In recent weeks, as with the rest of the aid sector, the ReDSS team has reflected on the ramifications of the freezing of US government funding in the region. In the short-term, the impact on communities across the region is severe. But in the longer-term, the scale of the shock is such that the sector will likely be forced into dramatic, rapid changes. What will this mean for the work we and others have been doing to promote durable solutions for displaced people in the region? While we recognise that for many in the sector, now is a painful and uncertain time, this blog is designed to help catalyse the conversation about where we can go from here.
Excerpts from ICVA’s survey findings shared on LinkedIn summarizing the impact of the US Suspension on Humanitarian Aid.
Where has the solutions agenda got to?
First, we need a clear analysis of where we have made progress and where we are struggling. The ReDSS coalition’s new Shared Agenda (available soon on our website) provides such an analysis. It argues that the emphasis, over the past decade, on a series of technical responses to displacement has indeed brought important achievements, demonstrating some of the gaps that traditional humanitarian assistance has left and where more developmental resources and approaches are needed to enable longer-term impact. Many innovative hybrid programmes have been developed and implemented. We also have a host of new policy frameworks at national and regional level which, in principle, make it easier for displacement-affected communities to claim their rights.
But we have also learnt that the scale of the displacement challenge in this region – one that is increasing year on year – is such that only if we can give people the tools and opportunities to find their own solutions will we make a serious impact. We have neither the resources nor the collective capacity to create what we sometimes call “solutions from above”, often involving large infrastructural investments, at scale. But if we want to focus on the agency of communities to find their own “solutions from below” we need to help these populations overcome the barriers that block their way. And fundamentally, these barriers are linked to the persistent power dynamics that keep them marginalised.
And it is on questions of power and power dynamics, often uncomfortable for both humanitarian and development actors, that we have made the least progress. If we are to do better in the coming years, then we will need to better understand how these dynamics operate, and how we can adapt our interventions and strategies to be better partners to communities. This is not something that the aid sector has tended to be good at.
The likely impact of the funding freeze
So how will the current funding challenges affect this? From one perspective, it will make the achievement of durable solutions more essential than ever. One reason why donors have invested in this space is that they are desperate to find ways to bring down long-standing humanitarian commitments, such as those supporting displaced communities in countries like Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia. We have already seen significant cuts to support to refugee camps over the past few years, and the withdrawal of US assistance will only accelerate this process. If this meagre safety net is further slashed while solutions remain a fantasy, reducing humanitarian inputs to communities as well as collapsing economies in the parts of the region where these inputs are most significant, we will face a huge protection crisis, and potentially significant unrest.
But at the same time, there are serious risks to the kind of work that has been happening in the solutions space continuing. It is clear that drastic reprioritisation is going to be required as many humanitarian agencies find their budgets slashed. The key question is what will guide that process? Many within the humanitarian space, understandably, are calling for a “back to basics” approach and a focus on core lifesaving activities. This often comes with an implied criticism of the ways that humanitarian action has evolved in recent years, suggesting that these developments are evidence of a kind of mission creep. This is going to be an important discussion to have in the coming months and years, but it is essential that while it proceeds we recognise why the humanitarian sector has changed the way it has. Because we know that there are no humanitarian solutions to crises. Because we know that focussing only on the short-term can contribute to creating humanitarian traps for marginalised people. And because we know that, particularly in fragile contexts, effective development responses that meet the needs of the most marginalised are in short supply.
The way forwards
Difficult choices are going to be required, and there will be no straightforward answers forthcoming. Finding greater efficiencies within the system is going to be a critical starting point, while also ensuring that we hold on to the principles of demonstrating solidarity with vulnerable and marginalised communities.
If we take power dynamics as a starting point, we might be able to chart a way forwards. The single most powerful actor in the aid space has just reminded us all what it is to be powerless in the face of external shocks. Rather than passing this feeling on, now has to be the moment to demonstrate real solidarity with those who have the least power in the system. Put simply, this means promoting their voices in the discussions and decisions that are to come. As we start to reprioritise, who determines what is the most critical activity? Only those sitting in capitals and headquarters? Or the people on the receiving end? We need to ensure that the processes that we develop give due space and authority to all the layers of the system that have to be involved. And if we want to engage affected populations seriously in this process we need to recognise that one of the immediate impacts of the shutdown of so many programmes is likely to be a huge breakdown in trust between these populations and ourselves – we will have to earn this trust back over time.
The change that has been forced upon us, despite the short-term trauma and tragedy that it will wreak, has to be taken as an opportunity to do things differently. If we are serious about solutions, and we don’t really have a choice but to be, then now is the time to listen to what communities understand to be the best solutions for them, and what they need to get there – and have an honest conversation about where we can help and where we can’t. With resettlement programmes smaller than ever, and conflict and the climate crisis causing havoc, there aren’t going to be simple solutions. But if we can work with coalitions that can meaningfully engage with power dynamics, then there is a chance that the next ten years of durable solutions interventions can be more successful than the last ten.
Finally, we need to recognise that these coalitions have to be properly embedded within their contexts: local and national rather than international. The recent decisions of the US government have exposed once and for all the dependency of the aid system on a small number of actors operating in an increasingly unpredictable global context. As the risks of this approach are laid bare, the only logical response is to emphasise more the role of national governments, local governments, local leaders and domestic civil society and private sector. These actors bring distinct advantages too: less expensive in an era of constrained resources, and part of domestic governance networks that are ultimately the best way to strengthen accountability networks. There will remain a role for international actors in enacting international solidarity, unlocking global resources and helping tackle collective challenges, but this role should be fundamentally different in ten years time.
