Category: Funding & Partnerships - Page 2

In-Country Forums are Growing!

It was following a EU-CORD ‘Funding and Partnerships Workshop’ in October 2019 hosted by Leprosy Mission in London that Paula Konttinen (FIDA) and Robert Osborne (Sign of Hope), who had both attended the workshop, started the East Africa EU-CORD forum jointly. Paula contacted all the initial participants, hosted and coordinated the meetings for the first two years thus taking the initiative by bringing workshop delegates together in Nairobi to build on their friendships and shared interests in East Africa development and so started to build the first ‘In-Country EU-CORD Forum’. At the beginning, informal monthly coffee gatherings were arranged. Participants shared their interests in learning, research, collaboration ideas and grant applications. An active WhatsApp group emerged and HQ support was granted which encouraged everyone to continue. In time a ‘collaboration statement’ was drafted which outlined their thematic interests, their common relationship in the EU-CORD network and consortia ideas. This was used to introduce forum members to the EU-delegation starting a donor relationship which has led to four concept note submissions with success with one leading to a full proposal submission in 2022. Two others are awaiting decisions.

In 2021 the suitability of the Kenya ‘model’ was to be tested by rolling the model out further when Ruth Faber introduced a new strategy to explore the possibility of establishing forums in new countries. Quickly forums came into being in Uganda and Ethiopia helped by Anders Jacobsen (LM International) and in Myanmar where an EU concept note was submitted. Since then, forums have started in Bangladesh, South Sudan and south-east Asia. Requests have been received by the Secretariat to explore the possibility of starting new forums in Nepal, The Philippines, DRC and Ukraine later in 2023.

Local leadership with direction developed by participants has led to each forum following its own unique direction. Learning from each other, finding opportunities for collaboration and building friendships while finding opportunities to seek donor funding has drawn willing participants together. The need for technical capacity building in understanding how DG INTPA works and how the application process functions as well as understanding who other potential donors are has created opportunity for the EU-CORD Secretariat and others to provide support drawing on Secretariat donor experience.

The shared features of all our forums is for there to be a convener, a leader who brings people together for meetings and hosts. This is often rotated on an annual or quarterly basis.

Having EU-CORD as the core is proving to be useful in many ways. The combined scale of EU-CORD member work impresses donors and opens doors (26 Europe based members working in more than 87 countries on humanitarian and development projects covering virtually all thematic areas) when included in an introductory statement to a ‘business case’. Local advocacy, when linked to EU-CORD’s work with Tabeth Masengu (EU-CORD Advocacy Officer) brings scale and added advocacy specialist support. Adrian Hawthorn is now providing support to forum leaders through discussing annual plans, sharing ideas and by providing training sessions on specific topics of interest when forums meet e.g. building consortia and meeting the donor etc. Adrian is also organising leaders’ meetings and an annual virtual conference for forum participants. Here ideas and challenges are shared, and fresh inspiration provided.

Being known by donors is so important. Many calls in 2023 by DG INTPA country delegations are ‘direct’ meaning that the donor invites INGO’s to make an application. Only those known to the delegation will be considered for such an invitation. A good place to start is with donor mapping to find out which donors are providing funding in your country. PerspActive continues to provide a weekly list of ‘open calls’, very useful through saving time screening donor websites. Sopeat Kiers-Mer (Teafund NL) has started a group looking at how Brussels connections can support member interests.

Perhaps the reasons the EU-CORD in-country forums are proving to be so popular is that we are stronger when we work together, combining our knowledge, skills, resources and thinking. When we collaborate on donor applications we are able to pool our creativity and design projects at greater scale. Donors are offering larger grants to applicants and that means that often these can only be accessed by those working at scale and in collaboration.

Later this year EU-CORD will be running a physical workshop in Nairobi 20-22 November ‘DG INTPA Grants and Partnerships Workshop’ (please register here). On 15^th November, a virtual all-day meeting for ‘In-Country Forum Members’ will be held. You can register here for this meeting.

The Ethiopia Forum sent me this photo taken at their last meeting. Please send Adrian (Adrian.hawthorn27@gamil.com) a picture of your next forum meeting so we can include them in the next newsletter, ‘Focus on Forums’. Finally, if you are interested in participating in the new forums planned for DRC, Ukraine, The Philippines or Nepal this autumn please let Adrian know.

