Overview

The combined impacts of global trends—such as population growth, climate change, environmental degradation, resource scarcity, urbanization, irregular migration, and changes in the global economy—continue to exacerbate vulnerability, increase humanitarian needs and contribute to an increasingly complex and challenging operating environment. This session explored the humanitarian implications of these changes.

Humanitarianism in a Changing World

Hugh MacLeman, Humanitarian Futures Programme

Mr. MacLeman began his presentation with a short film made by the Humanitarian Futures Programme. The film can be viewed at: http://vimeo.com/30745255. The film highlighted: (1) the changing nature of humanitarian crises, noting that crises are increasingly sequential and simultaneous, and that the number of people affected is increasing; (2) the changes in the humanitarian architecture, including the emergence of new national and regional capacities, increasing demands for government accountability, and the role of new technologies; and (3) the changing priorities and emerging opportunities for humanitarian action, noting the greater range of actors and fragmentation in the humanitarian sector, geopolitical considerations and the need for longer term planning and modeling. In the remainder of his presentation, Mr. MacLeman highlighted the following five capacities that Humanitarian Futures Programme has identified as priorities for the humanitarian sector: (1) anticipation; (2) adaptation; (3) collaboration; (4) innovation; (5) strategic leadership.

Climate, Food and Water: Key Trends and Humanitarian Implications

Rob Bailey, Chatham House

Mr. Bailey noted that the major driver of increasing disaster risk was increasing exposure of people and assets, rather than changes in hazards. However, for very vulnerable people even relatively minor events could lead to disasters. The small, creeping changes in climate could also have significant, negative effects. He presented evidence supporting the analysis that high and volatile food prices are here to stay and suggested the humanitarian system needs to consider the implications, especially those relating to supply-side shocks and the purchasing power of humanitarian organizations. He also highlighted evidence for the links between high food prices and political instability. Mr. Bailey noted that water scarcity would increase by approximately 30% by 2030, mentioning in particular the challenges associated with changing patterns of water consumption in developing countries. While the vast majority of water in developing countries is used for agriculture, urbanization and industrialization are the cause of rapidly rising demand, which would be difficult to meet at the same time as maintaining or increasing food production. All these trends would have significant implications for the humanitarian sector, including relating to food insecurity, social and political tensions, and conflict. Humanitarian and development actors, as well as donors, need to take a more integrated approach to vulnerability reduction and the transition from relief to recovery. It is also vital to increase the effectiveness of early warning, including through addressing political or institutional barriers to early action.

Urbanization and the Challenges of Humanitarian Response in Urban Areas

Gregg Greenough, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative

Dr. Greenough started his presentation with several projections of urbanization—60% of the world's population will be urban by 2030, 30% of that change will happen in India and China alone. The primary driver of urbanization is migration due to pull factors, such as amenities and increased economic opportunities. Reduced death rates in cities are also a factor in urban growth, but birth rates are not. Dr. Greenough noted the importance of disaggregated data (sex, age, socioeconomics) and understanding the spatial distributions of population to inform urban humanitarian response, as well as highlighting some of the challenges around accurate urban population data. Dr. Greenough highlighted the importance of vulnerability and resilience in determining humanitarian needs, and noted some of the uncertainty around its definition. We are only just beginning to understand vulnerability factors at the local level. He also mentioned future concerns for humanitarian response in urban settings, including social upheaval as a result of land tenure disputes, income disparities, water scarcity, electrical shortages, and food scarcity. In terms of the shifting paradigm for response in urban settings, he noted the need to move away from camp-based approaches, the need to develop a more multidisciplinary understanding of relief to development, the need for real time and shared information and analysis, and the need to link spatial and population data.

What Will the Humanitarian Sector Look Like in the Future?

Jemilah Mahmood, Humanitarian Futures Programme

Dr. Mahmood's presentation focused on how to bring additional actors into the humanitarian system. She acknowledged that governments naturally want to maintain sovereignty over humanitarian operations, although they sometimes do not have the capacity or expertise to deal with major emergencies. This issue could be overcome by tapping in to regional institutions and networks, but requires real engagement with national organizations and actually adapting the approach of international actors to fit with the level of national and regional capacity. She gave a number of examples of regional organizations and mentioned the importance of sharing knowledge and best practices among them. Dr. Mahmood also noted the importance of two-way communication with affected people, and commented about the concept of accountability and how exactly we can measure accountability. She also mentioned the importance of new donors in the humanitarian system, including Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) and other emerging economies. The changing donor landscape means that the humanitarian system needs to rethink how it communicates and engages with new donors.

