Strategic Communication Masterclass November 2011

Communication by Humanitarians

versusHumanitarian

Communication The following points do not represent the speaker’s employer

I. CONTEXT

Somalia – the (in) human side

13.3 million people need urgent aid in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Djibouti

1.5 million Refugees across the Horn of Africa

900.000 Internally displaced people

30 % Malnutrition of children under 5 240 % Food price increase 50 % Livestock mortality

Perspectives 2011-2012

“The crisis is expected to worsen over the coming three months.

Recovery is not expected until next year, given the anticipated late and below-average harvests, the depletion of pasture and water and the high prices of food, water, and fuel.”

OCHA, Oct 2011

TODAY Rights violations

Violence

Poverty

CHILD

Facts are neutral Our Interpretation is not

Position A - Aid Agencies

“We are here to help the most vulnerable.

Saving lives is our only

objective.”

Position B – Host Government

“The humanitarian system feels like a form of competing

sovereignty. They assimilate partners and

coopt local NGOs.”

Position C – Non State Actors

“Relief workers are spies for foreign

countries. They come with

the agenda of their donor’s money.”

Position D – Population

“We see many big cars but no food.

Why do they not ask what we need? “

QUESTION

Which position can all factions agree on ?

Every Child has the right to eat, be protected from violence and cared

for when sick.

HER AGENDA?

COMMUNICATION is needed to nurture a shared vision

II. PRINCIPLES

Communication by

Humanitarians

1. Donor Issues

Political agendas and Humanitarian requirements are not linked

=> Aid is provided on needs basis (?) Need for guarantees to donors that their

aid falls not into the wrong hands…Limited leakages to armed groups, (which might once have been accepted) can now result in criminal prosecution (US/2001)

2. Critical Public Information

Continued strong communication on rights violations.

Pragmatic balance between advocacy needs and risk to staff, communities and operations.

Respect for their dignity.

Responsibility for our action. = No yellow-press portraying of human suffering

Human Dignity Political Attention

?

Changing (our) mindsets

Shifting from communication about situations

to

Advocacy with, by and for (underrepresented)

PEOPLE

3. Host Nation Relations & Advocacy

Respect of Host Nation rules and regulations are mirrored by a

Responsibility of the Host Nation to protect humanitarian actors and facilitate their work.

Balance to be found between ‘guest politeness’ and realities on the ground.

=> Relevance versus Access ?

4. Reporting & Disclosure

Transparent documentation of assistance - what was sent where, for whom and how.

No sharing of information that gives political, military or security advantages to one party.

No disclosure of beneficiary identities if this may put them in danger.

5. New Tools

Social Media

Represent a great tool to establish links between donor and recipient countries.

Are a tool not an end : Quality >< Quantity

M4D

Cell-phones as a channel to sensitize, collect data, and disseminate information.

Crises Mapping & Crowdsourcing

DEFINITIONS

Crises Mapping Using a variety of techniques to strategically map events so that interested parties can follow crises and respond, ideally in their emerging phases.

Crowdsourcing Outsourcing of tasks traditionally performed by specific individuals to an undefined group of people or communities (crowd) through an open call.

Crises Mapping & Crowdsourcing

Crises Mapping

Plus : Knowledge that allows to kick-start operations at early stages of an emergency.

=> Risk : Abuse by warring parties Crowdsourcing

Plus : Access to a large quantity of potentially adequate information.

=> Risk : Lack of reliability and references

Additional Approaches

Info As Aid

Make vital information accessible to populations in need (location of distributions, hygiene measures, identity of separated family members..)

Youth Empowerment

‘Use’ of young people as advocates for their rights and as authentic voices for the interaction with donors.

CCC x 3

Advocacy

Social Mobilisation

Communication for Development

Social & political engagement

Partnerships with NGOs & Civil Society

Behaviour at individual and community level

7. Security Issues

Proactive and systematic communication about impartiality is key to build trust.

Trust by the population has a double benefit := Shield against attacks = Access to areas in need

Balance to be found : Continued advocacy about civilian protection and needs without jeopardizing staff or communities.

8. Visibility Agreements

Donor recognition or visibility should be left to the discretion of aid agencies depending on circumstances. It can not condition funding.

=> Risk: Aborted ownership

Attention to abuse of visibility material by warring parties.

Conclusion

Humanitarian players must preserve in action and perception the drive of caring for the affected population.

They must remain at arm length from political and military interventions.

Neutrality and linked communication = Key to staff security and access.

III. OUTLOOK

Humanitarian

Communication

Equity Responsibility

Child Rights

WHAT

Development Emergency Aid

Politics & Security

RIGHTS

Patches or Painting?

WHO

Government Partners

Communitie

s

CHILD

Patting pieces – or figuring out biology?

HOW

Participation

Accountability

PARTNERS

Transparence

WHY COMMUNICATE

1. Nurture a shared vision for Humanity

2. Create a protective Neutrality-bubble

Purposeful Communication

YOU

THEM

WE