Meeting Note

June 2012

Humanitarian NGO Coordination Dialogue

For more information, please contact: Julien Schopp Director of Humanitarian Practice InterAction jschopp@interaction.org

On May 3 and 4 2012, InterAction members and ten NGO coalitions met to discuss humanitarian NGO coordination in Washington, DC. InterActions Humanitarian Policy & Practice Team organized and facilitated the meeting with generous funding from USAIDs Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). The dialogue, a follow on to the first humanitarian NGO coordination dialogue held in January 2011, sought to strengthen linkages between country specific NGO coordination bodies, to identify lessons learned and best practices for creating and maintaining coordination bodies, and to hold a constructive dialogue on how to better engage with the larger UN humanitarian coordination mechanisms, global consortia, and non-traditional humanitarian actors. What follows is a short summary of a rich and varied discussion. It is not meant to be a consensus document or a meeting statement.

rd

th

NGO Coordination Manual

Developed by ICVA, the NGO Coordination Manual intends to be a practical guide to assist NGOs as they establish and develop coordination bodies and consortia. The production of the Guide is the second phase to ICVAs 2010 review of NGO coordination bodies around the world (see Strength in Numbers: A Review of NGO Coordination in the Field) and is a reflection of the case studies and subsequent lessons learned document. Rather than being a How To guide, the NGO Coordination Manual provides simple guidance for managing an effective consortium and includes definitions, roles and responsibilities, protocols, and recommendations. In addition to the Manual, which will primarily be an electronic guide, ICVA will develop an online resource that will serve as a discussion board to share and exchange ideas and as a repository for information (including TORs, codes of conduct, safety and security protocols, and advocacy strategy templates, etc.). Participants provided feedback on the draft guide and discussed the applicability and usefulness of such a tool. They discussed ways the Manual will link with other similar initiatives, like the transformative agenda and the OCHA coordination guide and manual for OCHA field operations. Participants also debated the accessibility of the manual, donor input, how it will serve the needs of both large and small and international and national NGOs, and the need for the Manual to address the importance of coordination. The NGO Coordination Manual is meant to be a living document. In its current form, the Manual focuses on coordination in humanitarian emergency settings. In the future, the Manual will address protracted refugee situations and transition and will incorporate

www.InterAction.org 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202.667.8227

zz

principles of coordination. The Manual is slated to be released by the end of June 2012.

Humanitarian Architecture & Engagement with Inter-Agency Coordination

OCHA discussed the transformative agenda stating that so far it has focused more on policies and procedures rather than the operational implementation of the reforms. OCHA is concerned that the field is not aware of the discussions and debates happening at the global level and subsequently not providing feedback on reforms that will have the greatest impact on field staff and NGOs. OCHA cited several key areas that it needs to improve upon at the field level staffing, information management, humanitarian financing, cluster coordination, and NGO engagement. As key implementers, NGOs are expected to actively engage within a coordinated humanitarian response. NGOs regularly participate on Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs) and are often co-leads of a cluster. However, personality differences with the HC/RC and policies of host governments can often leave NGOs out of the process. In an exercise to reflect upon NGO engagement, participants were asked to brainstorm strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats that affect NGOs ability to effectively and actively engage in a coordinated humanitarian response. Participants highlighted the credibility and broad reach of NGOs as well as the unique opportunity NGOs have to be at the decision making table and have their voices heard. At the same time, NGOs lack the understanding of processes and are not able to take the time to get a firm grasp on them. However, if NGOs do not engage, they run the risk of becoming marginalized. A full list of the strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats that affect NGOs can be found in Annex 1 at the end of this report.