Ruth Faber

7 August 2023

Annual Report, CEO & Senior Leaders, Funding & Partnerships, In-Country Forums
Climate actions in call guidelines

Global Europe was designed to uphold and pursue the aims and principles of the EU’s External Action, and one of its specific objectives is to address global challenges such as climate change and the protection of biodiversity and the environment. The EU committed to dedicating 30% of the NDICI – Global Europe’s budget to actions related to the climate and environmental crises.

Our 2022 review of calls for proposals for the Global Europe instrument showed that an increasing number of calls included objectives, results and/or activities related to climate/environment concerns.

As part of our 2023 focus on our climate crisis strategic priority, we analysed 70 calls for proposals from 2021 onwards to extract information on how climate and environmental actions are presented.

This analysis was carried out to help EU-CORD members better navigate the implementation of the European Commission’s environmental priorities in its CSO-targeted international development grants and to provide context around the implementation of the EU Green Deal in its external action. Specific attention was also paid to the types of results and activities beneficiaries could be expected to implement.

EU-CORD member can access the analysis here: here (EU-CORD members only).

Arianna

2 June 2023

Funding & Partnerships
Reflections on the 2023 European Humanitarian Forum & ECHO Partners Segment
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The French Presidency and DG ECHO initiated the European Humanitarian Forum (EHF) in 2022, and the Swedish Presidency co-hosted the 2023 edition. For now, it looks set to be an annual event, with the Belgian Government taking over the co-host role during the term of their Presidency in 2024.

This year the EHF was convened over two days, with DG ECHO taking the opportunity to hold a follow-on event for their humanitarian partners and an afternoon conference on Education in Emergencies.

EU-CORD members were well represented in person, with Dorcas, Fida, LM International, PMU, Red een Kind, Tearfund Netherlands, and Medair present for the Brussels event.

What were the big EHF themes?
1. The forum emphasised prioritising the localisation agenda as crucial for developing the humanitarian system. DG ECHO took the opportunity to formally launch the Guidelines on ‘Promoting Equitable Partnership with Local Responders in Humanitarian Settings’, which supports this effort.
2. The EHF also addressed the current impact of the climate crisis on the humanitarian system and the potential future challenges that may arise.
3. The peace-development-humanitarian nexus was another key topic discussed at the conference. This included exploring ways to mitigate the impact of conflicts, involving development actors at the appropriate time, and managing the humanitarian space. The link between climate and this topic was evident, with a particular emphasis on anticipatory action.
4. The Humanitarian Talks and regional meetings leading up to the EHF were valuable opportunities for engagement and provided a platform for smaller and medium-sized organisations to share insights.
Appreciation for the opportunity to meet ECHO staff

The members of EU-CORD expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to meet with the DG ECHO staff who oversee the countries or policy areas that are relevant to them. Next year we will advise members to identify the ECHO staff they wish to interact with and schedule the meeting ahead of time to maximize the benefits of the engagement.

Considerations for the 2024 EHF

While acknowledging that the EHF is a forum for high-level engagement, we suggest that the organisers endeavour to incorporate more diversity of voices, especially in terms of NGO representation. This will allow ECHO to showcase the variety of its partners.

Although the session on disability-inclusive humanitarian action was interesting and necessary, it would have been more effective if the dialogue and presence of people with disabilities and their organisations had been integrated into the main panels.

Reflection on the ECHO Partners Segment

The annual ECHO Partners Conference provided a unique opportunity for DG ECHO to interact with their humanitarian partners throughout 2-days. The break imposed by covid, the change for ECHO to a certification process and the new dimension of organising the European Humanitarian Forum meant that this moment for interaction with ECHO was in doubt.

Thanks in part to the work of the VOICE network, DG ECHO ran a half-day ECHO Partners segment.

There was an opportunity to hold a Q&A with the Commissioner, a panel discussion on localisation and a side panel on implementing the minim environment guidelines.

The Partners Segment has the potential to bridge the gap between the technical staff (desk officers, policy staff) and the high-policy level (covered by the EHF). For example, we appreciate ECHO’s focus on new policy areas such as localisation and the environment. However, there are concerns among ECHO’s implementing partners about funding the policy requirements. ECHO may perceive this as technical, but it is a critical issue for its implementing partners. We need to have open and honest conversations about such challenges.

