The International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) is a non-profit global association of non-governmental organisations that works as a collective body to promote, and advocate for, human rights and a humanitarian perspective in global debates and responses. The heart of the ICVA mission is to support NGOs to protect and assist people in need, to address the causes of their plight, and to act as a channel for translating patterns and trends into advocacy.

ICVA seeks to strengthen NGOs as part of civil society through the relationships among member organisations from around the world. It facilitates the sharing and creative use of practical experience and strategies to promote and protect human rights, including those of refugees and displaced peoples, and to provide humanitarian assistance from the perspective of justice and sustainable development. ICVA fosters partnerships among agencies for the sharing and dissemination of information to attain consensus among member agencies on prioritised issues in order to effect change, particularly at the international level.

ICVA advocates vis-󃂠-vis governments and international agencies for a strong NGO role in efforts to secure human rights, prevent conflicts, prepare for disasters, and improve humanitarian responses to distressed populations. Through its cooperative and catalytic nature, it gathers and exchanges information and raises awareness on the most vital matters of humanitarian concern before policy-making bodies.

ICVA has been in existence since 1962. It works to secure the commitment of the world community to address injustice, ensure dignity and rights, and promote international strategies that attend to human needs. Today's NGO members are strengthened in their missions to provide global assistance through the power and persuasion of the ICVA alliance. Tomorrow's members will continue to enrich the network with experience and opinion and will strengthen the impact of this alliance in bringing about a just world.

Adopted by the 12th ICVA General Assembly, February 2003

Back to Contents

2. FOREWORD

In many ways, 2005 seemed like the year of natural disasters as NGOs scrambled to respond to the devastation wrought by the tsunami and later, the earthquake in Pakistan. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that even rich countries find it difficult to respond quickly and effectively in the aftermath of a disaster. But while television screens were filled with images of people fleeing tidal waves, floods, and earthquakes, the man-made conflicts in Darfur (Sudan), Burundi, Colombia, and many other places continued to challenge NGOs - and the broader humanitarian community - to develop better response mechanisms.

For the NGO world, 2005 was a year where the contributions of NGOs were increasingly recognised. As Jan Egeland, Emergency Relief Coordinator, often observed, around 80% of humanitarian assistance is distributed through NGOs, which means that they must be major actors in the debates over humanitarian reform.

For ICVA, this was a year in which its views were increasing sought out by governments and inter-governmental organisations. The external evaluation showed that ICVA is regarded as a credible representative of NGOs and its contributions are valued by intergovernmental organisations. The role ICVA played in the recruitment process for a new UN High Commissioner for Refugees gave it considerable visibility within the international humanitarian community. Although ICVA probably didn't have a significant impact on the final decision, the fact that we called for an open and transparent process raised important questions for the international community. While occasionally controversial, ICVA's advocacy tool, Talk Back, served to stimulate debate on important issues of the day. ICVA, however, should not shy away from taking controversial positions. While inter-governmental organisations and governments must necessarily be diplomatic in their approach to issues, NGOs can and, I believe should, dare to be more forthright. ICVA's programmatic initiatives were appreciated and I particularly want to highlight the Building Safer Organisations project, which provided a means of translating a general concern with preventing sexual abuse and exploitation into a viable mechanism that ensures that complaints against NGO staff are investigated and addressed.

Finally, I must say that it has been a real privilege to serve as Chair of ICVA these past three years. Before I took up this position, I never realised what potential there is for ICVA in the international humanitarian community. It has been rewarding to work with many NGOs in formulating ICVA's collective positions. I thank the outgoing Executive Committee for their hard work this past year. And, I particularly want to express appreciation to the ICVA Secretariat staff who have demonstrated how much a few dedicated people (and more than a few late nights) can achieve.

I want to thank the members of the Executive Committee for your support during these past three years. I wish my successor, Tom Getman of World Vision, and the new Executive Committee all the best as you take up the challenge of leading ICVA over the next three years. There will doubtlessly be new crises and new issues, but I am confident that under their leadership, ICVA will continue to make a difference in this troubled world.

With gratitude for your continued support of ICVA,

Sincerely,

Elizabeth G. Ferris
Chair, ICVA Executive Committee, 2003-2005

Back to Contents

3. TRYING TO IMPROVE THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM

The year 2005 will be remembered as the year of humanitarian reform initiatives led by the UN. A number of attempts were made to change the humanitarian system in order to better respond to crises. The basis of many of these reforms can be found in the conclusions and recommendations of the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR - see separate piece). The reform process has involved the introduction of "clusters," an improved funding mechanism, and attempts to strengthen the Humanitarian Coordinator system. Many of the other recommendations and issues raised in the HRR have been left by the wayside as the UN has focused its attention on the areas that it felt to be of utmost importance, without a thorough discussion with the non-UN about what the priority areas of reform should be.

