Praxis and paradigms of local and expatriate workers in ‘Aidland’

This paper discusses practices and paradigms that expatriate and national humanitarian aid workers use to deal with major problems they encounter in their daily work. It views ‘Aidland’ as an arena where different actors encounter, negotiate and shape the outcome of aid. One of the main findings is that there are consistent differences in the way expatriate and national aid actors perceive problems in their field, as well as in the way they respond to these issues. The paper shows that these perceptions often translate into heterogeneous paradigms and practices between expatriate and national staff, particularly around remote control aid, partnerships and donor reporting. These findings are highly relevant in the current context of ‘localisation’, suggesting that the so-called North/South divide continues to exist and more explicit attention should be given in aid research to the heterogeneous strategies of different actors working in the aid sector. The paper is based on analysis of data derived from a multiple-round Delphi expert panel study involving 30 highly experienced humanitarian aid practitioners

De toekomst is vegan

Later zullen we terugkijken op dit moment en gruwen van de gedachte dat we dieren doodden om ze op te eten, schrijft antropologe Roanne van Voorst in Ooit aten we dieren. En dat moment is niet eens zo heel ver weg. “In 2035 is tachtig procent van het aanbod in de supermarkt plantaardig.

Disaster Risk Governance in Indonesia and Myanmar: The Practice of Co-Governance

This article discusses the discourse and practice of co-governance in disaster risk reduction (DRR). It is based on an extensive ethnographic study of DRR at global level and in two disaster-prone countries in Southeast Asia: Indonesia and Myanmar. These country cases were selected not only because of their similarly high vulnerability to disasters, but also because the overlaps and differences between them in disaster governance allowed for a comparative study of the impacts of co-governance in DRR. Indonesia is characterised by a longer history with democratic governance institutions and a largely national-led response to disasters; Myanmar has only started to develop DRR in the last 10 years, and its policies are still largely led by international actors. In both countries, disaster response has shifted from being top-down and state-centred to following a co-governance approach. This reflects a worldwide trend in DRR, the idea being that co-governance, where different state and non-state stakeholders are involved in governance networks, will lead to more inclusive and effective DRR. Our findings suggest that, in Myanmar and Indonesia, DRR has indeed become more inclusive. However, at the same time, we find that DRR in both countries has remained highly hierarchical and state-centred. Although the possible gains of encouraging future initiatives among different actors negotiating disaster response is under-explored, we find that, to date, the multiplication of actors involved in DRR, especially within the state, has led to an increasingly complex, competitive system that negatively affects the ability to conduct DRR

Strengthening community resilience in conflict: learnings from the Partners for Resilience programme

This report describes the main findings and recommendations of research carried out for the Partners for Resilience (PfR) alliance on how the PfR programme is affected by – or may affect – conflict. Although PfR works in different conflict-affected countries and contexts, it does not address conflict or insecurity explicitly. This is potentially problematic for PfR’s effectiveness. It is therefore important to consider whether PfR could or should address conflict more explicitly. For this research, a qualitative analysis of the experiences within the ongoing PfR programme was conducted in all 10 countries: Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, Philippines, South Sudan, Uganda and the regional programmes in Asia, Africa and Central America. The research was conducted by consultants and researchers from the International Institute of Social Studies, the Hague. The core of the study consisted of an online survey, for which PfR staff and partners from all countries were invited, in addition to Skype interviews and a desk study. In all, 52 people participated. The overall recommendation for PfR is to address conflict more explicitly in its IRM approach and to integrate conflict in the design and programming of a new phase. This would entail acknowledgment by PfR that conflict is impacting the goals of PfR work, and a commitment to support and train staff in addressing conflict. More concretely, the report offers several recommendations and ideas for next steps. In line with suggestions of research participants, the key elements for conflict-sensitive programming for PfR partners are: 1. transparent communication towards all parties 2. facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogues to increase parties’ understanding of conflict dynamics 3. the creation of a safe spaces for stakeholders. It is also suggested that Netherlands embassies play a role in addressing conflict and supporting PfR, for example by lobbying stakeholders and supporting partners financially or otherwise. Moreover, PfR should create a conflict-sensitivity toolbox and develop guidelines for conflict-sensitive and inclusive policy and programming (not just including women, but also ethnic minorities) and training for its worldwide staff in the use of conflict risk assessment tools. We believe that these steps will make the work of PfR more effective and decrease the risk that interventions feed into conflict. A more detailed set of recommendations feature at the end of this report