In terms of EU-CORD’s work, Ruth writes:

It was interesting to me that many of the topics and debates addressed at the EHF correspond with the issues we are currently exploring within the EU-CORD network: the triple nexus, localisation (which we refer to as reframing partnerships), and ongoing research on the impacts of climate change on the communities where we work and on our ways of working. I look forward to continuing these discussions at our April meetings.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Ruth Faber

12 April 2023

Advocacy Hub, Funding & Partnerships
Working with community values to change behaviours and improve outcomes

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1678449975561{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]

Esther Lehmann-Sow is a consultant who joined us at the Faith in Action Forum in Canterbury last November. Esther has extensive experience with programme implementation in West Africa. She brings experiences working in communities to improve outcomes through understanding and working with local values to change behaviours.

I still wonder why for years, I had not seen the obvious.

Our teams and partners had tried to address high maternal and infant mortality levels in an area through projects which improved health infrastructure, trained nurses, provided sensitization to mothers, etc. There were improvements, but they were incremental and didn’t match the level of investment. Unhelpful behaviours persisted in spite of improved knowledge and opportunities.

And one-day things changed. People suddenly really listened to the information shared in the health center. They used medical support in the early stages of sickness, not as a last resort. And they now followed the advice they received from health workers. It was as if a switch had been flipped and an inner resistance broken.

We soon found out what happened.

A project worker had sat with the men of the local faith community and had discussed the project and answered the many questions they had: What were the real motives and objectives of the donors in providing this project? Is the vaccination campaign not aiming at reducing their fertility? Would newborns not get weak if they only received breast milk? Would certain treatments not violate their religious laws? As their questions were answered, the suspicion was overcome, and they agreed that the project would be beneficial for their people.

The leader of the faith community called a meeting and explained the situation to them: what problem the project was addressing, how following the advice of the medical staff will help them and that it was their religious duty to care for the health of mothers and infants. With the endorsement of the spiritual authority, men and women now made full use of the services provided to them through the project. The result: malnutrition and mortality rates dropped impressively over the next 2-3 years.

We had implemented activities, provided information and opportunities. But the internal switch flipped when the people felt alignment with their social and spiritual values. Before, they rather took the risk of suffering sickness than getting estranged from their (faith) community by going against social traditions. The risk of not following a nurse’s guidance was lesser than the ramifications for not adhering to the religious behavior norms. And who can know if you can trust the health workers who are paid to say what she says, compared to the local leaders who are known and part of the community.

The initial project design was like a car without an engine – you had to push it in order to move. Social and behavior science has shown the importance of values and beliefs to enable behavior change. If we engage people at the level of their emotions, their beliefs and values, and leverage the power of social influence, it creates a strong enough motivation to sustainably change patterns of behavior.

Today, before designing a project I would explore questions such as ‘How do spiritual beliefs, values or norms affect the health of boys and girls/men and women?’, analyze common and divergent themes and then use them in the development of the project.

Nowadays, the humanitarian community acknowledges that understanding faith aspects and involving faith communities is key to creating lasting positive change for the most disadvantaged. If you would like to read more, you might find this document interesting which UNICEF, Joined Learning Initiative and Religions for Peace have published after joint research: Faith and Positive Change for Children, Families and Communities.

The fact that the majority of the world’s population identifies with faith values provides a massive opportunity for faith-based humanitarians to boost social and behavior change.

Esther will lead a webinar for EU-CORD members on 23rd March to further explore this topic. Members and their partners can register here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Ruth Faber

10 March 2023

Faith in Action, Funding & Partnerships, Humanitarian Partnership
EU-CORD Members Respond to the Turkey/Syria Earthquake
In response to this major earthquake in Syria and Turkey, EU-CORD members have come together to provide much-needed aid and support to those affected.

Hungarian Baptist Aid was one of the first organisations to respond, sending its Rescue24 International Fire and Rescue Team to Turkey to assess the situation and provide assistance.

The special rescuers have to check around two thousand houses in Antakya, a settlement near the Syrian border, where many people may still be trapped under the ruins. The search dogs that arrived with the Baptist team started working four-hour shifts, four at a time. The HUBA Rescue24 International Fire Brigade, Search and Rescue Team and an emergency medical team with 19 specialists and 7 rescue dogs, arrived in Antakya near the Syrian border on Tuesday late afternoon, under the direction of commander László Pavelcze, HBAid’s Emergency Management Director. They set up their base there and immediately began the search based on the coordinates provided by the locals. Stay updated on the Rescue24 Teams efforts: Hungarian Baptist Aid | Facebook

Medair, a Swiss-based humanitarian organization, is responding in Syria, with a particular focus on Aleppo where they have had an office for several years. They are also active in Turkey through their Global Emergency Response Team. Medair will provide aid in WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene), shelter, and repairing and equipping clinics.

