"Remote Remote Management Somali context Partner"
Remote Management Somali context Partner Conference 18 October 2011 – Bruxelles General features People in crisis: 4 million (50% of total population). 750,000 famine affected. IDPs: 1.46 million. Somali refugees in the region: over 900,000 Worse humanitarian indicators: GAM <5 above 30%, high child mortality (U5MR) Multifaceted causes of the crises: Conflict, lack of Governance, External interferences, Extremism – Djihad, Piracy, recurrent climate shocks (drought), inflation, insecurity, eroded coping mechanism, market failure. Several actors involved Major Challenges Limited access in AOG (Al Shebaab) controlled areas: Population acceptance remained good but there was a change in local perception by de facto administration (al Shebaab). Occidental aid workers were targeted for what they represented, not for what they were doing. Various INGOs evicted since 2008 and humanitarian workers seen as legitimate targets. Looting of humanitarian assets, taxation requests, extortion.. Insecurity, transport. Counterterrorism: domestic legislations (US..). Accountability (Reports / allegations on aid diversion). The risk of “blurring” of the lines and respect of the humanitarian principles. Expats presence not accepted in Central South: Remote control & Remote management Limited access: limited coverage Remote management “Stay and deliver paradigm” Different definitions leading to a common element: A modality that responds to an insecure environment and enables existing programmes and projects to continue. Withdrawing presence of International staff. Authority (decision making) delegated to national staff requiring skills transfer and capacity building. Remote control, management, support & partnership. Suggested ECHO definition: « An approach allowing a humanitarian agency to deliver aid to people in crisis zones when access for its staff is hindered or blocked ». What were the main reasons for applying remote management? 2008, 33 humanitarian workers killed making Somalia the most dangerous places in the world. High risk of kidnapping of international staff. ECHO/EC flight stoppage. Heightened political tensions and conflicts in the area operations. Appropriate approach to maintain live-saving activities for the most vulnerable. Main identified risks/concerns: an accountability issue Misuse of project resources and risk of diversion; Assistance not reaching intended beneficiaries. Interventions not implemented effectively; Limited technical capacities of national staff and interaction with international experts. Limited supervision and monitoring. Politicisation of aid created additional constraints and pressure for humanitarian agencies on the ground. Perception of aid agencies by local authorities: Adherence to the HP have facilitated community-protected humanitarian staff and assets. Reputational risk. How to cope: a Risk mitigation approach PARTNERS Remote management is an option to the complete suspension of programs. Need for good risk assessment before implementation. Rules of engagement: IASC Somalia ground rules + Somalia NGO Consortium red lines Improve monitoring practices: Community-based (i.e. involve beneficiary monitoring through mobile phones), third party monitoring, opportunistic visits by senior national or international staff. Develop local staff capacities: daily contact with key staff for planning and reporting purposes, training, capacity building. Information analysis: counter checking of information and data with other actors (triangulation), pre and post implementation technical surveys and analysis. Use of new technologies: visual reporting through video, photos and GIS mapping (satellite imagery). Others: Diaspora, internal complain system, minimize local cash handling, ex-post evaluation.. How to cope: a Risk mitigation approach DG ECHO Remote management: part of the tool box or last resort? Strict criteria for partner selection (experience, local knowledge, acceptance, perception…) Life saving, “KISS” Actions; Detailed reporting (compensate lack of monitoring) Need for remote management policy Ex post evaluation, audit. Now let’s debate! Outstanding questions How to balance the dilemma between humanitarian imperative and life saving (90% of funded operations carried out in CSZ Somalia). Should we define clear set of criteria/benchmarks (or red lines) and policies/guidance or go for a more flexible approach? (ad hoc decision on whether a remote management project should be supported) Do you support the idea of having a DG ECHO policy on remote management? Do you have similar plans within your respective agencies Where to fix limits / conditions, on which ground? Against which principles, guidelines or regulations? Can we compare different contexts, draw and apply lessons learnt? Mutual trust eroding over years Suggestion for follow up Develop guidelines / policy on remote management – Donors and international agencies Develop an exit strategy to remote management with a longer term planning for insecure and hard to access areas – Donors and agencies Flexibility in allowing additional funds to leverage the use of technology for improved monitoring such as Google, GPS, etc. Donors Document lessons learnt in remote management in Somalia – donors and agencies Develop minimum operating standards that will guide agencies before engaging in remote management – Each individual agency Documentations of the M&E techniques in remote management – individual agencies