by Diana Quick
A shared statement by peacebuilding organizations
International Day of Peace, 21 September 2018
Community voices driving decisions: Kenya Red Cross and IFRC share the lessons learned on accountability to communities
“As a movement we have no choice than being accountable to people.”
Abbas Gullet, Secretary General of Kenya Red Cross Society
This report is the result of a joint CDA-International Rescue Committee research funded by the US State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
From the Executive Summary
In this blog post, Michelle Garred, conflict sensitivity practitioner for 15 years, challenges herself to rethink her hesitancy to approaching corruption as a driver of conflict, and looks back on a conflict analysis workshop in Kenya with a new lens. She suggests that in a conflict analysis, if corruption is raised by local people, raised frequently, and raised as a key driver of conflict rather than just a symptom, then it is time to dig deeper to understand what corruption means in that context, and how it relates to the dynamics of conflict.
The last year has seen significant global challenges, including an unprecedented level of humanitarian need, rising inequality and exclusion, growing climate change impacts, and increasing threats to our shared security. Nevertheless, the international community has taken important steps in addressing these challenges by implementing the recent bold commitments to foster sustainable peace.
This report is intended to serve as a platform: first to build common understanding across stakeholder groups on the current conflict sensitivity1 issues shaping Rakhine state, and second to provide a basis for joint action, where possible, to address the issues identified.
Religious communities have powerful potential to contribute to sustainable and peaceful societies – and their contribution and inclusion to peacebuilding has never been more critical.
This literature review supports a broader ALNAP and CDA initiative aiming at producing evidence-informed guidance for humanitarian agencies on ways to strengthen the effectiveness of mechanisms for gathering feedback from affected populations in humanitarian contexts. It focuses on two key questions: (1) why and how humanitarian agencies seek, process, and respond to feedback from affected populations and (2) which elements have been identified as having the most impact on the effectiveness of a feedback mechanism. More specifically, it does the following:
This guidance is intended for people designing /or implementing feedback mechanisms in a humanitarian program, and in particular in cases where such mechanisms are established to:
Operate at the level of the individual programme or project
Operate in the context of ongoing humanitarian operations or humanitarian programming (but not necessarily in the immediate phases of relief and response after a sudden-onset crisis)
Provide usable information for adjusting and improving some elements of the actions carried out and services delivered
This case study is part of an initiative to produce evidence-informed guidance for operational agencies on strengthening the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms for affected populations in humanitarian contexts.
In 2012 ALNAP and CDA started collaborating on action research looking at feedback mechanisms in humanitarian contexts, to establish what makes them work effectively and to focus on bringing different stakeholders’ perspectives – particularly those of crisis-affected people – into the conversation.
ALNAP together with CDA have published their first of three case studies examining the question of ‘What makes humanitarian feedback mechanisms effective?’
This publication will help you understand how agency staff, but most importantly affected people and communities think about feedback mechanisms and how they experience and engage with them.
Insights featured in this case study include:
The key role community helpdesk focal points are playing to maintain a function feedback loop in IPDs camps in South Darfur.
Why are effective feedback mechanisms important in humanitarian settings? For one thing, they can help close the gaps between accountability rhetoric and practice. Currently, however, there is a need for evidence on what works, and doesn't in different contexts.
Time to Listen represents the cumulative evidence of five years gathering evidence from people living in societies that are recipients of international aid.
Famines put extreme pressure on the legitimacy of formal and informal authorities. Food is more than just a commodity. It is life itself. Scarcity at the level of a famine is a serious breach of the social contract between people and authority. The breach can be sufficiently severe that it cannot be healed and the authority is often driven from power within a relatively short time span.
CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA) would like to share a new and enlightening report on “Feedback Mechanisms in International Assistance Organizations.” This report was motivated by the desire heard over and over from people in aid recipient societies to provide feedback—and to hear from aid agencies—about their efforts.
The Listening Project is a comprehensive and systematic exploration of the experiences and insights of people who live in societies that have been on the recipient end of international assistance efforts (humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, peace-building activities, human rights work, environmental conservation, etc.). CDA has organized over 20 collaborative Listening Exercises in various contexts and geographical regions to hear local people’s perspectives on international aid efforts.
Background on the Listening Project
CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA), with a number of colleagues in international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), donors and other humanitarian and development agencies, has established the Listening Project to undertake a comprehensive and systematic exploration of the ideas and insights of people who live in societies that have been on the recipient side of international assistance efforts.