PHAP Special Events

Pooled funds have enabled more timely and flexible funding for responding to sudden humanitarian crises, and have made it possible to operate in otherwise underfunded emergency settings. In the context of the World Humanitarian Summit, the UN Secretary-General (SG) recommended that member states and other donors should double the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to $1 billion, with the Grand Bargain calling for an exploration of whether NGOs could directly access CERF. The SG also called to increase the aid funneled through the Country-based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) to 15 per cent by 2018. Given the current and growing importance of pooled funding, it is important that humanitarian NGOs understand how these mechanisms function and how they can be accessed in order to be part of improving the overall response to humanitarian crises.

NGOs are also managing a growing number of pooled funding mechanisms. The START fund (established and managed by a consortium of NGOs) is providing a quick alternative avenue for NGOs to access timely humanitarian funding. The NEAR Network is exploring options for NGO-run pooled funds at the local level.

In the third session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP, participants were provided with an overview of the different existing pooled funding mechanisms with a focus on the CBPFs, and pooled funds managed by NGOs. Guest experts also addressed current challenges and opportunities regarding NGO access to pooled funds, followed by an opportunity to questions and answers.

Read more and access related resources at https://phap.org/10nov2016

The Professional Standards for Protection Work were first established in 2009 in a process initiated and led by the ICRC. Following a first revision in 2013, they are now being updated again to reflect new developments in situations of armed conflict and other situations of violence, and the experiences of humanitarian and human rights organizations responding to these crises.

The purpose of the standards, initiated and led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and involving several humanitarian and human rights NGOs and UN agencies, is not to provide a ‘how-to’ guide for practitioners but, rather, to establish a living body professional standards informed by international law, professional ethics, good practice, and operational reality.

In 2015, the ICRC-led Advisory Group commenced a new process to update the Standards, in order to integrate the evolution of the environment in which we operate (stronger data protection norms, challenges and opportunities linked to the use of new technologies, evolution of the “counter-terrorism” narrative, etc.) and of our own reflection and practice (managing protection strategies, etc.). This revision will also seek to make some sections more accessible (Chapter 6 on managing sensitive information is completely restructured).

In order to familiarize participants with the reasoning behind the proposed revisions before providing their input, the event featured presentations by Guilhem Ravier from the ICRC, Jenny McAvoy from InterAction, and Kathrine Starup from the Danish Refugee Council on the overall revision process, as well as the main proposed changes to Chapter 2 ("Managing Protection Strategies"), Chapter 3 ("Outlining the Protection Architecture"), and Chapter 6 ("Managing Sensitive Protection Information").

Read more and access related resources at https://phap.org/30nov2016

Funding agreements between implementing organizations and donors can significantly reduce transfer and administrative costs, but such direct funding relationships can also lead to challenges and additional burdens for NGOs. Different rules and processes between donors, pre-qualification requirements, delayed disbursements, and overly restrictive budget lines have long been common issues faced by NGOs. While there are initiatives to improve this situation, notably through the "Grand Bargain," the donor landscape has become more complex with the growing importance of so-called "emerging donors" for humanitarian work.

The fourth session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, organized by ICVA and PHAP, aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the changing context for NGOs and bilateral funding. Join this event to hear from speakers from the European Commission and the U.S. OFDA, as well as from NGOs with experience of working bilaterally with these two donors.

Read more and access related resources at https://phap.org/6dec2016

Guest expert: Bonnie Docherty, Lecturer on Law and Senior Clinical Instructor at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic

While some militaries have worked to reduce civilian casualties in armed conflict, greater attention should be paid to determinations of “hostile intent.” Troops have the right to fire in self-defense if someone demonstrates hostile intent, i.e., a “threat of imminent use of force,” but misidentifications of such intent have endangered civilians. Recent US operations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, show that militaries could improve civilian protection without jeopardizing troops’ lives by clarifying the rule and improving implementation.

Targeted at legal experts and humanitarian practitioners seeking an advanced understanding of rules related to civilian protection in armed conflict, this expert briefing featured a presentation by Bonnie Docherty from Harvard Law School on recent research carried out on the issue of hostile intent.

More information and resources at https://phap.org/8nov2016

In this PHAP Expert Legal Briefing, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law in Armed Conflict, explored developments in technology, accountability, and international law pertaining to armed conflict. The background concern is that in war, as in so many areas, power and authority are increasingly expressed algorithmically. Advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics may implicate—and possibly transform—numerous aspects of armed conflict. For instance, increasingly sophisticated forms of technical autonomy may affect the conduct of hostilities (including the development and use of “autonomous weapons”). But they also might relate to other elements pertaining to war, such as guarding and transporting detainees, providing medical care, and delivering humanitarian assistance.

The presenters summarized a recent report from the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. That report introduces a new concept—war algorithms—that aims to elevate algorithmically-derived “choices” and “decisions” to a central concern regarding technical autonomy in war. The report defines a “war algorithm” as any algorithm that is expressed in computer code, that is effectuated through a constructed system, and that is capable of operating in relation to armed conflict. Through the “war algorithms” lens, the presenters linked international law and related accountability architectures to relevant technologies.