Of all the reform initiatives, the "cluster approach" has probably gained the most attention from NGOs. The cluster approach has seen different UN agencies (and IOM and IFRC) appointed to lead nine different areas of the humanitarian response, in non-refugee situations, to ensure that there will be a more predictable response to humanitarian crises. The cluster lead (except in the case of IFRC) is to be the port of first call, the "provider of last resort," and is to be accountable for the response in the sector or area of responsibility of the cluster. The approach also found UNHCR taking on a number of responsibilities related to internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Many have made the point that the introduction of the clusters was because the "collaborative approach" to responding to IDPs was not working. One major factor for the failure in adequately responding to IDPs relates to the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) function. The HC is the one who is supposed to bring together humanitarian actors to ensure that a well-coordinated humanitarian response is undertaken. Yet, in many cases, the HC who was appointed often had little, if any, humanitarian experience or understanding of protecting and assisting IDPs.

For years, NGOs had been raising issues of concern around the HC appointment system, as the HC function is one that is supposed to serve the broader humanitarian community beyond the UN system. The system of recruiting and appointing HCs, however, has remained within the UN system and been a mystery to most NGOs. While there is supposed to be consultation with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) before an appointment of an HC is made, the usual practice has been to consult the IASC after the negotiations have taken place within the UN system. In addition, there was little clarity on the qualifications required for the job and a performance appraisal process was non-existent.

As part of the reform process, improving the HC function was prioritised. In order to move the debate forward, the ICVA Secretariat produced a discussion paper (see http://www.icva.ch/cgi-bin/browse.pl?doc=doc00001438) for the IASC Working Group (IASC WG), which was complemented by a paper from OCHA. The ICVA paper looked at previous IASC discussions on the HC function and raised issues that required reform, including the recruitment and selection process; the appointment process; the issue of dual-hatted Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators or separating the two functions; and the issue of accountability of HCs.

As a result of the discussion at the IASC WG and the efforts by OCHA, a stand-by roster (or "pool") of pre-qualified HCs that would be available on short notice was established and the pool of HCs was opened up to the non-UN for the first time. The issues around the appointment process continue to undergo efforts for reform.

There was also the creation of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), which reformed a previously existing fund that provided loans to UN agencies. The new CERF is meant to provide additional funds that can be easily and quickly drawn upon to respond to crises, but is only available to UN agencies and IOM. Many NGOs have called for the fund to be directly available to them.

At the time the clusters and other reforms were introduced, there were a number of questions raised about many of these concepts from non-UN agencies, and in particular by ICVA in a special issue of ICVA's newsletter, Talk Back, on Humanitarian Reforms (see http://www.icva.ch/cgi-bin/browse.pl?doc=doc00001660). The cluster approach was viewed by NGOs in very different ways - a few were very supportive of the approach, while many others found it to be rather UN-centric. Many NGOs took a wait-and-see approach before getting involved in the various meetings of the nine clusters that had been formed.

The ICVA Secretariat provided the information it had available to its members so that they could take their own decisions about how they would engage, or not, with the reform process. At the same time, the ICVA Secretariat played a critical role in terms of seeking clarification on various issues that were unclear. If NGOs engaged without raising crucial questions and issues around the reform, the independence of NGOs would be questioned, as would their accountability to beneficiaries. Simply jumping on-board a train because it is leaving the station (an analogy often used with regards to the cluster approach) does not mean it will get you to your desired location if you fail to clarify where exactly the train is going. NGOs have continued to raise questions that aim to clarify the purpose and work of the clusters and should continue to do so if the reform process is to produce better results for those with, and for, whom humanitarians work.

Back to Contents

4. ICVA FACILITATES NGO INPUT IN ATTEMPT TO REVIEW HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE CAPACITY: THE HRR

In order to address concerns that humanitarian response does not always meet the basic needs of affected populations, the Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland, asked a team of four consultants to review the capacity of the international humanitarian system. The formidable task given to the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) included: determining benchmarks for humanitarian response; mapping out the global response capacities and coordination mechanisms; identifying gaps in the response capacity; and reviewing funding mechanisms.

Views will differ on whether the HRR has successfully completed these tasks and has presented an agenda for reforming the humanitarian system. One concern as expressed by ICVA from the outset of the process has been the lack of attention to the capacities of local communities and NGOs in responding to humanitarian crises. Clearly, these actors are often the first line of the response, particularly in natural disasters.

Another complicated issue for the HRR was obtaining comprehensive NGO input. Part of the reason is that NGOs are often decentralised structures with widely dispersed capacities. The HRR only focused on international NGOs, with few of those returning the HRR questionnaire assessing their capacities.

At the end of April 2005, ICVA organised a consultation of 25 senior operational NGO staff with the HRR team to discuss capacity issues related to sufficient staffing, sectoral coverage, gaps, benchmarks, coordination, and deployment. A major point raised by the NGOs at the meeting related to the reasons behind the gaps in capacity. Many of the reasons are of a structural and/or political nature. Quick fix solutions in solving them are likely, therefore, to fail.

Following the publication of the HRR, ICVA organised a meeting with a number of NGOs that had attended the April meeting to discuss the report and the proposals to reform the humanitarian system. The reactions and comments from the NGOs were used by ICVA in the meetings of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) and IASC Working Group that discussed the reform proposals, including the clusters.