Dorcas (Netherlands) is present in North-West Syria, Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama. They have already started distributing hot meals to those in need, and their main initial response will include providing food and shelter, health services, and protection.

ZOA (Netherlands) is responding in Syria and is well-positioned to provide aid due to its presence in the country. They will be working in consortia with other organizations to maximize their impact.

Fida (Finland) is responding through Hungarian Baptist Aid and a church in Turkey.

Mission East (Denmark),

The assistance provided by Mission East and its partners is being prioritized to reach the newly displaced and most affected individuals in one of the worst affected governorates, namely Aleppo. Within the already fragile and protracted Syrian crisis, vulnerable sections of the population, such as women, children, youth and the elderly, already made vulnerable by a lack of sustained access to food, healthcare, electricity, education, housing, and viable livelihood opportunities, have been put even more at risk in the aftermath of the earthquake. Mission East’s response to date has been as follows:

Earthquake-affected households in the governorate of Aleppo have been provided with winterization and food assistance in the aftermath of the earthquake;
1. Vulnerable affected households are going to be provided with cash disbursements (Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance – MPCA) for a period of 3 consecutive months. An earthquake-specific Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) was prepared in coordination with the different sectors to account for the disaster, which differs from the pre-emergency MEB. A flexible approach will be ensured to adapt in frequency and/or value of the MPC transfers, in order to be aligned with all actors on the ground. Cash assistance has been adopted as the most appropriate modality in current circumstances, as it will allow affected households to meet their lifesaving needs, while providing them with the dignity of choice and the ability to prioritise what type of relief they need. In areas where cash proves not to be a feasible modality, ME will switch to in-kind support to help households meet their basic needs, in which case food parcels, hygiene kits, etc. (based on Cluster recommendations) will be distributed to targeted households.
Mission East and Implementing Partners:

ME Capacity in Syria: ME, registered in Syria since 2022 and active since 2019, will be responsible for all monitoring, oversight and partner capacity-support (accountability mechanisms and finance), also ensuring compliance with humanitarian principles.

Implementing Partner – Social, Humanitarian, Economic Intervention for Local Development (SHEILD): A regional (Lebanese) actor, SHEILD has been active with a local presence in Syria since 2019. SHEILD is currently ME’s key implementing partner in Syria and Lebanon through the Danish MoFA-funded SPA. SHEILD has extensive experience in humanitarian relief efforts for the Syria crisis, providing food assistance through WFP to Syrian refugees since 2013.

Implementing Partner – Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC): As the national member society for Syria under the International Federation of the Red Cross, SARC has been present in Syria since 1942 with a headquarters in Damascus, 14 branches in the 14 governorates of Syria, and 75 subbranches. SARC’s presence in all governorates supports ME in ensuring timely access to affected communities. ME and SARC signed a Memorandum of Agreement during 2022.

Other EU-CORD members, such as LM International, are looking to support implementing organisations with funding support.

In times of crisis, it is heartening to see organizations come together to provide aid and support to those in need. The efforts of EU-CORD members to respond to this disaster will significantly impact the lives of those affected and help bring some comfort and relief in these difficult times.
Ruth Faber

10 February 2023

Faith in Action, Funding & Partnerships, Humanitarian Partnership
Big changes ahead for institutional fundraising

In these challenging times, being proactive about funding is more critical than ever. Today we had the first of three webinars, drawing on the experience of MzN International, to help EU-CORD members walk through the changing landscape of funding and what they can do to adapt.

MzN Managing Director Chris Meyer zu Natrup covered a lot of material, but there was plenty of time for EU-CORD members to get their questions answered.

According to Chris:

The era of pure ODA is over and we can expect 50% of agencies to fail in the next five years as they find themselves ‘too small to survive or too big to change.’

Following on from a discussion on the changing nature of ODA and the likelihood of a shift from grants to service contracts, one of the participants remarked:

‘This is a paradigm shift that we need to work through and our organisational culture will need to change it we want to stay relevant.’

The webinar looked at broad funding trends and priorities for various donors, including USAID, the EU and various European development funding agencies.