Overview

The trends and challenges in humanitarian action will require continuous adaptation of the humanitarian system. Humanitarian caseloads may increase, resulting in increasing pressure on the capacity of the system. Approaches will also need to be adapted to ensure they are effective in changing geographical and political contexts. The international system will be required to effectively support emerging national and regional capacities, and increase engagement with new strategic and operational partners. This session explored perspectives on adaptation, innovative approaches employed by humanitarian organizations, and how to foster innovation.

System-Wide Adaptation to Emerging Challenges

Peter Walker, Feinstein International Center

Dr. Walker opened the session by describing what he considered to be the six most interesting trends for the humanitarian system. These related to: (1) modeling and how we understand humanitarian emergencies; (2) stabilization and the nexus of aid and security; (3) new actors in the humanitarian sector; (4) professionalization; (5) the evidence for humanitarian action; and (6) ways to give voice to people affected by crises. In particular, Dr. Walker noted that the widely accepted paradigm of a linear model from emergency relief to recovery and development was not true to life. In fact most money was spent on keeping people alive, but without real hope or plans for real improvements in their livelihoods. He also discussed how the humanitarian “establishment” reacted to the influx of new actors. He asked whether it was acceptable to ask new actors to join the existing system, or whether they in fact should be core to creating a new type of system. He noted the importance of facts and evidence for decision-making, saying that the humanitarian system needed to radically improve how it defines and measures impact. He also mentioned the positive effects of new approaches, such as cash transfers, that could give choice to aid recipients, as well as the potential of new technologies to use information directly from affected people to design responses.

Adaptation to Humanitarian Challenges in Southeast Asia

Larry Maramis, ASEAN

In his presentation, Mr. Maramis explained the approach that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was taking to disaster risk reduction and management, including adapting to emerging issues, such as climate change and urbanization. In particular, he focused on regional coordination mechanisms and how they could be linked to national and international initiatives. He noted the high disaster risk in the region, resulting from the hazards it faced, but also exacerbated by the effects of economic growth on vulnerability and exposure. Mr. Maramis provided an overview of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management (AADMER), which is the first such legally binding regional instrument in the area of disaster risk reduction and management. It provided a means to cooperate and mobilize resources and technical assistance. The AADMER is supported by a number of tools including standard operating procedures, an emergency risk assessment team and the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance Center. Mr. Maramis outlined the strategic components and building blocks of the AADMER work program, of which the former include: risk assessment, monitoring and early warning; prevention and mitigation; preparedness and response; and recovery.

Non-Governmental Organization Perspectives on Emerging Challenges

Joel Charny, InterAction

Mr. Charny started his presentation by saying that although the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector recognized all the challenges that had been discussed, they were still struggling with how to approach and address them. He discussed the security and counter-terrorism framework and how it had affected NGOs, as well as the concept of remote management. He noted the wide recognition in the sector of challenges associated with urbanization and said that it was driving a lot of creativity and innovation–including around cash and voucher systems and livelihood approaches. Mr. Charny went on to discuss a number of aspects of the issue of accountability, noting some attempts by NGOs to prove effectiveness, but also the dilemma of whether to divert funding away from service delivery to invest in such initiatives. On the issue of accountability to affected people, Mr. Charny mentioned the importance of working side by side with local people, supporting community-led processes in all phases of emergency management, especially prevention. He felt this was the only way to really deliver meaningful accountability to those affected. Mr. Charny mentioned that there were a number of organizations with the dual mandates, but even they were facing challenges in integrating relief and recovery programs. He felt that development actors needed to be made more accountable for making better linkages between prevention, response and recovery.

The Role of the Humanitarian Sector in Building Resilience

Sue Lautze, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Ms. Lautze began her presentation with definitions of resilience and noted that humanitarians needed to provide a level of engagement of high enough quality and long enough duration to contribute to resiliency. She said this required fresh consideration of three areas: principles, relevance, and reliability. Ms. Lautze noted the importance of humanitarian principles, especially independence from the political agendas of humanitarian donors. On relevance, she highlighted a growing resistance to the practice of western humanitarian action, which needed to be addressed by constructively including those actors, stakeholders and powerbrokers that hold differing views on how to realize the spirit of humanitarianism. On reliability, Ms. Lautze noted that humanitarian assistance needed to provide a reliable safety net that was not subject to uncertainties of shifting humanitarian focus. In conclusion, she said that under-investment in development continues to place untenable demands on humanitarian action, including ever-increasing expectations that short-term emergency and protection assistance can accomplish long-term development outcomes, including resiliency. However, resiliency is, ultimately, a development challenge and therefore the debate could not be confined to humanitarians alone.

