humanitarian principles, volunteerism & coordination ... · demac humanitarian workshop series...
TRANSCRIPT
Funded by ECHO, the DEMAC project is implemented by Danish Refugee Council, AFFORD-UK, & the Berghof Foundation to improve
diaspora emergency response capacity and coordination with the conventional humanitarian system
1
NEW WAYS OF WORKING DEMAC Humanitarian Workshop Series – Copenhagen 2016
HUMANITARIAN PRINCIPLES, VOLUNTEERISM & COORDINATION
Workshop Report
ABSTRACT
Against the background of numerous protracted humanitarian crises, there is a growing
interest by key stakeholders of the international humanitarian system in relief efforts of
diaspora communities in the northern hemisphere. The debate has evolved beyond
partnership necessities between ’conventional’ humanitarian actors, among them donor
states, UN agencies and international humanitarian organisations and Diaspora
communities, focusing now on operational mechanisms for more successful complimentary
partnerships.
2
CONTENTS
Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Workshop Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
2. Overview of the workshop .................................................................................................................. 4
3. Main Points of discussions .................................................................................................................. 4
Ethics, Humanity and Humanitarian Principles in Practice ................................................................................ 4
Highlights from the group discussions ........................................................................................................................ 5
Diaspora humanitarianism ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Highlights from the group discussions ........................................................................................................................ 6
Good Practices of Cooperation and Partnership ...................................................................................................... 7
Highlights from the group discussions ........................................................................................................................ 7
Information sharing and information management in the humanitarian system ..................................... 8
Highlights from the group discussions ........................................................................................................................ 8
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
List of Participants ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
3
1. WORKSHOP SUMMARY
This report summarises the discussions and recommendations from the workshop hosted by the Danish
Refugee Council (DRC) on 25 - 27 February 2016 in Copenhagen as part of the DEMAC Humanitarian
Workshop Series. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an interactive space for participants
from ‘conventional’ humanitarian actors, including UN agencies and international NGOs, and Diaspora
humanitarian organisations to jointly identify innovative ways and methods of cooperation for a more
effective response in an enhanced humanitarian system. The main recommendations to consider were:
Identifying the different ways of working by the participants with a focus on comparative
advantages of partnership working : examples from Sierra Leone and Syria demonstrated how
diaspora organisations and conventional actors had worked effectively together
Formation of partnerships enabling shared expertise, better access of Diaspora humanitarians to funding resources, risk assessment and information management tools of ‘conventional’
humanitarian actors.
Diasporas’ role as primary ‘responders’ and their engagement with local affected
communities is rarely systematically considered or fully documented by Diaspora humanitarians
themselves. Hence, the need for clearer methodological assessment and documentation of
diaspora efforts and their impacts.
Establishment of inter-Diaspora dialogue forums and support for information flow between
Diaspora and conventional actors.
Training and capacity building of Diaspora organisations and subsequently local NGOs and
community-based initiatives.
Improved information sharing and relationship building of donors and conventional
humanitarian actors with Diaspora and beneficiaries could increase trust, transparency and
accountability between sectors.
The major discussions that informed these recommendations centred on:
Understanding different roles, methods and modalities of humanitarian engagement and
emergency response by diaspora networks and the ‘conventional’ international
humanitarian system.
Identifying feasible operative steps enabling an increased engagement between diaspora
organisations and the ‘conventional’ humanitarian system.
Reviewing challenges of principled humanitarian action and partnerships for
coordination efforts.
Examining solution-oriented coordination approaches in an enhanced humanitarian
system.
4
2. OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP
The workshop extended over 3 days. The first day was dedicated to exchanges on humanitarian
principles, ethics and volunteerism. Two presentations on humanitarian principles and principled
humanitarian action in practice were provided by Kathrine Starup (DRC), followed by a presentation of
the key findings of the DEMAC diaspora study by Erik Mohns (Berghof Foundation).
The second day, dedicated to coordination mechanisms and information management in the
international humanitarian system, consisted of sessions on the ‘conventional’ international
humanitarian aid structure and its coordination mechanisms, partnerships in humanitarian aid,
information sharing and information management in the humanitarian system. Presenters and
facilitators were Stuart Kefford (STAIT), Zedoun Alzoebi (UOSSM), Vicky Acken (GOAL), Isabella Lisk
(SLUKDERT) and Christian Gad (DRC). The focus group discussions were facilitated by the DEMAC
consortium’s team.
On the third day, the discussions and results from the previous days were summarized by Mingo Heiduk
(DRC) and jointly recommendations for potential collaboration and coordination between
conventional and Diaspora actors developed. The workshop concluded with assembling strategic
priorities for future humanitarian engagement and suggesting policy recommendations for the World
Humanitarian Summit (WHS) facilitated by Elvina Quaison (AFFORD).