We continue the conversation during the Funding and Partnership Forum, where we look at Donor Mapping and again in January, discussing how EU-CORD members can Stay ahead of the Insitutitional Fundraising Curve.

The webinar recording and accompanying slides are available to members in the ‘funding trends’ channels of the Funding & Partnerships team space. If your organisation is not an EU-CORD member, and you like what we’re doing – consider joining us.

Ruth Faber

14 November 2022

Funding & Partnerships
Global Europe Call for Proposal Analysis
In October, Ruth Faber shared a piece of research undertaken by the EU-CORD Secretariat that analysed forty-one calls for proposals released by DG INTPA between January and October 2022.

The purpose was to help EU-CORD members better plan and respond to this funding stream.

The launch webinar focussed discussion around the two most significant trends:
1. The increasing use by EU Delegations of the Financial Support to Third Parties mechanism and,
2. Increasing additional requirements relating to the applicant and co-applicant eligibility.
The report is not publically available but we can share our closing reflections:

Professionalism is key
1. Have a good in-house understanding of the EU, its general policies, and what the EU is aiming for in your country or region.
2. Invest in building coalitions and partnerships, be flexible so you can choose the right partners to build consortia.
  Look at the rules for eligibility and consider that impact it has on your financial planning or how you support your local partners.
3. Consider the role that Third Party Support plays in your organisation, understand the methodology, how you would carry it out and what the conceptual impact is on your organisation.
4. Invest in developing your writing skills – clearly articulate the programme design, and fully respond to the requirements set out in the call for proposal concept note and proposal.
5. Make sure you have robust systems to manage the financial risk – from security co-financing to other financial risks (including, rules and regulations for project implementation and changes in the PRAG).
  Global Europe | NDICI Call for Proposal Analysis
6. Consider how you stay on top of the implementation developments – use of global indicators, management systems, OPSYS, logframe encoding.
From a policy perspective:
- Is the Third Party Support mechanism effective at supporting small and grassroots organisations? Do they retain a sense of agency and self-determination (in terms of types of projects) or does it maintain a system where the EU or the Lead Applicant ‘knows best’?
- If the DG INTPA wants to see more local NGOs acting as leads, are the ‘smaller’ minimum-maximum amounts realistic?
- Are the rules of eligibility becoming overprescriptive?
- How to CSO’s ensure that grant eligibility is not just limited to the CSO and HR&D funding lines?
Ruth Faber

26 October 2022

Funding & Partnerships
EU-CORD and the triple nexus
Read | Download the study: EU-CORD and the triple nexus

In the network, we have a strong focus on partnership and encouraging close, practical collaboration between our members.

When discussing potential barriers to partnership, the triple nexus kept coming up, with members using nexus-type approaches but having their own definitions and ways of describing the work.

While our purpose wasn’t to pull together a single approach or definition for our members, we did come up with a working definition that integrates the broad approach taken by most EU-CORD members:

Working in partnership with local organisations, faith actors and communities to take advantage of the specificities and minimise the constraints inherent in humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding approaches and how they interrelate to transform communities and build long-term community resilience.

Therefore, the idea of a nexus study came from a desire to understand each other better. As we developed the concept further, it became clear that members also wanted to understand better the evolution of the nexus approach in the EU. It was also important for us to reflect on issues such as the role and value of faith-based organisations, local partner approaches and respect for humanitarian principles. Reflections on these, and more, can be found in the study.

Nexus Webinar Series

We’ve also realised that there are elements that we still need to explore further together which is why we have partnered with ActAlliance EU and Caritas Europa to look at all three aspects of the nexus to explore the role of INGOs to ensure their integration, how this occurs in practice, and the role of context analysis, programming and organisational structuring. These reflections will be based and inspired by the action, framings and experience of local actors and local faith actors, also integrating considerations specific to climate, conflict and gender. A third webinar will address the challenges and learnings linked to nexus operationalisation regarding the respect not only of humanitarian principles, but also of development and peace principles. Moreover, as faith networks, we will also take into account how politics, including faith dynamics, impact on implementing the nexus, and how faith actors and organisations more broadly deal with those. More information on the webinars can be found on the Events page.

Recommendations

Finally, because advocacy is an important area of EU-CORD’s work, we couldn’t resist developing recommendations for members, donors and for EU policymakers.

