"DEVELOPMENTAL RELIEF"

The term seems to have appeared in 1996, and was used in the “World Disasters Report 1996”, by the Red Cross, ODI, SIDA, and others. It has been defined as a term "used synonymously with the aspiration or effect to link disaster relief with (long term) development aid. Sometimes this idea is expressed as the interface between relief and development or the relief development Continuum,''¹

The concept of developmental relief engendered a large amount of controversy and debate² within humanitarian policy circles   apparently mostly in Europe. As the years passed, however, many experts began to register more formal criticisms of the use of the term and concept. Indeed, at an ODI conference in 1998 one speaker conceded that " developmental relief may have been a mistaken policy." Other experts noted the lack of tangible results from attempts at developmental relief

The following excerpts from Mark Duffield points out some of the assumptions made within the concept of "developmental relief" and his concerns about such assumptions.³

[Excerpt] ... "Since the early 1990s, there has been a reinterpretation of the role of humanitarian assistance in internal conflicts. During the Cold War, relief and development were often seen as mutually exclusive under such conditions. Development aid, for example, was regarded as conferring political legitimacy and hence unsuitable in many cases. Now, however, humanitarian assistance alone is usually regarded as insufficient. While in some political crises, the resumption of normal development links might remain problematic, it is argued that humanitarian aid should not contradict or under mine the longer term alms of development; for example, by creating dependency or fuelling wars. At the same time, aid agencies should attempt to pursue appropriate development goals as and when opportunities arise. In rejecting the mutually exclusive nature of relief and development under conflict conditions, such thinking has also contributed to a blurring of these categories. There has emerged, at least in policy terms, a form of 'developmental relief' in which the focus of assistance has shifted from supporting people to that of strengthening institutions and processes."

"[ ... ] On the contrary, one more often encounters views of the developmental or transitional condition in which what is described is little more than a youthful, if often wayward, version of a liberal democratic ideal, a generational gap) which the magic of development will close. At the same time, in depicting conflict as originating in underdevelopment, the significance and singularity of political violence is minimized it appears as something abnormal or transitory that development will eventually abolish. Consequently, aid policy has difficulty in considering internal war as symptomatic of the expansion of new and innovative forms of political economy. This weakness is especially important today when globalization has given many transnational companies a renewed confidence in their ability to expand even in areas that are unstable."

The following material from the Red Cross is also interesting:

29 February 1996

International Review of the Red Cross no 310, p.55 130

Annex V: Key factors for developmental relief

Prepared by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

In February 1995, the International Federation, in collaboration with the Danish Red Cross, the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) and DANIDA undertook an examination of a number of recent relief operations to identify those factors which should typify a relief program that uses a developmental approach to implementation.

Nine key factors were identified. These factors are now being incorporated into the Federations training programs and disaster response methodology.

I. Building on capacities as well as addressing vulnerabilities: The need to access vulnerabilities is recognized as being important, but relief programs that deliberately seek out and work with capacities, skills, resources and organizational structures within the disaster survivors, will be more effective than those that assume the survivors are a passive, helpless, recipient community.

II. Identifying the needs and capacities of the diverse groupings of disaster survivors: Developmental relief programs recognize that the survivor population is made up of many groups with different capacities, vulnerabilities and needs. The relief program is shaped to address these diverse groups and their capacities as well as their different needs.

III. Participation: Developmental relief programs deliberately involve disaster survivors in the decision making process which empower them to re take charge of their lives. Even in particularly difficult situations, such as relief to large scale displaced populations a beginning may be made by engaging diverse community leaders in the assessment of the situation, and identifying the resources that they have available to cope.

IV Accountability: In relief programs agencies traditionally see themselves as being accountable upwards, towards their headquarters and donors, but they should also practice accountability towards the disaster survivors. At a minimum, information on the planning, execution and expected duration of the relief program should be openly shared with the program beneficiaries.

V. Strategies based on the reality of the disaster faced: Relief programs address many different types of disasters; those triggered by natural events those, which develop slowly over vast areas of a country, those caused by war and economic collapse. Developmental relief programs adapt their strategies to suit the environment of the disaster rather than relying solely on pre packaged delivery derived from a model of only one type of disaster.

VI. Decentralized control: A developmental relief program allows management decisions to be taken as close to the beneficiary population as possible.

VII. Demonstrating a concern for sustaining livelihoods: Developmental relief programs are concerned with what comes after relief as well as how the relief program is carried Out. They provide assistance that complements rather than competes with the normal means of livelihood of the disaster survivors.

VIII. Building on local institutions: Imposed relief programs can undermine local structures, often use them without strengthening them and often abandon them after the relief operation. Developmental relief programs look to work with local institutions and build their capacities to carry on humanitarian work after the need for relief has passed.

IX. Setting sustainable standards services: Relief programs often set in motion the development of service and welfare systems, in health, education and water provision which will need to carry on after the relief ends. These should be of a standard and provided in a manner which has a realistic chance of being sustained after the relief   operation ends.

Overcoming the constraints of existing systems

In between relief operations, aid workers and agencies all agree that they should find ways of doing relief in a more developmental way, but when the crisis hits and decisions have to be made quickly with minimal information, managers shy away from taking the risk of using other than the tried and tested responses.