Read more and access related resources on https://phap.org/1nov2016

UN agencies often partner with international and local NGOs to implement humanitarian assistance and protection. NGOs, on their part, are faced with the challenge of understanding and dealing with different, and often complex, UN partnership frameworks. Understanding how these frameworks function, and how humanitarian funding through the UN is evolving, was the topic of the second session of the learning stream on humanitarian financing, jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP.

In this session, experts from two major agencies – the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Program (WFP) – presented their organizations’ approaches to implementing partnerships and discussed challenges related to the existing funding modalities together with an NGO representative. Participants were provided with an overview of key procedures, as well as trends and challenges regarding UN humanitarian funding opportunities for NGOs.

Read more at https://phap.org/12oct2016

Humanitarian financing worldwide is changing – how does it impact NGOs active in humanitarian work? In the first learning session on demystifying humanitarian financing, organized jointly by ICVA and PHAP, experts from OECD, Development Initiatives, and World Vision gave presentations and answered questions regarding the current state of humanitarian financing and how recent trends are affecting NGOs.

The first session of this series concentrated on the current realities and emerging trends of humanitarian financing. Participants will be provided with an overview of the different traditional and emerging financing streams coexisting in the humanitarian sector, with a focus on how NGOs access humanitarian funding and the challenges they currently face.

Read more at https://phap.org/15sep2016

With Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)

Thirteen of the sanctions regimes established by the U.N. Security Council could implicate key elements of principled humanitarian action. Those sanctions might affect humanitarian programming in numerous contexts, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Some see “humanitarian exemptions” as a way to resolve possible conflicts between sanctions and principled humanitarian action. But what are “humanitarian exemptions”? Who and what do and should they cover? And what is the debate surrounding them?

At this expert online briefing, Naz K. Modirzadeh and Dustin A. Lewis of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC) synthesized recent research in order to:

- Summarize the legal status, content, and nature of relevant U.N. sanctions regimes;

- Define and analyze the two general categories of “humanitarian exemptions” (those for designated individuals and for the humanitarian sector);

- Highlight the stakes and interests in the debate on whether such exemptions may be desirable and feasible or may be inadvisable and impracticable;

- Explain some of the few existing and limited exemptions at the international and domestic levels; and

- Discuss the perceived benefits and costs of suggested “humanitarian exemptions.”

Read more at https://phap.org/19jul2016

With Bruno Demeyere, Legal Adviser at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

For more info, go to https://phap.org/9jun2016

What do the 1949 Geneva Conventions say about the right of impartial humanitarian organizations to offer their services and about the way in which Parties to a conflict need to respond to such an offer? How has practice over the past 60 years in this area influenced the interpretation of the law?

In the 1950s, the ICRC published a set of commentaries on the four Geneva Conventions, giving practical guidance on their meaning and implementation. In order to capture the practice gained in implementing and interpreting the Geneva Conventions since then, a multi-year project to update these commentaries is underway. The first new commentary in this series was published earlier this spring by the ICRC: the updated Commentary on the First Geneva Convention.

Importantly, this new publication includes an updated commentary on the scope and meaning of Common Articles 3(2) and 9, dealing with the offer of services by impartial humanitarian organizations in non-international and international armed conflicts respectively.

Targeted to legal practitioners as well as humanitarian practitioners needing an advanced understanding of IHL, this briefing event will cover the main points in the commentary concerning the following issues:

What are the conditions to be an "impartial humanitarian organization" under IHL?

What is covered by the term "humanitarian activities"?

Who can benefit from such humanitarian activities?

What does the obligation to obtain consent of the Party to the conflict concerned mean in practice?

What are the duties of third states in allowing and facilitating humanitarian activities?

The session will start with a brief overview of the Commentaries project, after which participants will be presented with the main substantive findings of the research on Common Articles 3(2) and 9 of the Geneva Conventions and what this means for humanitarian practitioners. Following this, there will be an opportunity for questions and discussion.

On 2 April 2015, PHAP hosted a live online discussion event as part of its current Exchange Hub on measuring success in protection programming.

The humanitarian community has come under increased pressure to achieve more meaningful results and demonstrate impact through protection programming. Protection programs need to be accountable for the funds they receive and the activities they implement. However, measuring results in protection programming is not straightforward – while traditional results-based management techniques are useful, we must be more creative in the development of further tools and methods that meet the particular challenges faced in protection.

The event focused on clarifying the overarching goals of protection programming, which is often not sufficiently addressed in more technical discussions about measurement and evaluation. The event featured a panel discussion with a panel of experts from ECHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, and World Vision International.

This Exchange Hub is organized in collaboration with InterAction’s Results-Based Protection Program and ALNAP’s program on Evaluating protection in humanitarian action. On February 25, PHAP hosted an introductory online briefing on the current status of InterAction's and ALNAP's projects.

Read more at https://phap.org/2Apr2015