Non-Traditional Humanitarian Actors

The humanitarian community has recently experienced an explosion of new actors responding to emergencies. These new actors not only bring a wealth of resources and capacity but may be able to access populations unreachable by traditional actors. However, while they bring their own unique cultural and regional perspectives, this sometimes translates into uncoordinated efforts and distrust in UN institutions and International NGOs. Participants agreed that engagement with these new actors is necessary, but so far engagement with new, nontraditional, humanitarian actors has been superficial at best. The level of cooperation and understanding is low on both sides, and parallel systems are set up as a consequence. Participants recognized the need to evolve from a predominately Western-dominated system to a broader, more global approach. To do this, conversations with new actors should be grounded in operational responses, which will create organic linkages instead of forced cooperation. The NGO consortia have a role to play in developing these new relationships and can serve as ambassadors for the rest of the humanitarian community.

Global Reach and Link to Other Consortia

The first day of the Humanitarian NGO Coordination Dialogue ended with a discussion of how the country-level consortia and those at the global level can better engage with each other. Based upon the days conversations, it was clear that priorities at the global and at the field levels are often different. In order to bridge this gap, the global consortia need real time analyses of field realities, and, in a similar vein, the coordination bodies need better information on global contexts, the work priorities of the global consortia, and advance notification about global policies that may impact field operations. Advocacy was also mentioned as a possible way to build linkages between the groups. Global consortia can serve as entry points for advocacy on behalf of the country-level consortia, and can also initiate and support dialogues with host government and US embassies.

zz

All participants demonstrated a willingness to share information and engage in informal networking as a means to build trust between each other.

Challenges and Ways Forward

On the second day of the dialogue, the NGO coordination bodies were given the opportunity to brief the corresponding InterAction country working groups. Though each coordination body had their own specific country context, there were several key challenges and themes experienced by all. Three of the biggest challenges for the NGO coordination bodies present were issues of access, security and sustainability. Counter-terror restrictions and being considered as part of a stabilization framework were of particular concern. Many of the representatives also felt that humanitarian needs were being overshadowed but longer-term sustainable development programs in the countries in which they work. Another key issue was the relationship and involvement of national NGOs, be it as members or as outside partners. Overall, membership engagement was identified as an issue with representatives of the coordination bodies expressing their frustrations about member feedback and responses to various requests. A key priority for the representatives of the NGO coordination bodies was the need to create coordination mechanisms that are delinked from the individuals who manage them. Too often the coordination mechanism, whether it be an NGO body or the UN, is dependent upon the personality in charge, and when that person leaves, the mechanisms no longer functions properly or ceases to function at all. Delinking the mechanism from the person would allow the process to continue uninterrupted.

Next Steps
All participants agreed that the conversations that took place over the two day dialogue were both informative and beneficial to their work. The dialogue provided a forum for the coordination bodies to share their best practices and to help each other problem solve the issues that confront them on a daily basis. Participants agreed that similar meetings of this kind should continue on an annual basis and, in the meantime, agreed to continued engagement through regular phone calls and exchanges of information.

i Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR), Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA), Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies (CBHA), InterAction, International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), NGO Coordination Committee in Chad, Pakistan Humanitarian Forum (PHF), Somalia NGO Consortium, South Sudan NGO Secretariat, Sudan INGO Forum.

zz

Annex 1
Participants were asked to identify NGOs strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats in a coordinated humanitarian response. Below is a compilation of their answers.

Strengths
Ability to circulate information from the front line, i.e. security information Ability to be represented as collective bodies with a collective voice Access to communities and external NGO networks Connection to civil society Flexibility to respond less bureaucratic Implementers of a large amount of assistance Interwoven in communities through field and local staff Ability to mobilize private funding Voice and advocacy role coordination, and ability to speak out where others cant Diverse Have credibility Can serve as guide post for humanitarian principles Strong collective history Ability to self-reflect Strong contextual analysis of field situation Speak truth and perceived to do so Broad outreach have own constituencies in host communities and countries