The final version of the HRR is available at: http://www.icva.ch/files/hrrfinal.pdf

Back to Contents

5. ICVA FAILS IN PROMOTING NGO COORDINATION IN TSUNAMI RESPONSE

Humanitarian coordination is not a system of command and control, but a consultative process based on voluntary participation aimed at optimising the complementary mandates and missions of various agencies. Coordinating the huge number of agencies responding to the South Asian tsunami, including in the Indonesian province of Aceh, however, was a huge and daunting task for everyone. In such an overcrowded context in which the efficiency and effectiveness, as well as the quality and accountability, of humanitarian agencies are major issues, NGOs have a responsibility to come together in order to jointly reflect on their response.

In this respect, some member agencies requested ICVA to look at NGO coordination and, if feasible, to help them develop an NGO coordination mechanism in Aceh in February 2005. Subsequently, ICVA sent a mission to obtain an understanding of the NGOs' expectations with regards to NGO coordination and collaboration. The idea behind the possible creation of an NGO coordination mechanism was not that it would engage in operational issues, as these are best left to coordination mechanisms that involve the authorities and/or the UN. It was thought that NGO coordination efforts should focus on policy and advocacy and look at the relationships among NGOs, in particular between international NGOs and national and local NGOs. Often, these two groups of NGOs work side by side, but, unfortunately, not hand in hand.

The ICVA consultant delivered his report to the ICVA Executive Committee in early April 2005. His main recommendation included the creation of a neutral and independent forum for NGO collaboration on strategies, policy and advocacy issues, and on communication with Acehnese NGOs and community groups. On top of the policy and advocacy agenda were the issues of quality and accountability, in view of the enormous financial resources put at the disposal of NGOs. "Improved NGO coordination on quality assurance and accountability should also establish a link between the financial reporting and operational accountability," the report recommended. This link is of critical importance because a financial report to donors on how NGOs have spent their money may not necessarily say anything in terms of the effectiveness and impact of their programmes.

Unfortunately, the proposed NGO mechanism never materialised, in spite of broad support from NGOs, the UN, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and others. The phrase 'NGO politics' is probably one way of describing the reasons for this failure. In spite of all their good intentions to collaborate, NGOs have their own ways of working and objectives in certain situations. As generally assumed, the huge sums of money in the tsunami did not lead to more cohesion among the NGOs.

It is important to note that ICVA is not an operational NGO coordination body. ICVA has a clear policy on when, in exceptional cases, the network can help member agencies to create or strengthen NGO coordination mechanisms. However, as noted above, coordination cannot be imposed and this exceptional role for ICVA must be at the request of members.

ICVA was also rather slow off the mark. If one is to have an impact in NGO coordination in a sudden onset emergency, one needs to be there within the first two to three weeks of the response. All these issues, however, are lessons for ICVA's membership and Secretariat for future occasions. NGO coordination is a mutual responsibility that must be taken seriously.

Back to Contents

6. BROADENING AND DEEPENING THE USE OF SPHERE

The main conclusion of the 2003 evaluation of the Sphere Project was that it has been one of the most successful sector-wide initiatives ever, given the humanitarian sector's interest in, and familiarity with, the project. The Sphere Handbook is probably the best-known tool among humanitarian quality and accountability initiatives.

In 2005, this broad interest was reflected in a change in the governance structure of the project. The project saw several new members from regions such as Central America and East Africa joining the Sphere Board. The ICVA Secretariat continued its active participation on the Sphere Board, with a second seat being made available for an ICVA member from a developing country.

Meanwhile, the project focussed its activities on increased knowledge-sharing and learning in order to increase the understanding of how to use Sphere in practice. A community of practice shares lessons and examples on the practical application of the Handbook containing the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in four areas of humanitarian response (Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Promotion; Food Security, Nutrition, and Food Aid; Shelter, Settlement, and Non-Food Items; and Health Services). Focal points in agencies have also been identified to facilitate Sphere's implementation and networking.

For more information, visit: http://www.sphereproject.org

Back to Contents

7. MOVING TOWARDS BETTER ACCOUNTABILITY

The governing boards of ICVA and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP-I) had a joint meeting in September 2005 to identify ways in which the two networks could work more closely together. The two networks, while having very different overall objectives, do have areas of common interest - namely, ensuring that NGOs are accountable in their humanitarian response. At the same time, the ICVA Executive Committee has been very clear in saying that ICVA should not become exclusively focused on accountability issues, as it has a clear mandate from the members to be an advocacy alliance.

While there are many members in common between the boards of ICVA and HAP-I, there was a feeling that a joint board meeting would solidify the desire to work together on common goals. HAP-I was in the process of developing standards of accountability that would be of interest to many ICVA members. There was a decision that ICVA would contribute to HAP-I's standards development process, as well as ensuring that regular discussions and sharing of information took place between the secretariats of each of the networks. There was a clear commitment on the part of both networks to work together in a complementary manner to improve the accountability of NGOs.