Cash Transfers as a Tool in Adapting to Emerging Challenges

Nicolas Barrouillet, The Cash Learning Partnership

Mr. Barrouillet started his presentation by giving an overview of the work of the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP), in particular its recent research on scale, preparedness, market analysis, urban areas and new technologies. On the question of whether cash transfer programming should be considered as an innovation, he explained that he thought not. It had been around for many decades, but only recently was becoming accepted as a mainstream tool for humanitarian assistance. Mr. Barrouillet also discussed the issue of risk, saying that cash transfers were not necessarily more risky, but just had different risks than more traditional types of assistance. He mentioned that there was increasing pressure from many donors to scale up cash programming. Doing so would require further improvements in informed decision-making, including market analysis, regardless of in-kind or cash delivery mechanisms. Coordination around cash transfer programming also needs to be improved if cash transfer programming is to reach its full potential. The humanitarian community needs to find a constructive approach to harness this multi-sectoral tool, which in some ways is at odds with the current sector-based cluster system.

Innovations in Vulnerability and Food Security Analysis

George Mu'Ammar, World Food Programme (WFP)

Mr. Mu'Ammar began by stating the purpose of undertaking vulnerability and food security analysis was to correctly target food assistance programs. He explained the various types of assessment and how they fit into the program cycle, as well as some of the differences between baseline and emergency assessments, and livelihood analyses. Mr. Mu'Ammar went on to briefly profile some of the innovations in the sector. These included using spatial analysis and geostatistical tools to model the results of assessments to provide vulnerability information at a scale more useful for programming than administrative districts, which is how it is often available. The “Africa Risk View” tool, for example, can model the direct impact of observed weather (such as drought) on vulnerable populations. The Shock Impact Modeling System can model the impact of shocks on household incomes and on food consumption to estimate the number of people affected, where they are located and in which livelihood groups.

Fostering Innovation in Humanitarian Organizations

Ari Wallach, Synthesis Corp

Mr. Wallach started by discussing the concept of innovation in large organizations, saying it was much more about process, systems and culture, than technology. He summarized some of the work that Synthesis Corp would present as a proposal to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to help it foster innovation in the organization. He said that innovation was about developing a process and platform to allow for the constant and transparent incubation, testing and scaling of new ideas, projects, products and processes that keep the organization on the cutting edge of global humanitarian activity and response. In relation to innovation in humanitarian organizations, Mr. Wallach discussed the importance of ideas that were field-driven, including those that came from outside the organization. He said that ideas need to be actionable; in other words, that they should be able to be piloted, tested and potentially mainstreamed in a short period of time. He also mentioned the importance of organizational ownership of ideas, as well providing an overview of the main components of an innovation system: innovation direction, innovation engine and innovation sustainability.

Overview

The increase in intra-state conflict, state collapse and fragmentation since the end of the cold war has forced humanitarian actors to function in dangerous and politically charged environments. This has included providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of conflict, as well as trying to deliver aid in response to natural disasters in the midst of extreme insecurity. In recent years, the changes in perceptions and legal frameworks due to the “war on terror” and the increase in deliberate targeting of United Nations and “western” humanitarian actors has made it more challenging for actors to uphold, or be seen to uphold, the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality. The session explored how humanitarian actors can best function in these difficult contexts and how the humanitarian community can adapt to these new paradigms.