Some of the themes chosen for the
group work included, Principles
guiding humanitarian action and
international protection standards,
Humanitarian Ethics, Challenges and
comparative advantages of
coordination/co-operation, needs
assessment, Information Sharing,
Operational steps towards an
integrative humanitarian system,
designing plans for potential
collaboration and coordination,
strategic priorities for future
humanitarian engagement.
3. MAIN POINTS OF DISCUSSIONS Ethics, Humanity and Humanitarian Principles in Practice
The introductory session explored knowledge and common understanding of humanitarian principles
and codes of conduct. It was followed by an interactive group session on the similarities and differences
between faith-based charters, codes of conduct and humanitarian principles, highlighting the
complementarity of both approaches. In the following session, the many challenges and at times
dilemmas in complex emergency situations adhering to humanitarian principles were presented. It was
recognised these challenges place demands on humanitarian organisations when it comes to adherence
to the principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality as the basis for humanitarian
action. All participants agreed that the core principle forming the doctrine for involvement for all actors
is humanity.
5
Highlights from the group discussions Principles, ethical considerations and dilemmas in humanitarian practice were interactively debated and potential ways forward were discussed. During politically influenced crisis challenges occur for conventional actors regarding the
ability to follow and implement all the humanitarian principles in their response
There is a perception diaspora organisations are not considered as representing impartial and
neutral partners.
It was suggested for diaspora organisations, humanitarian ethics and principles are not choices,
but rather determined by motivations and other influencers.
It was recognised that some crisis situations create challenges of access for conventional actors while diaspora actors may not face the same challenges. A conventional actor in Syria spoke of
their productive partnership with a Syrian diaspora humanitarian organisation.
Some examples relating to neutrality and impartiality were discussed from the humanitarian
response to the Syrian crisis, which demonstrated challenges regarding practical and political
difficulties or restrictions impacting on conventional actors’ ability to respond neutrally.
Perceptions of diaspora and their motivations impacting on their ability to respond neutrally
were also discussed.
Diaspora humanitarianism
Diasporas are already acknowledged as important development actors. They also play a significant role
in pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis contexts, fuelled by feelings of loyalty, solidarity, and commitment to
their country of origin. The key findings of the DEMAC research report highlighted means and ways of
Diaspora engagement in humanitarian response. The role of diasporas as primary ‘responders’ and their
engagement with local affected communities have not been systematically considered so far and is not
fully documented by diaspora humanitarians themselves.
6
There are potential pitfalls of mainstreaming diaspora humanitarians into contemporary
humanitarian architecture. Partnerships should be complimentary and collaborative instead.
While all participants agreed on the
need for increased engagement and
cooperation between the conventional
and Diaspora spheres, a discussion on
the nature of potential partnerships
took place. It centred on the issue of
how to implement partnerships more
successfully in advance, throughout
and post-crisis. While diaspora
Organisations play a vital role in
responding to humanitarian crises,
conventional actors are faced with
ever tightening budgets constraints.
Partnerships between conventional
and Diaspora’ in general were considered crucial to the success of future humanitarian crisis responses
and long-term solutions.
Highlights from the group discussions Large parts of the discussion focused on potential modes of coordination between the
‘conventional’ humanitarian system and Diaspora initiatives and how to build upon Diasporas’
capacities become better incorporated into the humanitarian system.
There was a desire from all parties for clear definitions of what is meant by ‘diaspora’ and who
is diaspora. In terms of humanitarian response there was an interest for details of what this
looks like other than in the form of remittances.
Diaspora participants acknowledged the lack of existing data and knowledge regarding how
they work and the impact of their engagement. This information was seen as being important to
enable partnership with other diaspora and conventional actors..
Diaspora organisations have a perception that donors’ engagement initiatives are a driven by
access to migrant resources like remittances and voluntary personnel. The Diaspora consider
these assets as personal and community assets and some suggest they should not be
transformed to ‘contributions’ to the conventional humanitarian system.
Challenges of mainstreaming Diaspora Organisations into the conventional humanitarian
system were discussed. The participants agreed that partnerships should be based on
complimentary and collaborative working in order to provide a robust response while enabling
the diaspora to retain their ways of working.
7
Good Practices of Cooperation and Partnership
The session explored cooperation and
practical examples from the field
between diaspora and conventional
actors. An aspect that was highlighted by
Diaspora participants is the sheer human
capital the diaspora community have to
offer, which positions them well to
provide unique contributions to the
humanitarian community.