For more information, visit: http://www.hapinternational.org

Back to Contents

8. RECRUITING THE UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is rated as one the top jobs in the international humanitarian world. When this position opened up in early 2005, following the resignation of Mr. Ruud Lubbers, many internationally well-known names started circulating. As in 2000, ICVA engaged in the recruitment process in order to push the UN to appoint the best qualified candidate. An open and transparent process based on substantive qualifications is essential in filling this post. The UN Secretary-General, unlike the appointment effort in 2000, invited ICVA to submit names of suitable candidates. The Secretary-General also announced the criteria for the job, which had never been disclosed before: strong diplomatic, political. and fund-raising skills; thorough knowledge of refugee issues, including basic refugee law and debates about forced migration and internally displaced persons (IDPs); proven skills in the management of complex organisations; the ability and willingness to uphold refugee rights; and fluency in English and French being highly desirable. Clearly, in answering the request to submit names, NGOs have different approaches. Some find it inappropriate for an NGO to lobby for a particular candidate, as it is a General Assembly (i.e. a governmental) appointment. Others, however, will be keen to refer the name of a person who, in their eyes, would make a good High Commissioner. Combining both approaches, ICVA suggested three names of people who have received broad recognition from the NGO community for their achievements in refugee protection and upholding human rights standards.

One of them, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo at the time, S󃂸ren Jessen-Petersen, made it to the short-list of eight names, which was published on 24 March 2005, as part of the UN's new senior recruitment procedures. ICVA offered them all a public forum - ICVA's newsletter, Talk Back - to elaborate their views on the current state of refugee protection and their vision for UNHCR. Only one person on the short-list was an unknown name for many: Ant󃂳nio Guterres. As with the other seven candidates, the former Prime Minister of Portugal was very keen in contributing to Talk Back.

The issue of Talk Back (7-2, available on www.icva.ch) that published the candidates' contributions received significant attention and interest. It was shared with the members of the interview panel and one of the panel members apparently referred to the issue in the interviews. Many UNHCR staff were also extremely interested in the publication, as it gave them insight into the views of the person who might become their next boss.

The questions, however, at the end of the day are whether the best candidate has been chosen and whether ICVA's work had any impact on this choice? The first question is not easy to answer. While the performance indicators of the High Commissioner can be made up from some of the criteria for the position, (e.g. the High Commissioner's outspokenness on violations of refugee rights or his ability to manage and reform the agency in an efficient manner), there is not a formal system for his performance appraisal. The Secretary-General, other heads of humanitarian UN agencies, governments, and NGOs will all have their views. Ultimately, refugees themselves should be given a voice as the High Commissioner is their most senior representative at the international level. In announcing the short list on 24 March the Secretary-General's spokesperson noted that the views of refugees on the candidates would be sought informally. Whether or not their views were sought during the recruitment process remains unknown, despite ICVA's requests for details.

Only those who had a say in the decision can answer whether ICVA's involvement has made a difference. It is unknown how much backroom "horse trading" between governments and the UN took place in this case or whether the Secretary-General initiated the identification of one of the candidates. What is most important for ICVA now is that many in the domain of refugee protection, including the High Commissioner himself, have welcomed the role that ICVA has played.

Back to Contents

9. NGOS GET A ROLE IN UNHCR'S EXCOM CONCLUSIONS PROCESS

Each year, UNHCR's Executive Committee (EXCOM) adopts a number of Conclusions on International Protection, which are meant to provide guidance on protection issues. These Conclusions are negotiated between Member States of UNHCR's EXCOM and for years, NGOs had been trying to get their input into the Conclusions by directly lobbying Member States. Many NGOs use EXCOM Conclusions in their advocacy work, as well as at a very practical level in terms of their refugee work at the national level. By feeding in direct experiences, NGOs have always aimed to ensure that Conclusions raise the standards of protection for refugees, asylum-seekers, and other persons of concern to UNHCR.

Based on a decision of UNHCR's EXCOM in 2004, NGOs were able to provide written consolidated comments on the drafts of the EXCOM Conclusions for the first time in 2005. The drafts were distributed through the ICVA Secretariat, which gathered and consolidated NGO comments to present to Member States. NGOs were also able to present their consolidated views, through ICVA, to a preliminary meeting before the negotiations began on each of the draft Conclusions. Interestingly, there were very few questions and little interaction from Member States on the NGO input during those preliminary meetings.

One of the challenges in consolidating the views of NGOs was, of course, the fact that some NGOs had differing perspectives on what should or should not be included in the drafts. As often happens, the ICVA Secretariat was put in the difficult position of having to make a judgement call, at short notice, as to which NGO comments to include when there were contradictory inputs. The fact that NGOs in UNHCR's bodies must provide a consolidated perspective will always result in a diverse range of views being forced to compromise to a degree in order to arrive at a consensus.

There are questions about how States view NGO comments on the draft Conclusions and, thus, how useful a process it is for NGOs to take the time to provide consolidated comments. Several Member States seem to be wary of NGO input and shy away from including it simply because the input comes from NGOs. It may be that lobbying individual governments about particular issues in the Conclusions might be the most effective way of getting changes incorporated. At the same time, continuing to have access to the drafts will be essential for such lobbying to take place.

Back to Contents

10. UNHCR EXCOM CHAIR'S VISIT AND ICVA

In recent years, it has become practice for the Chair of UNHCR's Executive Committee to visit some of UNHCR's operations and then to report back to the EXCOM on his/her findings. In 2005, the Chair travelled to Chad and West Darfur in Sudan to see UNHCR's refugee and IDP programmes. For the first time, the Chair invited an NGO - ICVA - to accompany him on his mission.

