Supporting community (survivor)-led responses to crises … Supporting community (survivor)-led responses to crises …..changing the way we respond to ‘humanitarian’ emergencies (place and date)

Some key character types to strengthen co-design processes Supporter, facilitator, team player, listener, encourages others, Innovator, new-ideas, creative, risk-taker, starter Analyser, thinking through all angles, thoughtful, realist, logical, Empathiser: understands people, listener, caring, inclusive Strategic thinker, bigger-picture, change-champion, visionary Mobiliser, communicator, public-speaking, out-going, moves the crowd Implementer, doer, practical, action, wants to see concrete outputs Finance wizard, manages budgets creatively, understands accounts Generalist, jack-of-all-trades, bit of wisdom everywhere, connects ideas or ……?

Objectives of co-design & training workshop To co-design context-relevant methodologies for supporting communities to lead and manage their own holistic responses to crises in ways that can better meet short term needs and also reduce future vulnerability (i.e. accelerate transformational change). To help all participants develop the capacities, skills, plans and relationships needed for testing in practice after the workshop. we can define co-design together 1. Co-design the approach to make it contextually relevant; 2. Develop capacities of participants to implement the approach Stress the learning by doing approach as the best way to learn and change practices (LPRR and DEPP learning)

Key steps of the co-design process Introducing concepts to key stakeholders Developing prototype methodologies and relevant systems and skills (co-design/training workshop) Planning implementation of pilots Piloting the approaches in practice Capturing lessons Reflection workshop to share experiences and refine methodologies Scale-up, expand application Contribute to wider evidence base for changing crisis response (on-going) now! Add new dates Straight after Oct-Dec 18 Jan ? 2019 Feb? 2019 2019 onwards

…not transferring a ready-made, perfected sclr manual …not transferring a ready-made, perfected sclr manual ...not a one-off project – start of a long term process to change humanitarian programming But sharing our concepts and experiences and systems - and adding in your capacities, ideas and priorities – to co-develop something to test (proto-typing). Maybe you’ll pilot, learn, get funds to scale up, do, learn…and then be close to have a set of guidelines you would like to leave with your organisation and share with others stress the holistic and linking short term response to long term resilience

Proposed content of the Workshop Day 1 Module 0: Getting started, co-design Module 1: Overview of sclr: rational and emerging practice Day 2 Module 2: Participatory Action Learning in crises (palc) Day 3 Module 3: Emergency micro-grants Day 4 Module 4: Strengthening capacity in crises inc. basic OD, psycho-social issues, community-based protection, conflict transformation, networking & linking Day 5 Module 5: Addressing root causes during crises Module 6: Enabling demand-led coordination systems Module 7: Changing institutional relationships Day 6 Module 8: Planning the pilots, follow-up and next steps

Proposed schedule 3rd session: 1.30-3.00 pm 1st session: 9.00-10.30 am tea break (20 mins) 2nd session: 10.50-12.30 am lunch break (1 hour) 3rd session: 1.30-3.00 pm 4th session: 3.20-5.00 pm morning session only on Day 6 any informal evening sessions?

Workshop principles We are all learning from each other Safe space for challenging and new thinking Developing new sclr approaches together: co-design Not one expert or leader: we all have different expertise, we all are leaders of different processes Our collective challenge is how to maximise that expertise and leadership potential in each one of us…. The workshop must be demand-led – keep checking it is meeting needs with strong feedback systems to facilitators Daily recap (every morning) Present the slide Add ‘safe space’ and ‘approach is demand led’ Remember accountability and feedback system

Ground rules Define collectively which are the ground rules Get them to define accountability mechanism for workshop (daily mood meter, feedback committee (revolving?), suggestion box – (component of palc) Identify who is good for energisers and allocate time for it.

Before we proceed….. Evacuation procedures Where are bathrooms? Check if anyone needs extra help Are power-points readable to all? Are sound levels ok? Is language ok? Any other cultural sensitivities? Dinners, extra costs, housekeeping etc Remember for all next days, recap with ball in circle is important and takes 30 minutes Ask people to speak only for 1 minute if possible

Module 1: Overview of sclr Why support community-led responses to crises? Key concepts, definitions, terms sclr as a complement to externally led humanitarian response Identifying the components of an emerging practice for sclr Well-being and key role of psycho-social issues and livelihoods Reassure participants that sclr is not trying to replace all existing externally-led aid, but complement it and help it adjust - we should ‘not throw the baby out with the bathwater’ (keep the good stuff and get rid of the bad stuff)