The example of Sierra Leone UK Diaspora
Ebola Response Taskforce (SLUKDERT)
as part of the collaborated humanitarian
response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa was shared. SLUKDERT demonstrated the comparative
advantage of Diasporas’ interaction with their home country in humanitarian response including, the
function as ‘bridge builders’ between conventional humanitarian actors and (governance) institutions
in the response zones, diaspora civic-oriented
involvement in their country of origin and
diaspora lobbying in the countries of residence,
allowing mass mobilisation of resources and
support mechanisms in the host country. In a
rapidly changing world with the advent of
communication technology and transportation,
transnational networks diminish traditional
boundaries between migrant communities and
crisis-affected communities.
Highlights from the group discussions Inclusion of Diaspora organisations into the humanitarian aid architecture and the
Transformative Agenda (TA) circles, may create synergy between leadership, policy and
operational space, which is what the TA seeks to harmonise throughout the humanitarian
system.
Good Models of Partnerships put forward during the group discussions included;
Long-term complimentary partnerships: mutual accountabilities, collaborative policy planning
through a shared platform.
Long-term advancement partnerships: focus on training and investment in institutions instead
of ‘capacity building’ that insinuates ‘lack of’ or ‘deficiency’. Thereby conventional actors
commit themselves to support Diaspora organisations to professionalize and to strengthen
local institutions through organic knowledge transfer. A promising example is IOM’s
engagement with the Somali Diaspora in Europe through the FINSOM initiatives.
Supplementary Partnership: Ad hoc support for specific humanitarian relief projects of
Diaspora organisations. Practical capability enhancement may constitute portion of the project.
8
Information sharing and information management in the humanitarian system
The limited scale of many Diaspora relief initiatives prevents the visibility of most of their activities by
the conventional humanitarian actors. This lack of knowledge about diaspora organisations’
engagement is responsible for the need of a deeper understanding of their potential and the impact of
their relief action on beneficiaries. Christian Gad’s presentation on coordinated needs assessment in
emergency situations emphasized the importance of needs assessment and highlighted how it informs
decision-making in the humanitarian system.
New technologies, such as social media, smartphones
and money transfer networks … offer vital prospect to
create new channels of gathering raw data as well as
verification of existing data with Diaspora
Organisations, due to their grassroots access.
Both ‘conventional’ and diaspora actors recognised the importance for enhancing diaspora
organisations’ capacity to assess needs and to share the information it gathers through its direct
contacts within affected communities, which offers opportunities for closer coordination. It was also
suggested conventional actors could benefit in their relief operations from diasporas’ linguistic skills
and cultural, and the social and economic linkages they retain to their countries of origin.
Highlights from the group discussions The use of communication tools and new technologies was explored between actors of both
spheres. Social media, smartphones and digital money transfer networks have simplified the
formation of virtual connections between Diasporas and disaster-affected communities in their
home countries. Through the use of these technologies, Diaspora organisations could provide
additional data and input as well as verify data from local community-based organisations
and/or state institutions.
Both actors acknowledged the importance of creating platforms to share expertise, risk
assessment and information management tools, as it could enhance the impact of diaspora
initiatives as well conventional humanitarian response.
9
Focus group discussions: Operational steps towards an integrated humanitarian system
Participants split into three focus groups that discussed the characteristics, particularities and
perceptions of the humanitarian responses in the Somali, Sierra Leonean and Syrian crises
including a stakeholder analysis and an analysis of ‘conventional’ and diaspora coordination and
cooperation mechanisms. It became apparent during this focus group discussion that in the course of
the humanitarian crises, both sets of actors operated in parallel structures with limited information
about the operations of other actors.
Conventional Humanitarian Actors’ relief operations are focused on immediate response and provision of relief. They also demonstrate higher degrees of disaster preparedness and more
sustainable responses to humanitarian crises.
In contrast, diaspora organisations responses to crises are not limited to relief only, but have an
integrated developmental element too. Due to the less restrictive manner of their coordination,
funding and structures they often have greater flexibility, this flexibility can translate into no clear
objectives of intervention and ad-hoc methods of measuring impact. Nonetheless, it was
recognised the Diaspora are the first line responders to crisis due to their close ties to the
‘homeland’ and can reach crisis zones through remittances and other community support
mechanisms
In natural disaster relief the Conventional Humanitarian Actors become de facto replacement of
state institutions where the ministries are supposed to be in the coordination role. In such
absence of a corresponding partner, the cluster service makes coordination challenging. With the
growing number of actors in the field, coordination becomes more about who is doing what rather
than to focus on the aid recipient community’s needs.
Trust and accountability were identified as the major obstacles to mutual understanding and
meaningful coordination. For conventional actors, it is the lack of paper trails of some Diaspora
organisations that, makes transparency and auditing challenging to ensure that donor funding
criteria can be met. For diaspora organisations, it is the lack of accountability by conventional
actors vis-à-vis the beneficiaries.
