Docstoc

Remote Remote Management Somali context Partner

Document Sample
Remote Remote Management Somali context Partner Powered By Docstoc
					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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:3/6/2012
language:Latin
pages:13