Sources of inspiration, learning, support Multiple examples of “humanitarian/development” interface, community-led action and LNGO/INGO interface in different countries Research into how crisis affected communities respond themselves to emergencies & what they think of mainstream aid (L2GP+local actors, CDA Listening Programme, LPRR, Oxfam, HLA, NEAR….) Action-research in how to support survivor-led responses to crises (slr): L2GP+local actors, LPRR, Smart Risks, many others, many of YOU Charter for Change, Grand Bargain Leading Think tanks Make people in the room feel part of something bigger Possible use of LPRR videos interview from Myanmar and Kenya during co-design workshop (access from Simone) 5-10 minutes plenary: organisation present in the room can share their engagement/experience

Learning from examples of locally-led responses: IDP camps in early 90s, drought response of settled farmers in Sudan Chronic and acute livelihood crises in Ethiopia Post conflict recovery in Mozambique Myanmar: Nargis & Giri, recurrent floods, marginalisation in Karen; Rakhine Civil war in Cote d’Ivoire Ebola response in West Africa Community protection in conflict areas of Sudan Chronic livelihood and protection crises in oPt Floods, earthquakes and conflict in Philippines Climate change and conflict in northern Kenya Numerous publications….

Efficiacy of many (not all) local knowledge and processes What are the characteristics of community-led responses when external aid is absent (i.e. what are the positive and negative actions of local people during a crisis when there is no external support)? People depend more on each other, self-help, local resources, local ideas Multiple community groups want to manage their own multiple, holistic responses...but are limited by lack of resources People do not separate “humanitarian”, “protection”, “development”, livelihoods etc Greater focus given to livelihoods and longer term recovery and even root-causes Importance of social, cultural, dignity and non-material needs (psychosocial) Efficiacy of many (not all) local knowledge and processes Knowledge and information are not evenly distributed And of course neither is power or capacity...complex exclusion/inclusion issues (gender, ethnicity, social status, age, health) In pairs, discuss positive and negative aspect of a crisis when there is no external support Plenary feedback presentation from each pair. Take note. Positive in one flip chart and negative in another Highlight the psychosocial aspects Make participants discuss over a topic: Flag the psychosocial element (faith, passion, belief etc). research has shown survivors needs to be listened in terms of priorities, such a perfume. ‘people are not goats, they need more than food and water’ (LPRR pilot participants) Power imbalances can be reinforced Highlight the ‘heroes’, the ones that are standing and doing something about their condition. They come up spontaneously, but we need to find them Local expert (local knowledge) exists, especially in recurrent crisis. They know what to do. Build on social networks Make people note that most point raised are positive and this make people open their eyes Flag the transformative element of crisis. For example, gender roles (can be positive as well as negative). Make them discuss

What do crisis affected people think of externally-led humanitarian assistance? First and foremost, appreciation of scale, scope, intention and often critical life-saving nature of assistance But, frustration with tendency to be: less responsive (to local needs & opportunities) slow to start quick to leave less cost effective poorly coordinated at times divisive Insensitive, degrading ignoring local ideas, knowledge, capacity Over time can promote learned helplessness, dependency Can reinforce unhelpful power structures DO this in pairs – 10 mins max and then get people to and fill up a flip chart before you share the contents of the slide In pairs or plenary 2 flip charts, capture positive and negative

“ Either an international response is mounted that ignores local capacities to lead, plan and manage the response, or that uses local actors only as sub-contractors and as a means of outsourcing its own risk; or the crisis is ignored by the international community altogether….[this]…. frequently results in a top-down imposition of programs that ignores or, at best, subjugates local humanitarian action. All of this results in redundancy, overlaps, and gaps—some of which may be invisible to external actors. It can result in inappropriate or poorly designed interventions, the undermining of local response capacity in the future, and an increased lack of accountability. The latter results in an ineffective, inefficient response that can do long-term harm to affected communities, and to the operating environment, especially in chronic crisis.” Keynote address to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Feb 2018 , by Professor Daniel Maxwell Food Security Feinstein International Center, Science and Policy, Tufts University Mention the changes of WHS, C4C There is hope. People at the top are recognising this. WHS recognised what you experience on the ground.