The establishment of sustainable dialogue forums for diaspora and conventional engagement
could reinforce commitments to further cooperation and enhance all actors’ understanding
through knowledge-sharing and systematizing lessons learned
10
Recommendations The workshop acted as an initial for greater dialogue between Diaspora representatives and
Conventional actors. The following recommendations were seen as tangible points of departure for
better cooperation and coordination between both actors to create a more effective Humanitarian
system.
Recognition of contextual differences and challenges as well as comparative advantages of engagement and the complementarity of both sectors: examples from Sierra Leone and Syria demonstrated the inter-operability of both sectors enabling the mitigation of each other’s weaknesses.
Trust and accountability were identified as the major obstacles to mutual understanding and meaningful coordination. Thus, improved transparency and accountability of donors and conventional humanitarian actors to Diaspora and beneficiaries would increase trust. On the other hand, more documentation of diaspora activities to improve transparency and auditable paper trial to mitigate donor concerns
Inclusion of Diaspora organisations into the consultative humanitarian aid architecture and the Transformative Agenda (TA) circles, to create better synergy between leadership, policy and operational space, which is what the TA seeks to harmonise throughout the humanitarian system.
Avoid mainstreaming Diaspora Organisations into conventional model organisations. Partnerships should be based on complimentary and collaborative responses to bring Diaspora Organisations from the periphery of the international humanitarian system, while retaining their own distinctiveness.
Better use of communication tools and new technologies like Social media, smartphones and digital money transfer networks, which streamline virtual connections between Diasporas and disaster-affected communities in their home countries. These technologies will allow Diaspora organisations to provide additional data and input, as well as verify data from local community-based organisations and/or state institutions.
Creation of Diaspora/Conventional networks that share expertise, risk assessment and information management tools, a platform that could enhance the impact of diaspora initiatives as well conventional humanitarian response.
“This document covers DEMAC activities implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, and the European
Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.”
11
List of Participants
Diaspora Organisations
Zedoun Al Zoebi, Union of Syrian Medical Care & Relief Organisations (UOSSM), Germany
Kiptieu Agyei, Heaven Homes, UK
Soumaiya El-Azem, Jasmin-Hilfe e.V., Germany/Kuwait
Elisabeth Conteh, Organisation of Sierra Leone Health Professionals Abroad, UK
Adam Xusen Garad, Himilo Relief and Development Association (HIRAD), Denmark
Mohamed Hassan Hagi, Southern Somalia's Peace and Development organisation SSPDO, Denmark
Dunja Khoury, Barada Syrienhilfe e.V. Germany
Isabella Lisk, Sierra Leone UK Diaspora Ebola Response Taskforce (SLUKDERT), UK
Fadi Al Dairi, Hand in Hand for Syria, UK
Ahmed Dharbaxo, Diaspora Consultant, Denmark
Yassin Ahmed Osoble, OFROSOM, Denmark
Abdulaziz Ramadan, Union of Kurdish Students in Syria and Germany e.V. (UKSSD) (Germany)
Hamza Jama, Danish Human Appeal, Denmark
Memuna Janneh, LunchBoxGift, UK
Alberta Stevens, Engayde, UK
Mazen Charbak, Homs League Abroad, UK
Abdurahman Ugas Muhammed, DAN-TA QOYS-KA, DK
Fatu Wurie, Survivor’s Dream Project, Sierra Leone
Conventional actors
Hélène Michalak, Syria expert, France
Frantz Celestin, IOM Somalia Head, Labour Mobility and Human Development Division, Somalia
Christian Gad, DRC, Global emergency coordinator, Denmark
Zamzam Ibrahim, Save the Children, Humanitarian recruiter, UK
Kathrine Starup, DRC, Protection Global Specialist Lead, Denmark
Anne-Sophie Laenkholm, ECHO, Protection Global expert, Belgium
Sevda Simsek, Islamic Relief Deutschland, Regional desk coordinator, Germany
Alessandra Incerti, Y Care International, Africa Programme coordinator
Stuart Kefford, UNDP Senior Transformative Agenda Implementation Team (STAIT), Switzerland
Vicki Acken, Country director Syria, GOAL, Turkey
Natia Moshashvili, MENA Community Centre Program manager, DRC, Lebanon
Jeremiah Kibanya, Faith & Development Technical Advisor, Somalia, World Vision International
Claire Lamont, Senior Officer GISR, UNHCR
DEMAC Consortium
Mingo Heiduk Tetsche, Team Leader Diaspora Programme, DRC, Denmark.
Béatrice Mauconduit, DEMAC Consortium Coordinator, DRC, Denmark.
Erik Mohns, Project Manager, Berghof Foundation, Germany
Elvina Quaison, Project Coordinator, AFFORD, UK.
Onyekachi Wambu, Director, AFFORD, UK.
DEMAC Consultant
Masud Abdi, DEMAC Consultant, Denmark