @ Monday, June 11, 2007 5:17 PM
The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP)* secretariat believes that humanitarian agencies can effectively regulate themselves. The discussion about ALNAP's latest Review of Humanitarian Action [ http://www.odi.org.uk/ALNAP/publications/rha.htm], along with the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition [ http://www.tsunami-evaluation.org/The+TEC+Synthesis+Report/] and the NGO Impact Initiative a.k.a. Clinton Initiative [ http://www.interaction.org/files.cgi/5528_NGOImpactInitiativeFullFinalReport.pdf] shows that many relief agencies share questions about 'how' humanitarian regulation will work.
1. Will regulation be imposed from outside the sector? Until now, the quality and accountability initiatives have been developed 'by and for' humanitarians, and compliance with rules has been mainly left to each agency. Many also seem prepared to be monitored by their international NGO peers -- "before governments or inter-governmental bodies step in with heavy-handed rules," as the Economist wrote recently [ http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9228801].
2. Must regulation include compliance verification? The Clinton initiative noted that having established standards in place was not enough and "compliance review, verification and certification are needed." The TEC called for a compliance mechanism, and establishment of an accreditation and certification system to distinguish agencies that work to a professional standard. Humanitarians know that the Red Cross Code, which does not prescribe concrete institutional actions for implementation, is difficult to evaluate performance against.
3. Will regulation be done collectively? The Clinton initiative suggested that a working group be established among relevant humanitarian NGO platforms to launch a "consensus-building dialogue" around the adoption of "a modest number of core operating standards" before implementation of a compliance enforcement mechanism. The "continuum" would include standards development, stakeholder validation, technical assistance, structured self-regulation, and then external verification – either by peer-review, second or third party auditing and accreditation. But that process already seemed well underway in March, when the 'proliferating' humanitarian initiatives (ALNAP, Coordination Sud, ECB, Groupe URD, HAP, People In Aid and Sphere) declared their shared goal and agreed to collaborate in specific ways.
4. What is the HAP Standard and Certification scheme? The HAP Standard, launched in April 2007, offers a definition of humanitarian accountability for aid agencies -- a common framework developed by humanitarians, disaster survivors and accountability advisers through a global consultation process. Moreover, the HAP Certification scheme provides a mechanism for verification and quality assurance. Last month, the Danish Refugee Council and Senegal-based OFADEC were awarded the first HAP Certificates, and several other agencies are expected to seek certification during this year and next. Download the HAP Standard [ http://www.hapinternational.org/en/complement.php?IDcomplement=79&IDcat=4&IDpage=74] and a briefing [ http://www.hapinternational.org/pdf_word/555-Briefing%20-%20the%20HAP%20Standard%20and%20Certification.pdf] about the HAP Standard and Certification, or Contact the HAP Certification Manager to find out about HAP Certification: Tel: +41 (0)22 788 16 43 / Email: shaw@hapinternational.org
The mooted high-level panel could bring the high moral authority of its individual appointees, but it would still have to address the questions above and effectively navigate the stirring humanitarian regulatory environment. Any course that steers away from existing initiatives would be an exercise in duplication that the humanitarian sector's resources and credibility cannot well afford.
Nicholas Stockton, Sheryl Haw, Andrew Lawday
(N.B this opinion represents the views of the HAP Secretariat, and not necessarily those of HAP members)
*The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) is a Geneva-based association, with a diverse global membership, that aims to make humanitarian action accountable to intended beneficiaries.
|
|