Who are the most significant responders to any crisis? It is the Communities in crisis themselves that are first (and last!) responders, and usually by far the most significant Plenary discussion Use numbers (studies) and live experience. Need to find some case studies. ....you can show (at the end of the day) the short 12 min ted talk video of Peter Walker of Tufts providing more examples of this on : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGjRIVdOpc

Definitions Localisation, locally-led, community/survivor-led Humanitarian v Development (nexus) Crisis (emergency, disaster)...acute & chronic Resilience….. Community Optional: you can define collectively each definition. Only if you have time and you feel this is important. It is time consuming. You can divide in groups and assign one term to each. They need to come out with ‘how they would describe the concept to their neighbour’. Focus on simple language. just key points. No debate. Concepts are relative, they mean different things to different people Localisation: broad umbrella concept for many approaches to give more resources and accountability (CHS) to local actors Locally-led: ownership, management and leadership to local actors (including government) SCLR: supporting community led response where survivor led response, brings the localisation a step further down to affected population Humanitarian-development nexus: the divide is fiction, it doesn’t make sense to affected populations, it is a aid sectoral divide. The nexus puts emphasis on the overlap between short term humanitarian ways of work and long-term development which looks at the root ca uses of vulnerabilities. Crisis: we use this word instead of humanitarian or disaster as it captures better how people perceive their condition and to avoid the humanitarian-development divide and language. Crisis can be immediate, acute, chronic.

Core issues and terms 1: Resilience Capacity/Power of a community to cope, respond to a disaster, adapt or prevent it Capacity to recover at least to previous condition, or better (“bounce-back better”) Capacity to reduce vulnerability to future crises – i.e. to transform their situation (address root causes ) Slide present how L2GP learn how to use the term resilience in their workshops Alternatively, we could present: AAT model: absorb (response), adapt (recovery), transform (long term) KCL research definition by some survivors: ‘crises survivors felt that resilience meant both independence and support when needed’ or ‘resilience means having the skills and capacity to look after yourself whilst knowing how and where to ask for support when needed’ Bring back the definition to how people define it or make sense.

The triangle represents the population in a RESILIENCE The triangle represents the population in a society/ community. HEALTHY NORMAL STATE All People live in networks composed of families, influenced by multiple cultural, social and economic factors. These networks, structures and relationships are what help to bring cohesion to a community and provide a sense of belonging, protection and perception of the surrounding world. They are not homogeneous They are not “perfect” It is a bit patronizing and usually inaccurate to refer to all people affected by crisis as “the community”. Often many communities – each one of which in turn is made up of multiple sub-groupings. SEVERELY AFFECTED

HEALTHY NORMAL STATE SEVERELY AFFECTED In any community there are different structures and networks, both private (family, friends etc.) and organisational (work, authorities, NGOs etc.) that can support individuals and communities in times of distress. Community is a relative term. There are many communities and we are part of many communities. Community is an aspect that bring us together, we’re interconnected, we’re part of different networks. When we are part of communities our resilience is stronger SEVERELY AFFECTED

HEALTHY NORMAL STATE SEVERELY AFFECTED This safety-net prevents people from falling down, and also helps people recover and be able to get higher in the triangle. SEVERELY AFFECTED

HEALTHY NORMAL STATE In case of a disaster, the ordinary structures and social fabric is disrupted, and the normal support systems fail. The community and family networks that provide support and care for people are disrupted and unable to function properly increasing of social resilience being undermined. Foundationally, we believe that the heart of resilience is enabling communities to rebuild their connections, their voice and resources – restoring hope , dignity and safety. Without the social side to resilience, there is no holistic recovery. community during crisis In a ‘healthy’ community the various networks are stronger and ‘safe’ the individual falling down But during a crisis some networks might break down, such as during displacement Our crisis response must acknowledge these networks and support them There is a higher risk of people falling down, without anything strong enough to stop the fall. SEVERELY AFFECTED

Emerging benefits of strengthening first responders More responsive – fits local needs & opportunities Faster Cost-efficient – less money helps more people Psychological benefits (dignity, hope, trauma recovery) Social benefits (cohesion, self-help, accountability) Holistic: no barriers: allows relief, development, protection, services, peace-building etc Generates new ideas from the ground (emergent, organic) Capacity building through learning-by-doing (avoids learned helplessness) Encourages/accelerates longer-term processes to address root causes (....improved understanding of duty bearers, changes of approach) Several initiatives have identified these concepts as key for making humanitarian response more relevant to people perception of the crisis

Recovery (building back better) + ...improvements in: Immediate response + Recovery (building back better) + Process of transformation (reducing future vulnerability) = .... ....INCREASED RESILIENCE

Risks, challenges Overcoming learned helplessness Community can’t do it all Accountability issues Unhelpful domination by local power structures Exclusion of certain groups Gender-norms prevent women’s full involvement Provoking Internal tensions (money) Dealing with long term, complex root causes Coordination problems Contradictions with back donor & INGO procedures and norms Back with practical examples Session can be Can be done in plenary Or two groups in parallel to cut time We can focus on internal organisational challenges if done only with one organisation