Politicization of Humanitarian Aid

Samir Elhawary, Overseas Development Institute

Mr. Elhawary began his presentation by stating that he wanted to challenge the dominant narrative on humanitarian space. He noted that although there were many different definitions, most concerns about humanitarian space were predominantly about agency access, prioritized over protection. Mr. Elhawary rejected the idea that humanitarian space was shrinking, suggesting instead that there was no humanitarian space separate from politics, as all access was based on political compromise, and that there had never been a “golden age.” In fact, humanitarian space was increasing, as there were more humanitarian organizations, aid workers, and money now than ever before. Far from being powerless, the humanitarian system was an important source of power, and in some cases a competing source of sovereignty. The “humanitarian cartel” is dominated by a handful of largely western-based organizations and reforms, such as the cluster system, and has increased barriers to entry. However, despite the image of power, the system was actually weak and fragmented, which was partly explained by competitive market imperatives for funds, public profile, market share and niche expansion. It was these market dynamics that drove the concern with shrinking agency space and reinforced the tendency of putting agency access ahead of the welfare of affected populations. In order to “stay and deliver,” organizations often transfer risks to national actors and continued programming with little ability to effectively monitor and evaluate results. Mr. Elhawary cited Sri Lanka as an example, where silence on the protection of civilians was justified by the need to maintain an extremely limited presence. Between 30,000 and 40,000 civilians were killed, while aid agencies distributed food, water and plastic sheets.

Negotiating Access in Complex Environment

Michael Neuman, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Mr. Neuman, introducing material from MSF's new book “Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed,” argued that whether an actor was granted access had much less to do with how well it upheld humanitarian principles, than what the context was and the interests of the powers that they were negotiating with. For example, after the killings of five colleagues in Afghanistan, MSF pulled out of the country stating that “independent humanitarian action had become impossible.” At the time, MSF felt that the killings were a “mistake,” as the organization had made extensive efforts to protect their neutrality. However, in fact, the perpetrators had understood who MSF were, but were interested in showing that the new government could not provide security, so MSF workers were simply worth more dead than alive. While it also had been important that MSF had no long-term plans for society, what made MSF's return in 2009 possible was primarily a change in the context—the Taliban were stronger and were looking for legitimacy by allowing medical services to be provided. In Sri Lanka, however, MSF was never in a position to escape either being a tool of propaganda for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or an agent of the government's pacification policy. Despite three years of efforts, in 2009, MSF found itself as an auxiliary to the regime working in the displacement camps. Nevertheless, he noted that the decision to stay was still debated within the organization. Mr. Neuman noted that it was important to recognize in negotiations that humanitarian actors were bringing something to the table—there were compromises to be made. The point was not total freedom but being able to choose alliances according to MSF's objectives, with the goal of saving as many lives as possible, while making sure that assistance did not primarily support the tormenters.

Adaptations to Extreme Insecurity

Abby Stoddard, Humanitarian Outcomes

Dr. Stoddard noted that four countries, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan, accounted for 72% of major attacks on humanitarians. All are civil conflicts with international involvement, have some connection to the “war on terror” or stabilization agendas, and have a backdrop of anti-western sentiments. In several, humanitarians are seen as legitimate targets as they are perceived as agents of foreign powers. She noted that there are three main approaches. In the case of the United Nations, there has been an unambiguous shift to greater protection and deterrence, but little outreach to or negotiations with threat sources—the “bunkerization” approach. International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) had mostly adopted a low profile approach with remote management of localized programs and extreme localization, including low visibility of the organization, programs run by local staff, and no or very little on-site contact. Finally, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and MSF had strongly emphasized active acceptance and humanitarian negotiation, which was deliberately visible, unarmed and expatriate heavy. The report had shown that those agencies that had invested the most in humanitarian outreach and negotiation had achieved the best access overall. She also noted several innovations that the report had identified, such as dedicated outreach teams, public perception surveying, community-based partnering and recruitment, security partnerships, and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with local hosts. Despite this success, she suggested that there were real questions about whether that model could be replicated by other organizations, as ICRC and MSF had large resource bases and un-earmarked funding that give them an advantage. Constraints that were imposed by donors and host governments also complicated the ability of humanitarian actors to work in these environments. These included “no contact” polices with parties designated as terrorists, required “vetting” of local partners, movement restrictions and mandatory escorts, and partiality in funding flows away from opposition-held areas.