For members
1. As we build our in-country approaches, the going-in point should be to work with a nexus framework.
2. Members should play to their strengths and work collaboratively and strategically within nexus approaches in different contexts.
3. Strengthened relationships with local actors is paramount to an effective nexus approach, and this should occur by putting local actors at the centre throughout all phases of the programme cycle management.
4. Ensure that engagement with local actors is inclusive of diverse groups, such as organisations or networks of youth, women, people with disabilities, faith actors, and that they are effectively empowered as agents of change in their own communities across the triple nexus.
5. More clarity on the definition of peacebuilding is needed to make sure that the peace component of the nexus is well understood by the organisation and appropriately integrated. At a minimum, a conflict-sensitive approach must become a priority for any attempt at nexus programming, even in non-conflict situations and if peacebuilding activities are not envisaged.
6. Invest in staff training and in restructuring organisational sectors to make them suitable to the nexus.
7. Explore opportunities for flexible funding and multi-donor approaches through strengthened and collaborative donor mapping exercises.
8. As faith-based actors, consider the unique added value that this can bring to programmes, engagement, and partnerships in the operationalisation of the nexus.
For donors
1. Commit to reinventing siloed funding logic by: Recognising that many organisations are multi-mandated and overcoming siloed thinking and financing.
2. Adopting predictable, flexible, multi-year and risk-tolerant financing for all actors across the nexus.
3. Simplifying and harmonising reporting and monitoring requirements for projects that implement the nexus.
4. Include NGOs and local partners in negotiating the financial/action multi-annual and multi-purpose plan.
5. Encourage coordination between actors, for example by facilitating discussion among implementing experts, increasing accountability and impartial assessment of needs, and encouraging multi-level and multi-stakeholder actions.
For the EU
1. It is paramount that the EU contributes to achieving conceptual clarity regarding the peace component: When conceptualising the peace component of the nexus, it is key to prefer ‘little p’ and ‘positive peace’ efforts based upon long-term development cooperation efforts for civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention, inclusive approaches, and social cohesion efforts.
2. The EU should ensure a higher level of engagement with partners both in member countries and locally for example, by: Conducting joint conflict and context analysis, planning and monitoring exercises throughout which stakeholders from all fields are integrated and represented.
3. Integrating analysis and lessons learned by monitoring implementation of the nexus approach to evaluate the impact of nexus programming.
4. The EU should adopt more long-term and flexible funding to facilitate nexus programming.
5. Lastly, the EU should create more opportunities for interplay between DG ECHO, DG INTPA and theEEAS building on successful examples of cooperation between European institutions.
Ruth Faber

7 September 2022

Advocacy Hub, Faith in Action, Funding & Partnerships, Humanitarian Partnership
It takes a village

Close to my office in Brussels, there is a church I’ll withdraw to when I need to reflect or pray during my working day.

It’s where I am sitting this morning with a pad and pen to draft this article.

On World Humanitarian Day (19^th August), we remember all those who give of themselves to support people and communities in crisis.

The 2022 Aid Worker Security Report calculated that 461 aid workers were victims of major attacks in 2021: 141 killed, 203 wounded, and 117 kidnapped. These are the most fatalities recorded since 2013.

This is the measurable cost.

What is harder to quantify is the longer-term trauma that many humanitarians will have to live with just from working in such a high-stress environment and the impact on health, relationships, and future quality of life, which might continue long after the humanitarian response has ended.

If only through the lens of the climate crisis, we live in a world where we will fail or have a chance of survival based on our ability to act in solidarity. Humanitarian action and its principles offer a glimpse of what that solidarity can look like.

This year’s World Humanitarian Day theme is a play on the African proverb ‘it takes a village to raise a child.’ It takes a village to support a person in a humanitarian crisis.

To live in a village is to be known. It is to have a place, a sense of belonging, and a sense of responsibility. To see a need, share resources, offer help – and receive help in return.

This is all we mean by global solidarity and we need principled humanitarian aid to make it happen.

So, leaving the church, I light a candle for my humanitarian friends from Afghanistan, Denmark, England, Finland, Ireland, Kenya, Nepal, Scotland, South Sudan, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uganda and… and… and… who, almost against the odds, and in the face of personal risk, continue to give principled lifesaving support to people most in need.

