Documents related to the ICVA Conference

NGOS: The Principles and Politics of Humanitarian Action

ICVA Conference Background Document

1 February 2006
CICG, Geneva, Switzerland

THE NGO COMMUNITY: TAKING A GOOD LOOK AT OURSELVES

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in humanitarian action worldwide are a rich and colourful group of very different organisations, each having their own backgrounds, motivations, approaches, methodologies, and objectives. This diversity can be viewed both as welcome, because it helps to cover the broad spectrum of humanitarian needs, and as questionable, because of the impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action.

While NGOs have conversations about ways to improve humanitarian response, they rarely engage in frank and open discussions about their differences and the implications of these differences. The broader humanitarian community is generally expected to build consensus and work together for the same goals. Substantive debates about our diversity, the way in which we relate to each other, and whether we share the same goals, are often viewed as too cumbersome and too time-consuming.

Self-reflection and self-critique are difficult undertakings, but NGOs should not be afraid to discuss their differences. ICVA's Conference on 1 February 2006, entitled NGOs: The Principles and Politics of Humanitarian Action, will provide an opportunity to start openly discussing the distinctions between NGOs, to examine the impact of the diversity between NGOs, and to have an honest reflection on the way in which NGOs work together and relate to other humanitarian actors. The Conference is divided into three sub-themes:

• Understanding Our Differences - As It Is Now;
• Managing Our Diversity - As It Should Be; and
• Future Challenges: Are We Ready to Meet Them - As It Could Be.

The purpose of this background document is to help frame the Conference debate, to list a number of issues for discussion for each panel, and to explain some of the thinking for choosing this Conference theme.

It is hoped that the ICVA Conference will not just be a "one-off" where NGOs, along with other actors, take the time to step back and be self-critical, but will be, instead, the beginning of a broader debate and self-reflection. By having an audience from a wide range of NGOs meeting together with representatives from the UN, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, and governments, it is hoped that this range of experiences will help to stimulate the debate on the opportunities and constraints of our diversity.

A one-day discussion can only provide the start to a more thorough process of developing a better understanding of each other in order to ensure that our actions are mutually reinforcing. Such a process, however, is essential to effectively address the challenges that confront all NGOs and other humanitarian actors. The stakes of going back to business as usual, and being driven by our different agencies' individual interests and priorities, without a real willingness to change and improve collectively, are simply too high.

PANEL 1: UNDERSTANDING OUR DIFFERENCES - AS IT IS NOW

There is a general lack of understanding about the diversity of NGOs and why they carry out humanitarian work in different ways. It is hoped that this diversity will be better understood by looking at the motivations and the principles that guide NGOs in their work and their distinct practices.

The session on "understanding our differences" aims to provide the Conference with an overview of the various interpretations and approaches of NGOs. What are the types of differences that exist? How deeply entrenched are those differences?

Beneath the Surface: NGO Politics

NGO politics are closely related to the differences that exist between them. These politics may derive from the competition for scarce resources or, as in the case of the Tsunami, a competition for projects in order to spend funds, even leading, in some cases, to rivalry that negatively impacts on the overall humanitarian response. In too many instances, there are stories of NGOs planting their flags, staking out territory, and even trying to "guard" their territory.

International NGOs are expected to support and work in partnership with their local counterparts. There are, however, differences in how international NGOs and national NGOs view and approach this partnership. How can these differences be reconciled? The preliminary findings of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) show that international NGOs did not take local NGOs as seriously as they should have and that poor coordination led to duplication, as well as shortages of interventions (see TEC Initial Findings at: http://www.alnap.org/tec/pdf/TEC_initial_report_20051223_finalversion.pdf).

In certain high profile emergencies, where local NGO structures have been weak, there has been a competition between international NGOs to find the best local counterpart(s). Another area of tension between international and local NGOs may relate to the quality of the humanitarian response. The way in which that quality is judged is often viewed from an international perspective, which sometimes can be seen, too quickly, as superior to local knowledge.

There may also be politics between NGOs from different backgrounds. On the ground there appears to be very little collaboration between Western NGOs and Islamic NGOs. What lies behind this lack of relationships and what can be done to improve them?

Another issue that is part of NGO politics relates to the significant divergence seen in approaches and interpretations of humanitarian principles. European NGOs, for example, may see their US-based colleagues as too pragmatic, based on the perception that American NGOs have a lower threshold in accepting certain conditions from government authorities.

Similarly, NGOs that apply a stricter definition of humanitarian action may see their fellow multi-mandate NGOs (i.e. those that claim to be humanitarian but, at the same time, also engage in sustainable development, human rights advocacy, or peace building) as contributing to the confusion of what constitutes humanitarian action.

The Humanitarian Community: Different Interpretations

Closely linked to the diversity of NGOs is the issue of differences in interpretations of humanitarian principles and the impact their varying application has on the face of the "humanitarian community." Understanding these differences may also help to better explain the different operational policies and priorities that NGOs may have.

There has been much debate on the question of whether such a thing as a "humanitarian NGO community" really exists, as there are clear differences on the definition of humanitarian action. Is it an exclusive concept bound by certain principles and criteria? Or can it be used by each and every actor calling itself "humanitarian?"

One initiative that was meant to help better define the commonalities of non-governmental humanitarian agencies has been the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief. In reflecting the environment at the time it was written, and in order to gain broad consensus on the document, the Code developed as an amalgamation of classic humanitarian principles with development principles. As a result, according to some, the Code has lost its meaning as an instrument for guiding humanitarian action. Others view the Code as a document that, in reaching this compromise, appropriately reflects the diversity of NGOs involved in humanitarian action. The question of whether the Code is a useful instrument in defining the commonality of humanitarian NGOs will need to be addressed.