The joint mission with ICVA allowed for the views of NGOs to be brought into the Chair's deliberations and to feed into his report, which was delivered to UNHCR's EXCOM. The mission also provided an opportunity for the ICVA Secretariat to discuss issues around NGO coordination and security with NGOs in both Chad and Sudan. The Chair in 2006 picked up on the practice and has again invited ICVA to join him on his mission to Uganda.

Back to Contents

11. MOVING REFUGEE PROTECTION FURTHER: THE REACH OUT PROJECT

The Reach Out Refugee Protection Training Project was a project that led the way in terms of training NGO staff on the basics of refugee protection. This inter-agency project was started in 2001 and targeted field staff of NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement in an attempt to better incorporate protection into humanitarian programmes. The ICVA Secretariat continued to actively participate in Working Group guiding the project.

The original training materials were based on the joint UNHR-NGO publication, Protecting Refugees: A Field Guide for NGOs. In 2005, the project completed a revision of the materials, which incorporated more recent thinking and information on protection issues. Two new optional modules were added in the 2005 version of the materials: one on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and another on Gender-Based Violence (GBV). The materials aim to help field staff better ensure protection is made an integral part of their humanitarian assistance programmes. In addition, a pack was developed that targets senior managers of humanitarian organisations to help them better understand the need to incorporate protection into programmes and to ensure that they see the need for their staff to be protection-minded.

The project was closed in 2005 and the materials handed over to ICVA to be housed on the ICVA website (http://www.icva.ch/reachout) and to be distributed in hard copy format in Arabic, English, French, and Spanish. The project had carried out an impressive number of trainings during its five-year life span, but there was a feeling that given the many developments in protection, as well as other initiatives, there was no longer a need to maintain an office dedicated to the project. Instead, it was felt that individual organisations needed to move the refugee protection agenda forward through their own organisations. Funding for promoting the materials for the next three years was sought in advance to ensure that the closure of the project did not result in the materials not being used. As such, ICVA continues to promote the utilisation of the materials in various contexts, as well as distributing the materials free of charge to anyone interested.

In order to ensure that the experience from such an inter-agency project did not get lost, a self-assessment was conducted with the help of two external facilitators from ICRC and the Swiss government, which provided a number of useful lessons that can be used for other inter-agency projects.

The Reach Out Refugee Protection Training Materials are available in Arabic, French, English, and Spanish at www.icva.ch/reachout. Requests for hard copies of the materials should be sent to secretariat@icva.ch, indicating which language(s) is (are) desired.

Back to Contents

12. PLAYING IT HIGH: ICVA'S EXTERNAL EVALUATION

Coming to the end of its three-year term in 2005, the ICVA Executive Committee commissioned an external evaluation to review ICVA's work over the years 2003-2005. The evaluation was asked to look at the implementation of the Strategic Plan for 2003-2005 and to examine the "health" of the ICVA network. In particular, the expectation for the evaluation was to determine whether or not ICVA is responding to its members' needs.

Humanitarian policy and advocacy - the core of ICVA's work - are areas that do not easily lend themselves to an impact evaluation in terms of the influence ICVA may have in UN decisions or policies. It is difficult to ascertain, for example, whether ICVA's work in opening up the process of the appointment of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees made a difference in choosing the candidate (see piece on Recruiting the UN High Commissioner for Refugees).

Representing a diverse membership brings a number of challenges with it. UN organisations, governments, and others may have the impression that ICVA represents a consensus view of all the members. In practice, representation on the basis of consensus would make ICVA's work almost impractical. Instead, ICVA reflects trends and issues of common concern on which the membership may have a variety of views.

The evaluation report on this point suggests that in representing members' different viewpoints, ICVA could explain better the diversity within membership. The evaluation report, titled Playing It High, also notes that ICVA interacts at the highest levels of humanitarian coordination. Only substantial policy and advocacy positions based on members' broad input will help ICVA to maintain the credibility and position that it has achieved in the international humanitarian community over the last several years.

The external evaluation, Playing It High, can be found on ICVA's website: http://www.icva.ch/doc00001594.html

Back to Contents

13. BUILDING SAFER ORGANISATIONS

In 2005, the ICVA-housed inter-agency project Building Safer Organisations (BSO) project held 10 regional workshops to strengthen the ability of humanitarian agencies to respond to allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation of persons of concern by members of staff. As part of agencies' overall commitment to improve accountability to beneficiaries, the project also included training for NGO managers.

Since the 2002 reports of sexual exploitation in refugee camps in West Africa and Nepal, most organisations have developed codes of conduct and begun to put in place complaints handling systems. The BSO project is supporting agencies to implement the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Model Complaints and Investigation Procedures by building their complaints handling and investigation capacities. Without such concrete measures, codes and complaints mechanisms risk being mere window-dressing.

During 2005, the project ran a total of 10 workshops in Bangkok, Cairo, Dakar, and Nairobi in which 137 staff representing 43 organisations participated. The project targeted local staff working for local NGOs or international agencies in order to increase the long term benefits for participating organisations, as this way it is more likely that skills learned will be maintained.