Photo by Chris John: https://www.pexels.com/photo/candles-with-burning-flame-in-darkness-4120340/

Ruth Faber

17 August 2022

Advocacy Hub, Faith in Action, Funding & Partnerships
Humanitarian Funding: the gap between life and death
At a recent VOICE event where we discussed the humanitarian funding gap, Milward Mwamvni had us reflect on the following question:

Whose life is worth saving?
Milward Mwamvani, LM International (EU-CORD member)

For most, this will be an abstract type of discussion. We might expect a lively debate with someone cracking a joke at the end, and then we all move on.

But it is a very practical question for those at the forefront of humanitarian action.

The European NGO humanitarian network VOICE, of which EU-CORD is a member, recently launched its 2022 policy resolution ‘An urgent call to protect principled humanitarian aid.’

To take a few statistics from the resolution:
- 303 million people are expected to need humanitarian aid in 2022. 29 million more than in 2021.
- 181 million people are expected to reach a crisis level of hunger in 2022 in 41 countries/territories.
- One person is likely to die every 48 seconds from acute hunger in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia.
At the same time, most appeals to support humanitarian efforts are significantly underfunded. The Global Humanitarian Overview which is the world’s most comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of humanitarian needs calculates that, in 2022, the humanitarian community has only 20% of the funding it needs.

The humanitarian community has always had to make difficult decisions when assessing whether a community, household or person should receive humanitarian assistance.

With increasing pressure on humanitarian budgets, those decisions get harder. And the impact of those decisions – on those we have to say no to – is leading to acute suffering and, in increasing cases, death.

The amounts needed can sound like a lot, but with the largest 20 public donors contributing 96% of all international humanitarian assistance allocations, there is scope for other actors to contribute. Indeed, we have seen in response to the Ukraine crisis that additional funding can be made available – it just needs to be made available for other situations as well.

This is reflected in the VOICE policy resolution recommendations:

VOICE calls on the EU and its Member States (MS) to consistently uphold principled humanitarian aid worldwide through the adoption of the following set of recommendations:

Principled humanitarian aid

Ensure that the speed and scale of funding generously provided to Ukraine becomes the new normal and is replicated for all important humanitarian crises, current and future

Guarantee humanitarian aid funding allocations prioritise life-saving aid and are not reallocated for any political or economic considerations

Systematically include humanitarian exemptions to all EU and MS sanctions regimes

Funding share and allocation

Substantially increase humanitarian aid funding to cover the increasing and record humanitarian needs

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Promote and uphold IHL, protect civilians and support humanitarian access

Whose life is worth saving?

An influential figure was once asked the similarly phrased question ‘who is my neighbour?’ The conclusion that we are asked to draw from the story he gave in answer is everyone – irrespective of country of origin, race, gender, religious affiliation (or none), or status…….

It has been 2,000 years since this principle of assistance based on humanity and impartiality was articulated. In 2022, with all the knowledge and resources available to us, is our ambition to the question ‘whose life is worth saving’ really going to be ‘around 20%?’
Ruth Faber

30 June 2022

Advocacy Hub, Funding & Partnerships, Humanitarian Partnership
First Unique Selling Points 2022 brochure released

It was in September 2019 when the EU-CORD development group, then called ‘Collaborations for Resourcing’ decided at a meeting at Konstanz in Germany that a Unique Selling Points Brochure should be produced to include as many written USPs as members were willing to prepare. A template with the basic questions to answer was provided and in the following months most members drafted and submitted their USPs to the Secretariat for the issue of the first Members 2019 USP Brochure.

During the Konstanz meeting, a ‘market place’ session had been held where delegates showed a flip chart noting the key points of their organisation and inviting discussion. This event led to discussion about how EU-CORD functions, not just getting to know one another and making friends but getting to know one another’s organisations too.

The USP Brochure idea was proposed as an easy reference guide to see what strengths members offer where collaborations could potentially be developed. The brochure also contributes to help build an informed understanding of members’ capacities, to foster a greater appreciation of the donor links that members have developed, and to bring about greater understanding of geographic presence and thematic expertise. This is important in a framework in which relationships and partnering awareness are built up long before funding of consortia can happen.

The intentions in 2022 are unchanged but the USPs needed to be updated. Thus, in February we asked members to submit their update or their very first contribution to the USPs brochure. Either by following the template with basic questions or by drafting a more original contribution, members provided information on their objectives, geographical spread and expertise in programming, budget figures and donors, and added values of their work.

While this first version of the brochure for 2022 includes the contributions of 17 organisations, other members committed to send their updates in the next months. Thus, once we have an updated version the brochure will be reissued accordingly.