The international aid system contains many actors, all of whom need to participate in a change process if the end product of the system, relief delivery, is to change. Being committed to finding better ways of providing relief the International Federation makes the following recommendations to implementing agencies, donors and research institutions.

Recommendations to implementing agencies

1. Altering staffing structures and attitudes: In composing relief teams, it should be assured that sufficient expertise is included and responsibility assigned for focusing the relief activities on developmental implementation and maximizing utilization of community capacity staff training programs need to Include the concepts of programming relief for development

2. Programming standards: In order to practice developmental relief, agencies must set themselves high and defensible humanitarian standards. We recommend that as a starting point, agencies subscribe to the standards laid down in the Code of Conduct for The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief.

3. Specialized competence and coordination: Large relief programs attract large numbers of external relief agencies. In order to improve the effectiveness and quality of the services we deliver, we recommend that agencies critically examine their own strengths and seek to develop greater competence, in limited fields if necessary, rather than a breadth of mediocrity in service delivery.

In addition we recommend that agencies recognize the need to balance their right to independence of action against the humanitarian value to be gained through coordination. Agencies should be willing to coordinate when it adds to the greater good of the relief program.

4. Altering budget structures: We recommend that agencies build into their plans of action and associated budgets the flexibility necessary to address longer term perspectives, building on local capacities as well as addressing vulnerabilities. This requires a change to current budgeting practices.

5. Supporting local people and structures: We recommend that agencies seek to strengthen local capacities by employing local staff, purchasing local materials and trading with local companies. Wherever possible, agencies should work through local humanitarian organizations as partners in planning and implementation, and cooperate with local government structures.

6. Programming for sustainability, disaster prevention and preparedness: Agencies should seek to sustain livelihoods as well as lives. Relief programs must not undermine the long-term sustainability of the assisted population. We recommend that all relief programming should address the issue of sustainability and disaster preparedness.

7. Consistency of action, policy and messages: We recommend that agencies examine their present policies for disaster response and adapt them to reflect a developmental approach to relief In addition agencies should ensure that their publicity and advocacy material is consistent with this approach, and that they advocate rigorously for their partner organizations in government and the international community to also address relief in a developmental fashion.

8. Program reviews: Many relief programs go on year after year in the same way. We recommend agencies to review programs annually to identify changes that progressively make more use of local leadership, skills and capacities.

9. Sharing experience with donors and the media: Agencies need to get better at sharing field experience of success and failure With donors and engage in a dialogue about needed policy change Equally they need to work more effectively with the media to build understanding of the issues and to break down stereotypes such as those of "helpless disaster victims”.

Recommendations to donors:

A. Linking relief and development programming: The present organizational structure and funding mechanisms of many donor institutions reflects the view of relief and development as two divorced activities. We recommend that donor institutions seeks ways of promoting dialogue between their relief and development divisions and seek ways of allowing a degree of development funding into relief programs.

B. Accountability, measuring the quality of relief programs: Measuring the quality of developmental relief programs requires a different set of parameters and associated skills from evaluating simple relief delivery. We recommend that donor institutions explore new ways of evaluating and reporting in relation to relief programs that reflect the attributes of a developmental approach.

C. Support for local structures in relief and disaster preparedness: Working through, enhancing and supporting local structures is central to the developmental approach to relief. We recommend that donor institutions recognize and support the legitimacy of funding local structure strengthening as part of disaster preparedness and relief programs.

D. Supporting review activities: Promoting new ways of working require an enhanced learning process. We recommend that donor institutions support both national and international relief program reviews with a view towards promoting developmental relief

Recommendations to research bodies:

A. Development of practical methods of capacity and vulnerability analysis for disaster situations: Developmental relief places greater emphasis on understanding local capacities and vulnerabilities than does needs driven assistance delivery relief, yet few methodologies exist to help assess these features. We recommend that research bodies develop methods of capacity and Vulnerability analysis which are appropriate for relief situations, by drawing upon existing experience.

B. Development of methods for evaluating the quality of the relief process: Measuring and evaluating the quality of developmental relief programs requires a different set of parameters and associated skills from evaluating simple relief delivery. Few methodologies have been developed to allow such appropriate evaluations to take place. We recommend that research bodies develop such evaluation techniques, building oil existing experiences and in close collaboration with Implementing agencies and donor 'Institutions.

C. Developing accountability systems: Present relief accountability systems stress financial reporting supported by Process descriptive narrative. We recommend that research bodies assist in the development of more holistic reporting systems which provide Information on features of relief programs additional to quantitative delivery information i.e. Capacity building participation accountability to the disaster survivors

D. Impact evaluation of international relief on local organizations: Many implementing agencies are concerned with the negative impact major relief programs have on local institutions, yet little systematic documentation and research have been done in this area. We recommend that research bodies be commissioned to carry out such research.

E. Popularizing the results of research: Good research only has effect if it gets into the hands of the implementers. We recommend that the results of the research mentioned about be Popularized though publications, meetings and other methods targeted at the implementing and donor agencies.