Supporting community-led (survivor-led) responses to crises sclr

Aim of sclr approaches To support crisis-affected communities to lead and manage their own holistic, coordinated responses to emergencies in ways that improve immediate well-being, strengthen longer term resilience and accelerate transformational change. Builds on benefits and challenges identified An approach evolved from field experience It builds on practical approaches from humanitarian and development toolboxes

Autonomous self-help by crisis affected An emerging practice Community–based information, mobilisation & learning systems Collective emergency micro-grants Rapid provision of relevant emergency skills up-grading: - context specific tech & management - psycho-social response - conflict analysis & resolution Changes in Institutional roles, relationships, and systems Autonomous self-help by crisis affected people Central triangle: the main assumption of the approach is to recognise there is already a response by crisis affected population. The approach looks at working with these self-help groups work and support them PALC: Community–based analysis, information management, mobilisation & learning systems - how can we strengthen the self-help to collect information, mobilise various groups and individuals and learn (this will be discussed as the first step in the next day): Support communities to rapidly initiate (and sustain) their own rapid situation analysis and appreciative enquiry Generating new or wider initiatives Learning from immediate responses Gap analysis Power issues and relationships, systems of accountability Conflict sensitivity Micro-grants: micro-grants will be used to support the self-help groups to address their needs. It can have an impact everywhere, even where there is no market. You can bring the example of Nuba mountains where there is no cash or market (this will be discussed in day 3) Capacity strengthening: in the sense of skills upgrade and demand led. It can be technical support such as engineers for building, or SME support; Organisational development/management for the self-help groups; psychosocial to address stress; conflict analysis and resolution). Make examples for each type Connecting/networking/alliances: this component could be addressed in other parts such as in 3. But experience has shown that it deserves a specific focus. How to link the self-help initiatives to other initiatives to address needs but also address long term needs. It is so important that we miss an opportunity if we do not consider this aspect (discussed in day 4) Root causes: we must take advantage of the opportunity for transformation offered by the crisis. Example of Ace war during Tsunami in 2004. How can we use all the previous components to address the long-term root causes of the crisis? Locally relevant coordination: practical experience has shown this as a major blockage for locally led responses to interact to the wider response and maximise effectiveness. We must improve local coordination and increase the access of NNGOs to UN cluster system Change in institutions: how to make the policies and systems relevant to SCLR? What needs to change internally to organisations and the wider system? Support for locally-led longer term processes to address root causes of vulnerability, & mentoring Connecting, networking, alliances (inc. private sector) Locally-relevant coordination services (horizontal & vertical)

Possible core components of an emerging practice Community-owned processes for rapid situation analysis, information- management and learning Systems for rapid use of micro-grants to support and promote survivor groups’ own (autonomous) crisis responses Rapid provision of demand-led skills training: - context specific practical and management skills - community-based psycho-social recovery - community-based protection, conflict analysis and conflict resolution 4. Locally-relevant coordination services 5. Linkages, alliances and networks for collective action 6. Support for locally-led longer term processes to address root causes of vulnerability (advocacy, fund-raising etc) 7. Changes in institutional relationships, roles and systems This slide is not needed – you have talked through the points from the previous diagram slide. But if you want you can leave it there (not to talk through) but just to remind everyone that they have it as a hand out.

What limits communities resilience. (i. e What limits communities resilience? (i.e. its ability to respond, recover, transform) Lack of resources Lack of information Gaps in knowledge, skills Lack of confidence, fear Lack of wider connections, networks Community splits, local conflicts Bad governance issues (local or national) Lack of power Disempowerment, learned helplessness Trauma, despair Restrictions on trade & markets Restrictions to movement and communications IDPs Other vulnerable groups Geophysical location Conflict and children vulnerability optional group exercise: if the group is totally new and needs clarification   What limits self-reliance by crisis affected people? Or what is stopping affected population to achieve self-help?

Locally-led humanitarian programme is not brand new! Watch this 2014 12 minute ted-talk. Even Humanitarian Aid policy leaders are promoting it. What we’ll look at for the rest of this week is how to put their good principles into practice… Find video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGjRIVdOpc&t=317s Introduce the dude. With over 25 years of field experience in international humanitarian relief, Peter Walker now leads a team of 30 academics and practitioners at the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University. His group conducts research to better understand the factors that lead to, or exacerbate humanitarian crises, and how to effectively respond to them. Walker is actively involved at all levels: driving policy and international standards whilst also training aid workers for crisis response during his annual disaster simulation workshop at Tufts.