We hope you find the USP Brochure informative to learn more about the work of EU-CORD members.

Ruth Faber

13 June 2022

Funding & Partnerships
Ukraine – this is not an advocacy statement
Ruth Faber, EU-CORD CEO

The war in Ukraine brings the sorrow of conflict already experienced in many parts of the world to Europe’s doorstep. EU-CORD members have mobilised to provide humanitarian assistance to people still in Ukraine and those fleeing the conflict. More on that can be found here.

While these are European non-governmental organisations experienced in humanitarian response, as we have experienced in other parts of the world, much of the work would not be possible, or as responsive, without local civil society (which includes religious institutions and other faith actors) who are often the first responders in any crisis.

We are also part of churches and faith networks praying for peace and reconciliation for this and other conflict situations around the world.

I have been appalled (but perhaps not surprised) by the racial discrimination faced by Asians and Africans trying to escape into the neighbouring countries.

I’ve also been moved by the generosity shown by many European citizens who have offered accommodation or organised material support – food, clothing to Ukrainian refugees arriving in their cities. In Brussels, where I live, some of these will be the same people who responded to the Syrian refugees when our governments were slower to act. We do well to remember that not all European solidarity is driven in response to ‘people like us’ (whatever that means). It is also worth acknowledging the heartfelt public response to funding appeals launched by EU-CORD members will be additional to the regular support that they give.

It is also clear that on a global level, environmental impacts of climate change, covid impacts and the Ukraine conflict is creating the perfect storm of rising food prices and increasing levels of food and fuel insecurity. Prices are rising in Belgium, people are starting to starve in South Sudan, and on-ongoing food security projects are under threat.

Agenda2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals aim to take a global perspective to solve some of the biggest development challenges of our time. While we face numerous challenges in meeting the development goals, sadly, we are quick to experience the global impacts of a seemingly localised conflict.

As much as we collectively do our best, we fail in many areas. People with disabilities, to borrow a phrase from Agenda2030 are literally being left behind; concerns are being raised on the safety of people in institutions, and there are already reports that traffickers are taking advantage of the chaos to traffic vulnerable women, girls and children.

We are also concerned about the impact that the Ukraine crisis will have on work in other countries as donors re-allocate large amounts of funding from their development budgets to support donor refugee costs. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but wholesale cuts, which are not well thought through, can have unintended negative impacts.

As I write this, I am working (appropriately distanced) across from EU-CORD’s Advocacy Officer. This was supposed to be an ‘advocacy statement’, but sometimes there is a weariness to repeating the same carefully crafted statements. But just in case you’ve managed to read this far into the article, and you haven’t worked it out for yourself – here are the advocacy points:
1. To properly acknowledge the role of local civil society actors in crisis response and, at the appropriate time, learn from the Ukraine response how to envisage and take forward new humanitarian ways of working and partnership principles.
2. In responding to the Ukraine crisis, governments and other institutional donors must not divert funds and put at risk humanitarian actions in countries such as Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and forgotten crises. These fragile countries are already under considerable pressure.
3. Countries are reminded to respect International Humanitarian Law. In the midst of conflict, it is the main recourse we have to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons.
4. Safe passage needs to be established and protocols respected to enable people to leave areas of conflict for their own safety.
5. Human rights and dignity must be respected. The racial discrimination faced by Asians, Africans, and other people of colour while trying to flee Ukraine and registering as refugees in neighbouring countries is not acceptable.
6. Government and humanitarian actors need to honour commitments to reach and protect those who are most vulnerable, including older people, people with disabilities and vulnerable children and adults living in institutions. Organisations of persons with disabilities are ready to assist.
7. Safe passage and safeguarding don’t end once a border is crossed. There are those who will exploit the desperate and confusing situation that those fleeing the crisis find themselves in for financial gain – especially around the trafficking of women, girls, children and other vulnerable persons.
8. The Ukraine crisis comes at a time when the financial impacts of rising fuel and food prices are being felt by many households, most immediately and severely in vulnerable households. These impacts are escalated when we look at the impact on countries that rely heavily on Ukrainian wheat. There is a real risk of social unrest, and governments, donors and civil society need to work together to support all populations at home and abroad.
Image by Nati, supplied by Pexels
Ruth Faber

18 March 2022

Advocacy Hub, Funding & Partnerships, Humanitarian Partnership

Nexus Webinar Series

Recommendations

For members

For donors

For the EU

Whose life is worth saving?