PANEL 2: MANAGING OUR DIVERSITY - AS IT SHOULD BE

Being a diverse community, the next step in the debate is how should NGOs work better together? Is diversity a good or bad thing? Ideally, diversity should lead to a situation where complementarities can be maximised. The second sub-theme, Managing Our Diversity: As It Should Be, touches on NGO relations, collaboration, and coordination.

Diversity and Coordination

How should humanitarian coordination systems be structured in order to ensure that the diversity that exists can be built upon, rather than seen as a burden or obstacle to moving forward? While diversity may be an asset of the humanitarian community, there is also the risk that too much diversity can lead to a fragmentation of efforts. How can this risk be overcome? One of the challenges with coordination at the field level is the sheer number of actors that appear, many of them having their own agendas, especially in high profile humanitarian crises. While in the early stages of an emergency it might be difficult to launch efforts to build upon this diversity by understanding the way in which each works, without such comprehension, a complementary response, based on respect for each other's mandates and missions, becomes much more challenging. Simply "getting on" with coordination, before developing a strategic basis for working together, can result in more time and energy lost at a later stage, potentially coming at the expense of those with whom we work.

The current architecture of the humanitarian system sees the UN at the top of coordination mechanisms. UN-led humanitarian coordination efforts, however, often seem to be aimed at ensuring a unity of response, based on an agenda of coherence, which implies an assumption that we are all working for the same objectives. In the past few years, there have been fierce debates between the UN and non-UN agencies on how to avoid having humanitarian action further instrumentalised and made part of the toolbox to establish peace and security.

The new UN "cluster" approach, which has been introduced as part of broader humanitarian reforms (see Talk Back 7-3), may be viewed by some as a new attempt to create a centrally managed and standardised aid system that designates rules and regulations for those involved in humanitarian action. The cluster model may also risk favouring large international NGOs that are able to quickly respond to emergencies with substantial resources over smaller, local and national NGOs that have a better understanding of the context and that will remain long after the emergency is over. Whatever is true, NGOs need to have a critical self-reflection about the way in which they work together in order to set their own agenda for collaboration and cooperation and not simply be led by the UN agenda.

NGO Collaboration

In order to better improve coordination and collaboration between NGOs, what needs to be done? How can there be true strategic coordination that will lead to a more effective humanitarian response? What is the best way to ensure that the existing diversity is not ignored, but instead is actively discussed so that through this understanding, we can make progress in terms of improving our ability to respond to humanitarian crises?

One way forward, in terms of working together on particular issues, might be building smaller, like-minded alliances, instead of large coordination mechanisms that attempt to bring each and everyone to the table. A group of predominantly US-based NGOs, for example, has set up an Inter-Agency Working Group to work together on some specific operational and capacity issues of common concern. Other alliances have been formed around specific themes, such as on the provision of education in humanitarian emergencies. In building systems for improving NGO accountability, the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) has engaged with its nine members in a process of peer review on the implementation of codes of conduct that prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of people of concern by humanitarian staff. Is there a general need to look more at forming strategic alliances between groups of (like-minded) NGOs that can focus on particular issues more effectively?

ICVA is often referred to as a unique mechanism for NGO dialogue and collaboration, bringing together NGOs from different regions and backgrounds. How can ICVA members better collaborate and coordinate on humanitarian principles in their operational response on the ground?

PANEL 3: FUTURE CHALLENGES: ARE WE READY TO MEET THEM - AS IT COULD BE

Building upon the ideas of how to improve the humanitarian community and coordination structures that exist today, the third sub-theme will look at the future and whether or not we are ready to deal with upcoming challenges ("how it could be in the future"). Given that no single agency will be able to meet new global challenges alone, such as the implications of climate change or new diseases and epidemics, the Conference will discuss how NGOs should prepare to meet these challenges collectively. While NGOs may strategise individually, there is a real need for the NGO community to share their strategies and to become more forward-looking.

Responding to humanitarian emergencies brings with it a collective responsibility. In terms of working towards this collective responsibility, however, there may be times when some of an individual agency's interests will have to be set aside for the achievement of this collective responsibility.

One of the issues that we constantly talk about is the principle of collaboration in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action. At the same time, collaboration will often exist only as long as it is convenient for agencies or does not cause them too much "pain." How, in future, can the NGO community work towards more collaboration to ensure a better response? Should the principle of collaboration be one that is explicitly agreed to by humanitarian NGOs?

In order to plan for contingencies and to be prepared for future challenges, there will have to be significant shifts in the way that NGOs think about their organisations. Issues of agency culture could be an area to address to see how we can function better in the future. Do NGOs take enough time to be forward thinking in their planning; to look at "corporate strategies"; or to ensure that there is a common vision within the organisation? NGOs are often restricted in their ability to be forward-looking because of funding constraints. For those NGOs that have their own private funding, it is easier to look into these issues and to plan for the future. For smaller NGOs, and particularly those that are dependent on donor funds for individual projects, it is much more difficult to convince donors of the value of being forward looking and to plan for future events.

Donors should also be challenged as to whether or not they would like to see NGOs function in a more responsible organisational manner where forward planning is seen as crucial. Currently, donors seem to favour directing funds to NGOs for specific projects in particular areas, rather than supporting overall organisational improvement that would also allow NGOs to take the decisions as to where best to spend resources. It is already difficult to raise money for existing humanitarian situations where the needs are great. To raise funds for future planning is even harder. What are some of the ways in which we might be able to encourage donors to fund more strategic planning for the future? Might it be easier to convince donors to contribute funds if NGOs worked together in such planning? In order to be more forward-looking, there is a need for a collective approach in order to ensure the best possible response to future challenges. What steps are required to be able to successfully engage in such a collaborative effort?