At the beginning of the year, some organisations were reluctant to participate in the project as the concept, materials, and project were unknown; by the end of the year the number of requests to attend the workshops far exceeded available places. This level of support reflects the timeliness and relevance of the project and several international organisations have requested agency-specific learning programmes and training of trainers in the next phase of the project. The positive response has been both welcome and challenging. ICVA members asked that the project be extended for a second 18-month phase in order to institutionalise learning through regional and organisation-based training of trainers' workshops, the creation of regional networks, and through integrating the training in existing regional institutions.

An independent evaluation of the project thus far was conducted in early 2006. This evaluation and more information about the project and future workshops are available on the ICVA website: http://www.icva.ch/doc00001781.html

Back to Contents

14. INTEGRATED MISSIONS: THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE UN SYSTEM

In parallel to the Humanitarian Response Review, the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA), a UN-only coordination mechanism for coherence among the UN agencies active in humanitarian response, commissioned a study to review the experiences with integrated missions. These missions combine the areas of peacekeeping, humanitarian affairs, human rights, development, and good governance in one structure managed by a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. In the humanitarian sector, particularly among NGOs, it is felt that integration means the subordination of humanitarian concerns to political goals.

A conference in Oslo, Norway at the end of May 2005 discussed the recommendations of the study. A handful of NGOs, including ICVA, that were invited pointed to a contradiction that the study reinforces. The report argues that an integrated mission should protect humanitarian space and principles. Paradoxically, however, by mixing the different mandates, an integrated mission jeopardises the independence and impartiality of humanitarian action by its very structure.

Interestingly, while the conference participants, governments, and UN staff appear to be sympathetic to these NGO concerns, NGOs have had little influence in shaping the concept of integrated missions. Integration seems to be the way forward for the UN system. One gain realised by NGOs, however, is the notion of asymmetrical integration: not all UN entities, particularly OCHA, need to be integrated in a UN mission from its beginning when a humanitarian crisis may be ongoing.

In advocating on the potential negative consequences of integration, NGOs have also realised that they need to be consistent. In his speech to the Oslo Conference, the ICVA Coordinator noted that NGOs need to be aware that they send mixed signals if some engage closely with these forces, while others are trying to keep a distance. In a similar vein, it may be confusing if the same NGOs carry out both humanitarian and development or peace-building activities simultaneously in one country. Humanitarian space and principles require clarity, not just from the UN, but also from NGOs.

Back to Contents

15. PUTTING THE CODE OF CONDUCT INTO PRACTICE

For the 10th anniversary of the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations in Disaster Relief in 2004, ICVA and the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) commissioned two consultants to write a commentary on the Code. The idea of the commentary was to provide an explanation of the background of the 10 principles included in the commentary, as well as provide some practical guidance that would help with putting the Code into practice.

After undertaking field visits to four different locations (Afghanistan, Haiti, Liberia, and Darfur, Sudan), the commentary underwent an extensive peer review process. It was found that the task at hand was a much greater one than originally envisioned. One of the challenges was creating a text that combined a historical perspective with analysis and practical guidance and ensuring that it was written at the right level for the audience. At the same time, there was the challenge of determining the exact audience for whom the commentary would be best suited: field staff, desk officers, senior managers, or all three?

The complexity of each of the principles and their sub-texts also turned out to be much richer when examined in detail. In addition, there were a number of questions that were raised about potentially re-writing or updating the Code, given some of the conclusions that were coming out of the research and writing. There was a clear decision from both ICVA and SCHR's boards that neither had a mandate to open up the text for revision, but that the commentary should point to areas and issues that had emerged since the writing of the Code, such as protection issues.

In 2005, given the extra work that was required to complete the project, additional resources were sought to cover the costs required for enhancing the text and catering it more to the needs of senior humanitarian staff who take operational decisions. Some key decisions were taken by ICVA and SCHR in 2005 for the way forward for completion of the commentary, which should happen in 2006. Once completed, there will be an exploration of how best to disseminate the commentary to ensure that it reaches those who will be best served by it. Additionally, there may be a need to look at ways to take forward some of the conclusions and issues raised in the commentary that may require further discussion by non-governmental humanitarian organisations.

Back to Contents

16. ICVA IN 2006 AND BEYOND

The face of the humanitarian community has changed significantly since ICVA was created in 1962, with an increasing number of humanitarian actors, as well as other actors on the scene. Humanitarian action is becoming increasingly politicised and humanitarian coordination mechanisms are struggling to reflect the reality on the ground, which sees NGOs playing a much bigger role in humanitarian action than the UN-dominated coordination systems.

The ongoing role of ICVA within this environment as an alliance of NGOs defending humanitarian principles and bringing the views of members to the international level remains as important as ever. ICVA in 2006 and beyond will focus on clarifying the identity of NGOs and other humanitarian agencies and further implementing humanitarian principles in field-based coordination processes and operations.

The 2006-2008 ICVA Strategic Plan focuses on a number of key themes that will continue to feature as priorities on ICVA's agenda, including protection, rights-based approaches, and human rights in humanitarian response; refugees, IDPs, and other forcibly displaced persons; humanitarian principles; humanitarian coordination frameworks; the quality and accountability of humanitarian actors; and "neglected" crises.

With scrutiny of the work of NGOs increasing, ICVA will continue its involvement in quality and accountability initiatives, such as Sphere and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership - International (HAP-I). An ICVA Membership Committee will clarify the network's membership criteria, which is expected to include references to accountability standards.

