ReliefWeb

Executive Summary

Attacks upon aid workers have been on the rise for much of the past decade, according to the Aid Worker Security Database. The last two years, 2010 and 2011, have seen significantly elevated levels of attacks on aid workers in Afghanistan. Such a trend has increasingly led international organisations, NGOs, donor agencies, private firms and other implementing agencies involved in insecure environments to develop “remote” programming models. These rely upon host-nation personnel to undertake ground-level activities while enabling certain elements of management, oversight, fundraising and operations to be coordinated from a relatively more secure location (e.g., Nairobi in the case of Somalia or Amman in the case of Iraq). Such a topic is of increasing relevance to Afghanistan. Outlook Afghanistan and others have reported that aid agencies in Afghanistan are concerned about future security conditions and that some are already undertaking remote programmes in particularly insecure parts of the country.

This reviews key approaches to remote programming, particularly those identified by the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI), which has been particularly active in studying remote programming. NCCI identified the following “remote programming modalities”: (i) remote control, (ii) remote management, (iii) remote support and (iv) remote partnering. Remote control programming involves the centralisation of all decision-making authority among expatriate personnel based in a safe location and the delegation of on-the-ground implementation to host-nation staff in a conflict-affected location. Remote management is similar but generally involves increased delegation of decision-making authority to personnel in the field. The third approach, remote support, enables the “local” staff members on the ground to manage day-to-day activities; the remote managers primarily oversee financial management, donor reporting and capacity building. Lastly, remote partnering allows the international institution to serve as a financial intermediary, raising funds for activities which are completely managed by an experienced, accountable in-country partner.

The approaches noted above are reflected to varying extents in case studies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia which are included in the full report. However, given the complexity of these cases, this summary limits itself to reviewing overarching good practices and lessons learnt which emerged in several contexts. These key points, which are summarised below, may be useful for stakeholders in Afghanistan if they continue to consider the potential introduction or expansion of remote programming methods.

 Plan for Remote Management: According to one NGO, programmes should be designed with a contingency plan for remote management which can be activated if programme managers are re-located to a safer context.

 Develop Accountability Networks: Many organisations remotely managing projects establish relationships with stakeholders that can help to independently verify that projects are being implemented well and as intended.

 Build Capacities for Remote Management: It is important to build the capacities of local counterparts to ensure host-nation staff members are prepared to make many day-to-day decisions regarding project activities.

 Establish Networks to Share Good Practices and Lessons Learnt: The report “Once Removed” highlights the importance of establishing coordination bodies and networks that allow agencies involved in remote programming to share good practices and lessons learnt. In Iraq, for instance, this task was largely taken up by NCCI.

In addition to such technical issues, the full report also reviews issues such as the ethicality of remote-control management and concerns that the departure of foreign, expatriate programme staff in places such as Afghanistan may in fact increase the threat faced by their national counterparts.