Humanitarian governance in Ethiopia: A view from INGOs

The spark for a debate

Earlier this year, the Overseas Development Institute published a Working Paper called Humanitarian governance in the new millennium: An Ethiopian case study. The paper was later summarised in an HPN article, which featured in the June edition of Humanitarian Exchange Magazine.

Though the article provides a valuable perspective on how humanitarian action and disaster management has changed in Ethiopia over recent decades, it misses an opportunity to provide a fuller analysis of the diversity and evolution of actors working in the humanitarian field. It also fails to present contrasting perceptions and discourse, which could help with much-needed consensus building.

The article focuses entirely on how selected informants from within Ethiopian Government circles perceive the conduct, motivation and performance of international Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). While these perceptions are valid and important, no attempt is made to present the perspectives of the INGOs themselves. This could have balanced the article considerably. The case study deliberately sets out to ‘study’ only part of the ‘case’.

Recognising change

The article draws a caricature of INGOs as stagnant and set in their ways. This is contrasted with the dynamic efforts of successive Ethiopian regimes to manage humanitarian affairs. Yet there have been a number of innovations made by INGOs recently, particularly in the area of accountability and transparency. These include: the Red Cross, Red Crescent and NGO Code of Conduct, the Sphere Project, and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

INGOs have changed in other ways too. They are no longer traditional ‘charitable giving’ organisations. Their work is now shaped by participatory methods; rights-based frameworks; capacity building approaches; knowledge management initiatives; and so on. In fact, given the fast changing environment which shapes INGO behaviour and possibilities, it is unlikely that a reactionary INGO – resistant to change and adaptation – would survive at all.

In Ethiopia, INGOs have contributed to a large and well documented body of work, which supports government-led efforts to promote a more holistic disaster management approach aimed at reducing vulnerabilities and managing risk. Specific areas of contribution include:

Even at the sharpest end of emergency response – in dealing with severe acute malnutrition – INGOs have notably shifted their approaches over recent years. In line with current best practice, they have moved away from classical ‘feeding centre’ interventions towards ‘community therapeutic care’ programmes, which are premised on building local (and sustainable) capacities for early identification, referral, and treatment of the most vulnerable.

Humanitarian partnership

This list of examples helps to illustrate the fact that INGOs are not organisations stuck in the ‘famine and food aid’ paradigms of the past, nor are they primarily obsessed with feeding their own coffers through overstated and inappropriate emergency responses. Such assertions are anachronistic and not borne out by recent experiences and work taking place on the ground.

Partnership with the government underpins all INGO work in Ethiopia and is generally built around constructive technical collaboration at different levels. Many projects and programmes aim to contribute to a more holistic cycle of disaster management that goes beyond emergency response by attempting to address underlying vulnerabilities, and by promoting preparedness and mitigating shocks.

Beyond programmatic work, many INGOs also aspire to make relevant technical contributions to policy discussions through research and project based learning on a variety of topics, including disaster risk reduction and mitigation. These initiatives are frequently welcomed by officials and supported by donors who provide financial resources and other inputs. A lot of this policy work has the added aim of making programmes more timely, targeted and cost effective.

The start of a debate

The recent HPN article provides an opportunity for INGOs to join an important debate. How might we work more positively together, under government leadership, to address vulnerabilities and improve preparedness? How might we respond within a more comprehensive disaster management framework?

This goes beyond technical matters. It implies the need to reshape relationships between INGOs and government, moving beyond the stereotypes set out in the article. Greater acknowledgement of (and reflection on) the challenges, influences and trends that shape the evolution of INGO practice would also be helpful. This could offer a better and more constructive point of reference upon which to build dialogue.

These efforts to reshape relationships would require a number of elements. To begin with, a common vocabulary and conceptual framework for disaster risk management must be established and agreed by all stakeholders. Work must also be done to build trust and consensus through honest dialogue; and the creation of safe, mutually respectful spaces to discuss potentially contentious matters. This includes getting consensus on the way in which needs, risks and vulnerabilities are conceptualised, quantified and articulated.

All of this would help in the development of technically appropriate strategies for risk reduction and, when the need arises, for responses to acute shocks and crises. Efforts to help community voices be heard and incorporated into policy options would improve practice as well. Finally, the role of the media should be examined, both at the domestic and the international level.

Around the world – from Latin America to Africa to South Asia – INGOs are working with governments and other stakeholders to reduce the risk of disasters and to mitigate their potential effects. There is no reason why Ethiopia should be an exception to this.

The views offered here are given in a personal capacity and intended as a constructive contribution to debate and dialogue.