An outreach strategy to ensure a more global membership of ICVA will be implemented, and particular efforts will be made to get members more engaged in ICVA's work, deepening relationships within the network and encouraging further sharing of information between members. A Strategy and Policy Committee will ensure membership engagement in developing views and input for international humanitarian policy-making bodies. Member agencies will be invited to lead on specific issues and to form interest groups with other members.

ICVA's tools for information sharing, including its newsletter - Talk Back - will become more interactive, allowing members to really "talk back" by providing contributions and reactions to issues. The website (www.icva.ch) will undergo a makeover that will make it more accessible for members to find information, as well as for non-members to learn more about the network.

ICVA has a privileged position in many UN and inter-governmental meetings and the credibility that ICVA has gained with the international community through its activities and advocacy will be carefully consolidated. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) and UNHCR's Executive Committee remain the most important forums in which ICVA voices its concerns and views to the international community. Additional steps will be taken to bring ICVA members to these forums in order to ensure that field-based perspectives are more directly represented in international policy-making bodies and forums.

ICVA will remain closely involved with humanitarian reform processes, including the cluster approach, and will continue to encourage members to engage in the development of these processes, particularly at the field level. The ICVA Secretariat will undertake field visits to consult with members on the ground and look at implementation of the clusters and development of more inclusive humanitarian country teams.

For more details on ICVA's plans in 2006 and beyond, please see the Strategic Plan 2006-2008 and the Annual Plan 2006 on the ICVA website: http://www.icva.ch/doc00000922.html

Back to Contents

17. FINANCES

ICVA's financial statements and balance sheet can be found on ICVA's website: http://www.icva.ch/doc00001903.html

Back to Contents

18. ICVA'S IMPROVING FINANCIAL HEALTH

In the past several years, ICVA has become a financially healthy organisation again. Following the adoption of a new membership dues system, ICVA's income has increased. A fine-tuning of the dues system took place in 2005, building upon the changes made in 2004. The income from institutional and governmental donors has also become more stable with several donors granting ICVA multi-year contracts. The understanding that ICVA's role in NGO collaboration and representation comes with a price has gradually sunk in, it seems.

One piece from the past, in particular the mid-nineties, is a loan that one ICVA member agency graciously provided to the Secretariat in order for it to survive at the time. Over the past number of years, this loan has been reduced. ICVA's healthy finances have allowed it to start paying back the loan. One option for member agencies to help ICVA to pay back the loan is to support the projects of the member agency, Individuell Manniskohjalp (Swedish Organisation for Individual Relief - IM), through making financial contributions. A list of the countries in which IM works and the projects it carries out can be obtained from ICVA. IM has kindly accepted that any funds that ICVA members contribute towards its projects will be written off against the loan.

Further information on IM projects can be found on ICVA's website: http://www.icva.ch/doc00001904.html

Back to Contents

19. ICVA'S PRIMARY FUNCTIONS

The five primary functions through which ICVA adds value to the work of its members are:

Information-sharing;
Advocacy, particularly in terms of putting issues on the international agenda;
Strengthening the NGO community;
Facilitating relationships with UN agencies and other international organisations; and
Enhancing NGO visibility through representation.

Back to Contents

20. ICVA'S STRUCTURE

General Assembly

All ICVA members
Meets once every three years (13th General Assembly held in February 2006)
Sets the strategic direction of the network

Executive Committee

11 ICVA members (nine members elected by the General Assembly; two co-opted for gender and regional balance)
Elects ICVA's Chair, Vice-Chair, and Treasurer
Meets twice a year
Takes decisions and ensures the work of the network is following the strategic direction set by the General Assembly

ICVA Secretariat

Based in Geneva to implement ICVA's work plan and priorities as decided by the General Assembly and the EXCOM on a daily basis
Maintains communication with the membership in order to provide and solicit information

Back to Contents

21. ICVA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Executive Committee Members (2005)

Chair: Dr. Elizabeth Ferris, WCC
Vice-Chair: Mr. Mamadou Ndiaye, OFADEC
Treasurer: Mr. Jappe Erichsen, NRC

Mr. Saman Amarasinghe, NNGOC
Mr. Gregory Brown, IRC
Mr. John Damerell, LWF
Mr. Keshav Gautam, ActionAid
Mr. Thomas Getman, WVI
Mr. Titon Mitra, CARE International
Ms Ann Mary Olsen, DRC
Mr. Sayed Fazlullah Wahidi, ANCB

Executive Committee Members (Following Elections at the 13th General Assembly, February 2006)

Chair: Mr. Thomas Getman, WVI
Vice-Chair: Dr. Jemilah Mahmood, MERCY Malaysia
Treasurer: Mr. Jappe Erichsen, NRC

Mr. Muzaffer Baca, IBC
Ms Carolyn Makinson, Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children (New ICVA member as of 2006)
Mr. Mamadou Ndiaye, OFADEC
Mr. Paul O'Brien, Concern Worldwide
Ms Ann Mary Olsen, DRC
Mr. Sayed Fazlullah Wahidi, ANCB
Mr. Halakhe Waqo, ActionAid

Back to Contents

22. ICVA SECRETARIAT 2005

By the end of 2005, the ICVA Secretariat functioned on the basis of a 4.40 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. The positions at the Secretariat were filled by:

Mr. Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop, Coordinator
Ms Manisha Thomas, Policy Officer
Ms Lieske Pott Hofstede, Programme Advisor
Ms Sahri Passer, Administrator (until July 2005)
Ms Anne Kluser, Secretary (as of March 2005)
Ms Ester Dross, Finance Officer (as of July 2005)
Mr. Myke Leahy, Information Officer (as of October 2005)

ICVA also hosted the inter-agency Building Safer Organisations project, the full-time Project Coordinator, Ms Katharina Samara-Wickrama, and the project's full-time Intern, Ms Coleen Heemskerk (as of September 2005).