Assessing and Managing Risk in Complex Environments

Mathew Leslie, United Nations Country Team (UNCT) Somalia

Mr. Leslie explained that in Somalia, the UNCT has set up a risk management unit that supports the 24 United Nations entities that work in Somalia in the humanitarian and development sectors. The unit is independent, and is based in the Resident Coordinators office. The unit's work is not primarily about physical risk, but other risks such as diversion, corruption, fraud and politicization. The goal of the unit is to use a greater understanding of risks to make better decisions, and to encourage joint action where appropriate. The impetus for the unit was partially driven by donors, who recognized that they had become risk averse, and that there was a need to look at the control and program side. He explained that the risk management approach in Somalia is already evolving, as after some initial hesitation, there has been an increase in demands on the unit, such as for individual agency support and working on the Somalia assistance strategy to identify strategic issues. Among other initiatives, the team has developed a database, which, for the first time, collects information on contracts in Somalia to allow a clear picture of exactly for whom agencies are working and for how much. The team is also adding a monitoring group to help answer basic questions on how and where funds are being spent. This is in response to the demands of donors, who in instances of allegations of corruption did not want either the agency to investigate itself or the use of third party monitors, who were not properly accountable. Finally, Mr. Leslie concluded by noting that accountability to affected populations is often forgotten. Affected populations are the ones who suffer when aid is diverted or not targeted properly, and there is a need to keep them at the center of all efforts.

Overview

This session discussed the definition of effectiveness in humanitarian action, the challenges in measuring effectiveness, and the meaning of the concept for people affected by conflict and disaster. The session concluded with analysis of current trends in information management and their potential for impact on humanitarian effectiveness.

What is Effectiveness in Humanitarian Action?

Paul Knox Clarke, Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP)

Mr. Clarke discussed three key questions: (1) what do we mean by effectiveness in humanitarian action? (2) how effective is the system currently? and (3) what are the factors holding the humanitarian system back from being more effective? He started by indicating that focusing solely on the degree to which objectives of specific humanitarian action have been achieved might not offer a valuable assessment of the effectiveness of the overall humanitarian response. Rather, effectiveness should be defined and understood in broader terms by applying the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria of relevance, connectedness, coverage, efficiency and impact. Applying a broader definition, however, will require a thoughtful choice of indicators and methods for collecting data and moving beyond a purely technological, quantitative judgment of effectiveness. Regarding the effectiveness of the current humanitarian system, overall progress has been achieved in areas such as coordination mechanisms and assessment tools. However, leadership and the system's engagement with and accountability to affected people remain weak. Mr. Clarke highlighted five key challenges that might prevent the system becoming more effective: (1) weak leadership; (2) partnership; (3) division of roles and responsibilities; (4) the overall model of the humanitarian system; (5) unrealistic expectations of how effective the system can be.

Understanding and Measuring Effectiveness

John Telford, Independent Consultant

Mr. Telford noted that despite undoubted advances in humanitarian effectiveness, attempts at measurement remain weak, often unsuccessful and, at times, vigorously contested by interested parties. There is a need for improved methods, tools and expertise. This is, however, secondary. Core failings relate predominantly to a “corporatization” of the sector and a related lack of political will to measure effectiveness transparently. Mr. Telford set out five main recommendations: (1) rationalize roles and accountabilities, noting that the increasing number of actors and activities were a barrier to measuring effectiveness; (2) prioritize measurement of mortality and morbidity, as well as effectiveness of emergency interventions; (3) improve measurement of cost-effectiveness, which is impeded by insufficient political will rather than technical barriers; (4) regulate the system; (5) democratize delivery and measurement, by systematically involving affected people in decision-making through an entirely revamped architecture of humanitarian assistance operations.

Affected Population Perceptions of Humanitarian Effectiveness

Dennis Dijkzeul, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Germany

Dr. Dijkzeul discussed local perceptions of the international humanitarian assistance of the International Rescue Committee and Malteser International in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and raised the question, “How can it be that the local population is sometimes extremely negative about humanitarian organizations?” He started by differentiating the “local population,” arguing that there are directly affected populations (e.g., patients or health committees), local NGOs, local government officials, traditional chiefs, religious leaders, and ethnic groups, and that each of these actors can have different perceptions of humanitarian organizations. Whereas some local population groups may be very positive about humanitarian medical assistance, local leaders may actually feel that they operate in competition with international humanitarian organizations. Perceptions in the case study of eastern DRC depended on events that were unavoidable, such as the arrival of the organizations at the same time as foreign military, negative consequences of assistance such as looting of health clinics by militia, and even local myths, in which humanitarian NGOs transport vampires in their four-wheel drive vehicles. Dr. Dijkzeul described three different narratives that each interpret the same basic facts with very different perceptions. Dr. Dijkzeul highlighted that although the language of the traditional humanitarian principles—humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence—was not used, the objectives behind the principles, e.g., not taking sides, will also be carefully considered and checked by local populations.

