CARE International Aid in Conflict Workshop Report, 16-18 February 2011, Geneva
Background
The CARE International Secretariat, led by the CARE Emergency Group and Safety and Security Unit with support from CIUK, launched the Aid in Conflict Project in November 2010. The project’s ultimate aim, building on a great deal of relevant experience, reflection and learning across the organization, is to improve the effectiveness of CARE’s work in conflict settings through developing:
- Common awareness and understanding across CARE: Improve understanding and analysis of the working environment, potential risks, and implications of CARE operations
- A coherent approach: Develop a common framework and generic principles governing CARE activities, programs and image in precarious, conflict-affected environments
- A strategic response: Propose a consistent, integrated, and strategic approach to enable CARE to obtain improved acceptance and support from all actors having influence on its operational capacity, security and presence.
- Specific actions: Identify specific and context-specific actions that CARE needs to take to improve its effectiveness in conflict settings.
To begin, an external consultant was hired (Andrew Jones) to work with a core reference group of CARE colleagues (Jon Mitchell and Sally Austin of CEG, Pascal Daudin of CISSU, and Howard Mollett of CIUK) and, most immediately, to map challenges affecting humanitarian and development assistance in conflict settings, both for CARE and the wider community of actors concerned. Methodologically, this consisted of a review of internal documentation and external literature and a series of interviews with key informants both in and outside CARE. The mapping exercise led to production of a discussion paper intended to frame the identification of key issues for CARE and action planning in response at a global CARE workshop in Geneva in February.
Workshop Design
The workshop was held from 16-18 February, attended by 28 (full-time) participants, and facilitated by Meg Burns with support from Andrew Jones. Participants represented all six regions and CARE US, CARE Canada, and CARE Australia-led country offices; four CI Members (UK and France in addition to Canada and USA); and the Secretariat as well as CI’s Brussels office. Please find the list of participants in Annex 1. The overall objective for the workshop was: To identify and agree key actions and next steps that CARE should take to strengthen the safety, effectiveness and accountability of its aid in conflict work, including recommended changes in CARE policy and practice.
In order to realize the overall objective, the workshop design contemplated three main parts. The detailed workshop agenda can be found in Annex 2. Essentially, Day 1 was set up to ensure common understanding of the overall topic and issues at hand, Day 2 to agree on the most important shortcomings in CARE policy and practice and recommended actions in response, and Day 3 to develop an action plan fleshing out recommended actions into concrete deliverables along a timeline with clear assignment of responsibilities.
Workshop Results
On Day 1, the specific objective was to identify and agree the most important issues for CARE. Drawing on the consultant’s identification of key issues in the discussion paper and an opening panel presentation and discussion (involving Robert Glasser, Emmanuel Tronc from MSF, and Andrew Jones, with Jon Mitchell moderating), group work focused on four thematic areas: 1) Context analysis and risk management; 2) Program design, image, and acceptance; 3) Global positioning (fundraising, communications and advocacy); and 4) Organizational culture, leadership and management. Each group reported back in plenary regarding their conclusions and, on the morning of Day 2, participants worked together to group issues and challenges into clusters of organizational policy and practice areas that need to be strengthened for CARE’s operations in conflict environments to be safer, more effective, and more accountable.
On Day 2, the specific objective was to recommend actions to address key issues and challenges by cluster. Through group work again, colleagues developed specific recommendations for action over the course of the day and, once back in plenary, participants reviewed these and refined them further in advance of Day 3’s planning session. These recommendations for action were organized under the following cluster headings: Organizational structure and coordination; Decision making, leadership and culture; CARE’s identity, principles and policies; Program design and quality; Advocacy; Human resources; and Risk analysis and management.
On the morning of Day 3, the group’s recommendations were shared with CI Deputy Secretary General Marcy Vigoda and CI Secretary General Robert Glasser to gain their feedback and suggestions and also for them to relate ongoing CARE-wide processes and initiatives of relevance to the group’s action planning. This was followed by group work to flesh out each major action proposed, the person responsible for carrying it out, the person in authority who would need to champion the action, any significant additional resources (people’s time, money) required, the timeframe, and who else would need to be consulted or involved in the process. In so doing, each group considered forces driving the shortcoming and/or restraining improvement in the various CARE policies and practices targeted by the action plan, looking at the structural (“machine”), human resource (“family”), political (“jungle”), and symbolic (“theater”) sides of CARE as a way of exploring the most promising strategies for organizational change. The workshop culminated with each group, by cluster, sharing in plenary the results of their action planning for review and comments from the group as a whole.
Next Steps Post-Workshop
The consultant captured the plenary feedback in the last session of Day 3, consulted with the core reference group after the closing session and in the weeks following the workshop, and attempted to clarify, streamline, and sharpen the proposed action plan. Said plan is now in the hands of the Secretariat (CEG) to be disseminated and taken forward in the organization.