Talk Back

To subscribe to ICVA's newsletter, Talk Back, send an e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to talkback@icva.ch.

Back to Contents

23. ICVA MEMBERS 2005

Action by Churches Together (ACT), Switzerland
ActionAid, UK
Afghan NGOs Coordination Bureau (ANCB)
Africa Humanitarian Action (AHA), Ethiopia
Africa and Middle East Refugee Assistance (AMERA), UK
African Council for Adult and Continuing Education (ARCACE), Kenya
All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC), Kenya
All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI)
AMEL Association (Lebanese Association for Popular Action) (AMEL)
Anatolian Development Foundation (ADF), Turkey
Asian Institute for Rural Development (AIRD), India
Asociacion Nacional de Centros de Investigacion, Promocion Social y Desarollo (ANC), Peru
Association B󃂩ninoise de Lutte Contre la Faim et la Mis󃂨re du Peuple (ASCOFAM), Benin
Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB)
Association of Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development (AVARD), India
Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (BADIL)
British Refugee Council (BRC)
Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR)
CARE International
Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
Chinese Relief Association (CRA), Taiwan
Christian Aid, UK
Church World Service (CWS), USA
Christian Relief and Development Association (CRDA), Ethiopia
Community and Family Services International (CFSI), Philippines
Concern Worldwide, Ireland
Consejo de Instituciones de Desarrollo (COINDE), Guatemala
Danish Refugee Council (DRC)
Dutch Council for Refugees/VluchtelingenWerk Nederland (DCR)
EMO-BARAKA, Union Pour la Promotion du Paysan (EMO-BARAKA), Burundi
Federacion de Organismos No Gubernamentales de Nicaragua (FONG)
Fundacion Augusto Cesar Sandino (FACS), Nicaragua
General Union of Voluntary Societies (GUVS), Jordan
Greek Council of Refugees (GCR)
Human Appeal International (HAI), United Arab Emirates
HelpAge International
Human Rights First (HRF), USA
Indian Institute of Youth and Development (IIYD)
Individuell M󃂤nniskohj󃂤lp (Swedish Organisation for Individual Relief) (IM)
InterAction (American Council for Voluntary International Action)
InterAid International (IAI), Switzerland
International Blue Crescent Relief and Development Foundation (IBC), Turkey
International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC)
International Islamic Relief Organisation (IIRO), Saudi Arabia
International Rescue Committee (IRC)
Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), Sudan
Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS)
Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS)
Lebanese NGO Forum (LNF)
Liaison Unit of Non-Governmental Organisations of Seychelles (LUNGOS)
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), USA
Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
Mauritius Council of Social Service (MACOSS)
M󃂩decins du Monde (MDM)
MERCY Malaysia
Mission Armenia (Arakelutune Hayastan) (MA)
National NGO Council of Sri Lanka (NNGOC)
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)
Office Africain pour le D󃂩veloppement et la Coop󃂩ration (OFADEC), Senegal
Oxfam GB
Refugee Children and Vulnerable Citizens (RCVC), Tajikistan
Refugee Education Trust (RET), Switzerland
Refugees International (RI)
Rural Development Foundation of Pakistan (RDFP)
Salvation Army International
Sarvodaya Shramadana Sangamaya (Sarvodaya), Sri Lanka
Save the Children
Sierra Leone Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (SLANGO)
Stichting Vluchteling (SV), Netherlands
T󃂩l󃂩coms sans Fronti󃂨res International (TSF)
Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), Thailand
Union for Support and Development of Afghanistan (VAF), Germany
World Council of Churches (WCC)
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)
World Vision International (WVI)

Permanent Observers

Human Rights Watch (HRW)
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
M󃂩decins sans Fronti󃂨res International (MSF)

New Members in 2005

Africa and Middle East Refugee Assistance (AMERA)
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (BADIL)
Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD)
Dutch Council for Refugees/VluchtelingenWerk Nederland (DCR)
HelpAge International
MERCY Malaysia

Back to Contents

MEMBERSHIP

Membership in ICVA is open to international NGOs, regional NGOs, and national NGOs that have linkages with local NGOs (i.e. networks and consortia).

Details on membership requirements, as well as membership application forms, are available on the "Member Agencies" page of the ICVA website: http://www.icva.ch/members.html

Comments? Questions? Contact the Webmaster at: webmaster@icva.ch. Any use of the ICVA logo requires prior written consent from the ICVA Secretariat.

what’s new! | information resources | calendar | member agencies | about icva

advanced search | site map
text-only site | about this site