Challenges in Information Management

Mark Foran, New York University School of Medicine

Dr. Foran looked at the challenges of information management and opportunities posed by emerging technologies, focusing on the potential role of affected communities and volunteer and technical communities (V&TCs) as key actors. He noted that affected communities now have the tools to push information to humanitarian actors, which is a paradigm shift compared to previous dynamics. V&TCs include a wide variety of groups, including non-profit organizations such as Open Street Map; for-profit organizations like GeoEye, which provides satellite imagery and is partnering with humanitarian actors such as the Satellite Sentinel Project to predict and intervene in humanitarian settings; and volunteer communities like Crisis Mappers. He noted the potential applications of a range of emerging technologies and approaches, such as short message service (SMS), crowd-sourcing, social networks, up-sourcing, portals, short codes, and others. On the question of key challenges, Dr. Foran noted that V&TCs, which are generally relatively informal and small-scale, often have difficulty interfacing with established humanitarian organizations. The V&TCs face challenges regarding consistency (they are often dependent on volunteers and may have variable funding), professionalization, and awareness of humanitarian principles. These issues need to be addressed in order for V&TCs to become increasingly reliable partners. Likewise, established humanitarian organizations face their own challenges, including inadequate interface with the V&TC, information overload, and difficulty verifying new data streams and incorporating them into operational decision-making. Dr. Foran emphasized the importance of open-data standards and the development of trust between established actors and V&TCs. He concluded by stressing the importance of consideration of unintended risks associated with emerging technologies, particularly in conflict settings where data streams could also be used by perpetrators or parties to the conflict.

(1) Evidence-Driven Humanitarian Decision-Making

Humanitarian programming needs to be driven by timely and relevant information and analysis. This is integral to ensuring that interventions are impartial and needs-based. Without integration into decision-making processes, information collection has limited value. More work is needed to understand how information can be used to ensure strategic decision-making, particularly with respect to driving preventative action.

(2) Accountability and Transparency

The current patchwork of accountability mechanisms speaks to the lack of a shared humanitarian identity. Unresolved tensions between the idea of accountability to donors and accountability to communities remain a concern. The problem of prevention (or of risk-reduction and resilience building) is particularly fraught as this is not perceived as a core humanitarian responsibility, but is increasingly being implemented by humanitarian actors. Work on better integration with development actors is critical. Development actors also need to be more accountable for reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience of people affected by humanitarian crises. The link between transparency and accountability is essential, and the humanitarian community is behind the curve in terms of transparency.

(3) Risk and Agility

The humanitarian system needs to be more effective at managing risk. It also needs to become significantly more agile to cope with future crises. There was a general consensus that the system remains risk averse and lacks a culture that stimulates innovation. Humanitarians tend to ignore failure rather than investing and learning from failure, which requires stronger leadership and a culture that embraces necessary risks.

(4) Partnership

The most discussed issue—and the source of the most frequent calls for OCHA action—was partnership. Specifically, participants called for OCHA to build deeper and more strategic relationships with new actors in the humanitarian space. OCHA was cautioned, however, against trying to simply co-opt partners into the existing system; rather, it would benefit from engaging with humility, listening to partner experiences, and building a truly inclusive system. There was a strong push for OCHA to facilitate regional consultations while adopting a “listening” mind-set. Specifically in relation to policy and research, OCHA was encouraged to engage a different and more diverse group, including regional organizations and academics from countries dealing with crisis.

(1) Regional Workshops

OCHA will organize a series of regional workshops in 2012 and 2013, launching with Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Each workshop will bring together 15-20 participants encompassing regional organizations, regional and national NGOs, member states, and local academics. Efforts will be made to also include voices from conflict- and disaster-affected communities, and nontraditional academics (e.g., urban planners and anthropologists) that might bring a fresh perspective.

(2) Policy Working Groups

For each of the priority areas identified in the conference, OCHA will create Policy Working Groups (PWGs) blending key policy makers, researchers and practitioners, with the goal of identifying key problem statements for the thematic area and supporting research to develop innovative solutions. In 2012, the PWGs will focus on the strategic use of information and transparency.

(3) New OCHA Publication

A new OCHA publication, to be launched in late 2012 or early 2013, will link to both the regional conferences and the PWG. The publication, which will be a flagship for OCHA and the humanitarian community, will provide an in-depth exploration of major thematic issues, tentatively on a biennial basis.

(4) Second Annual Conference

OCHA will hold a 2nd Annual Research and Policy conference in December of 2012.