Annex 1: Participants in CI’s Aid in Conflict Workshop
Name / CARE Office / Unit / RoleAndrew Jones / Consultant / Co-Facilitator
Meg Burns / CARE US HQ / Lead Facilitator
1. Ali Ahmed Hersi / CARE Somalia, Program Quality Director
2. Barbara Jackson / CARE Mozambique, CD / CEG, HD (Incoming)
3. Bogdan Dumitru / CARE Canada HQ, VP International Programs
4. Carol Sherman / CARE Zimbabwe, CD
5. Chris Williams / CARE Asia RMU, Security Advisor
6. Dan Vexler / CARE UK, Head of Program Quality
7. Emma Naylor Ngugi / CARE East and Central Africa RMU, RD
8. Esther Asin / CI Secretariat, EU Rep. in Brussels
9. Francis Hammond / CARE Chad, CD
10. Howard Bell / CI Switzerland in Sudan, CD
11. Howard Mollett / CARE UK, Humanitarian Aid Policy Advisor
12. Hubert Charles / CARE Liberia, CD
13. Jan P. Lane / CARE US HQ, Assistant VP for GR and Policy
14. Jonathan Mitchell / CARE US HQ, Sr. VP for Global Operations
15. Lex Kassenberg / CARE Nepal, CD
16. Martha Chouchena-Rojas / CI Secretariat, Head of Global Advocacy
17. Marta Colburn / CARE Yemen, CD
18. Melanie Brooks / CI Secretariat, Media & Communications Coordinator
19. Nick Osborne / CARE Asia RMU, RD
20. Pascal Daudin / CI Secretariat, Director of CI Safety & Security Unit
21. Peter Buijs / CARE Latin America & Caribbean RMU, RD
22. René Celaya / CARE Mozambique, ACD
23. Rishana Haniffa / CARE Sri Lanka, Prog. Dir. for Conflict-Affected Areas
24. Robert Laprade / CARE US HQ, Senior Director of EHAU
25. Sally Austin / CI Secretariat, Head of Emergency Operations
26. Sebastien Kuster / CARE France, Emergency Manager
27. Wouter Schaap / CARE Somalia, ACD
28. Yawo Douvon / CARE DRC, ACD
Annex 2: CARE International Aid in Conflict Workshop Agenda
16 Feb / 17 Feb / 18 Feb9:15 Opening, Introductions, Announcements – Robert, Meg, Daniel
10:00 Aid in Conflict Panel & Discussion
- Moderator & Background - Jon
- NGO Broader Picture AIC- Robert
- Synthesis of issues for CARE- Andrew
- Response and Alternate View- Emmanuel Tronc, MSF
11:30 Issue Table Groups Assignment (activity is before and after lunch):
Review AIC paper focusing on one issue area.
- What aspects are most relevant from your experience?
- What points, comments would you add? Why?
- What additions or changes would you make to the conclusions? Why?
- Plan a 10 minute presentation/report to plenary illustrating the main challenge(s) of this issue that includes 1-2 field examples.
9.30 Introduce Driving/Restraining Forces Method for Identifying Possible Solutions – Meg
9.45 Issue Group Assignment:
- Participants self-select the Issue to work on. Assignment:
- Using force field analysis method, arrive at top recommendations that will strengthen AIC issue.
11:15 Issue Groups: Present Analysis and Recommendations- Gallery Walk / 9:00 Reflection on Day 2
9.30 Reality check on Priority Recommendations:
- Top line Recommendations from Day Two
- Open discussion re: implications for CARE oversight
How should CARE oversee AIC focus and monitor plans for strengthening AIC?
What must be communicated about this meeting and who is responsible for doing that?
Marcy
10:30 Break
10:45 Groups create Action Plans:
- What needs to happen, by whom, and when, and resources or support needed
- Implications of the Actions are not implemented (impact on AIC)
12:30 Lunch / 12:15 Lunch / 12:15 Lunch
13:30 AIC Issue Reports & Plenary Discussion
- Issue #1: Context Analysis and Risk Assessment,
- Issues #2: Programme design, image and acceptance
14:45 AIC Issue Reports & Plenary Discussion
- Issues #3:Global Positioning (funding, communication Advocacy)
- Issue #4: Organisational Culture, Leadership and management
Andrew/Meg
18.00Group Dinner at Café du Soleil / 13:30 Plenary Session: Feedback to Issue Groups
14:30 Issue Groups Re-convene
- Refine recommendations after feedback
- Prioritize, refine recommendations
15:15 Group reaches agreement on most urgent and important recommendations for Action planning
16:30 Direction for Day Three: Introduce model for creating Action Plans (structural, people, political, symbolic) / 13:30 Issue Groups present Action Plans
14:00 Create master timeline
Plenary
14:30 Confirm Group Agreement with Plans
15:30 Closing Statements
16:00 Evaluation & Adjourn