Weaknesses
Lack of understanding of processes Low self esteem and dont use all strengths we have o Resources o Structured to do and respond rather than be part of certain debates Lack financial and human resources Self righteous and arrogant Quick to criticize government and/or UN Inability to honestly and directly criticize Competition Inability to successfully exit Cliquey Inability to implement or follow a coordinated response, particularly when implemented by the UN Inconsistent approach to humanitarian assistance Lack homogeny Domination of some organizations and limited representation of national NGOs Disconnect between HQ and the field Inability to learn from experience Reluctance to let others represent our individual agency Lack of preparedness as it relates to coordination Inability to anticipate events and structures needed NGO voice lost at Mission levels, i.e. Embassies Not engaging at the government level Inability to handle large number of NGO voices Structure and nature of staff lack of institutional memory

zz

Lack of time and commitment to work toward the coordination body Restricted by donor regulations and attitudes towards Western NGOs Difficult to get funding for coordination Perceived as not sharing information with the outside Lack of experienced staff

Opportunities
We have a seat at the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) table Growing breadth of representation, i.e. non-Western NGOs, local NGOs Learning from past experiences Engage in capacity building OCHA has new leadership and desire to engage NGOs Strategic alliance through consortia More coordination and stronger, greater the voice to influence Influence funding and donor priorities (in country) Actively engage in the leadership, i.e. Humanitarian Coordinator, cluster co-leads

Threats
Public perception of sector is very low Perception that we are part of system that is part of a Western project and are easily manipulated Scare resources Not relating as well as we could to new donors Dont engage at various levels allowing negative opinion to grow More engagement may lead to increased politicization So many processes going on and dont have resources to engage Threat of rubber stamping processes or becoming irrelevant because not engaging with the right actors Honesty with the donor damage relationship or hurt future funding Coordination could be a threat from a funding perspective Forced transition to national NGOs Capacity building of national NGOs makes proposals more expensive and thus not funded Poor communication can result in a lack of buy-in from the rest of organization HCT inconsistency of INGO representation Recruitment of RC/HC NGO leadership; integrated missions and multi-hatting Broad representation may lead to inability to have one voice Desegregation of civil society and NGOs How we convey our message and who is our audience National government assertion

zz

Annex 2
List of Participants Name
Elizabeth Bellardo Luke Bostian Julie Breen Allyson Brown Angela Bruce-Raeburn Abby Bruell Teresa Casale Joel Charny John Damerell Maggie Daugherty Elizabeth Detwiler Kari Diener Serge Duss Natalie Eisenbarth Aine Fay Jill Marie Gerschutz Bell Noah Gottschalk Dan Griffin Brian Grzelkowski Steven Hansch Philip Harris Randa Hassan Nicholas Helton Nathaniel Hurd Michelle Kayaleh Jason Knapp Adam Koons Sean Lowrie Dominic MacSorley Nora Malikin Angela Mazer Marshall Jenny McAvoy Patricia McIlreavy Mike Merryman-Lotze Jennifer Moorehead Dina Morad Paul-Henri Morard Tom Neu El Fateh Osman Kamini Paul

Organization
InterAction Aga Khan Concern Worldwide Concern Worldwide Oxfam America InterAction CHF International InterAction The Sphere Project Pact InterAction Mercy Corps International Medical Corps International Rescue Committee Pakistan Humanitarian Forum Catholic Relief Services Oxfam America Catholic Relief Services Mercy Corps Relief International World Vision UNOCHA South Sudan NGO Forum World Vision International Medical Corps Church World Service International Relief & Development Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies Concern Worldwide InterAction Sudan INGO Forum InterAction InterAction American Friends Service Committee AIDA/Save the Children Save the Children Chad CCO Mercy Corps Oxfam America/Sudan INGO Forum ACBAR

zz

List of Participants Continued Name

Scott Paul Kate Phillips-Barrasso Kirk Prichard Paul Rebman Don Rogers Vince Sanfuentes Julien Schopp Tanja Schumer Ian Scwab Chris Seach Jennifer Smith Manisha Thomas Randy Tift Davina Wadley Kevin Warr Skye Wheeler Angela Wiens Lynn Yoshikawa

Organization
Oxfam America International Rescue Committee Concern Worldwide Catholic Relief Services Catholic Relief Services American Refugee Committee InterAction Somalia NGO Consortium AJWS World Concern DOS/PRM ICVA World Vision Refugees International Winrock Interntional Oxfam America International Medical Corps InterAction