Shelter and settlements for refugees: improving communication to improve practices

Silva Ferretti

PhD Dissertation Oxford Brookes University 2003

For more information on this research please contact: Silva Ferretti silva.ferretti@gmail.com

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com

ABSTRACT

This research explores the scope to improve the modes of action in the shelter and settlement sector in the context of humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies. The research shows that the shelter and settlement sector faces crucial gaps, of an operational nature (for example, interventions happening in fragmented spaces), and also fundamental problems deriving from the dynamics of the context in which humanitarian interventions are performed. Underlying these gaps is an information deficit that needs to be addressed. The study reveals that shortage in information and knowledge to support better policies and practices seems to be due to inefficient information stockpiling, but also, more critically, to inefficient mechanisms for information generation and exchange. Hence the importance of examining communication broadly intended as the activity of conveying and sharing information as an essential option for improving policies and practices. The core of the research elaborates the different nature of such gaps and challenges and explores how different communication options are necessary to overcome them. The research shows that the reverse is also crucial: that communication may serve a variety of, sometimes complementary, sometimes contrasting, aims (e.g. accountability, learning, coordination, advocacy). In other words, communication needs to be articulated, connected and operationalised to an extent as the thesis shows that is not yet realised in the humanitarian practice. A comprehensive, broad and articulated theory of communication as applied to humanitarian interventions has not yet been conceptualised. Accordingly, the research builds its own frame of reference. It does so by examining what emerging modalities of communication in the shelter and settlement sectors, but also, more broadly, in the humanitarian sector as a whole and in other comparable ambits - could respond to the challenges identified for improving policies and practices. It reviews the actors involved and their attitudes towards communication. It reflects on the role of the new media (the Internet in particular) in fostering communication, and in supporting innovative approaches to communication. These facets have been interwoven in the narrative of this thesis to consolidate and frame together disparate experiences. Grounded theory, the methodological approach chosen for this research, has allowed the examination of shelter and settlement policies and practices as well as the communication options impacting on them - in this dynamic context. It also allowed the research to move from empirical observation to the definition of

conceptual categories and of their relations. This resulted in a coherent and overarching framework built on a multiplicity of experiences and examples, which, I hope, will constitute the stimulus and the basis not only for further research but also for practical applications in terms of operationalising communication for better practices. In this process the shelter and settlement sector proved to be a powerful exemplar of broader challenges for humanitarian aid. The research findings suggest the need to shift from a vague view of communication (assumed generally as good but in reality little realised and actionable) to a more articulated view of communication as a practical response to the need to improve practices in the shelter and settlement field and in the humanitarian sector as a whole.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................III INDEX OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................... VII INDEX OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................... VIII GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................................................... XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. XIII

THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND ITS STRUCTURING ..........................................................................3

1.1 The focus of the study ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 The evolution of the study ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 The initial research hypothesis: looking at a clearinghouse model ............................................ 5 Limitations of a case study approach based on the clearinghouse model ................................. 5 The emergence of new research questions ............................................................................... 7 Grounding theory ..................................................................................................................... 12 Stirring the direction of the process:......................................................................................... 17 Literature reviews and analysis of secondary sources............................................................. 22 Data collection methods........................................................................................................... 26 Presenting the findings............................................................................................................. 30

1.3 Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 11

1.4 Process of framework building and structure of the thesis ...................................................................... 33

SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT PLANNING FOR REFUGEES ..............................................................35

2.1 Situating this chapter in the context of this thesis.................................................................................... 38 2.2 Orientation of the debate on shelter and settlement................................................................................ 39 2.3 Modalities of intervention......................................................................................................................... 42 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4.1 The recipients of shelter and settlement programmes............................................................ 42 Paradigms for intervention: development vs. relief .................................................................. 46 Modalities for assistance.......................................................................................................... 55 Communication challenges: an overview, so far...................................................................... 62 The need to (re)define the shelter and settlement sector......................................................... 64
iii

2.4 (Re)defining the shelter and settlement sector........................................................................................ 64

2.4.2 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3

The recognition of shelter by Sphere Standards...................................................................... 66 Shelter vs. housing. Not only a semantic problem (the importance of a process).................... 70 Standardised approaches? ...................................................................................................... 72 Multiple dimensions of shelter.................................................................................................. 76 From protection to rights .......................................................................................................... 81 Communication to reconnect fragmented interventions........................................................... 88 Communication to reframe and cross-fertilize practices .......................................................... 90 Information from learning, information for operations............................................................... 92

2.5 The need for different perspectives......................................................................................................... 70

2.6 The importance of communication .......................................................................................................... 88

INFORMATION FOR OPERATIONS.......................................................................................................93

3.1 Situating this chapter in the context of this thesis.................................................................................... 95 3.2 Coordination............................................................................................................................................ 97 3.3 Modalities of information exchange for operations ................................................................................ 101 3.3.1 Models of information exchange: integrated systems vs. independent service...................... 109 3.4 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 111

INFORMATION FROM LEARNING.......................................................................................................112

4.1 Situating this chapter in the context of the thesis .................................................................................. 114 4.2 Challenges in learning........................................................................................................................... 115 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 Cultural impediments to learning............................................................................................ 115 Asymmetries in the learning process. Whose knowledge matters? ....................................... 115 Knowledge is power. Hoarding or sharing it?......................................................................... 116

4.3 Learning from projects, learning from people ........................................................................................ 118 4.4 Learning from projects........................................................................................................................... 119 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.6.1 Looking beyond the results .................................................................................................... 120 Accountability vs. learning...................................................................................................... 122 Who owns M&E processes? .................................................................................................. 124 Dissemination of M&E findings .............................................................................................. 126 The increasing importance of knowledge management for development and relief .............. 131 The learning organisation in a nutshell .................................................................................. 134 Modalities of knowledge exchange (application to shelter & settlement programmes).......... 138 Diffusion of innovation and change: top-down and bottom-up ............................................... 145

4.5 Organisational learning and the learning organisation .......................................................................... 130

4.6 Learning for change .............................................................................................................................. 144

iv

4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4

Learning loops ....................................................................................................................... 146 Codification vs. personalisation.............................................................................................. 148 Using knowledge to push for change: advocacy.................................................................... 150

4.7 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 153

ACTORS AND FLUXES OF INFORMATION ........................................................................................155

5.1 Situating this chapter in the context of the thesis .................................................................................. 157 5.2 Dimensions of the relationships amongst actors ................................................................................... 158 5.3 NGOs and the information exchange .................................................................................................... 161 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4.1 5.4.2 Communication inside NGOs................................................................................................. 161 Communication across NGOs................................................................................................ 164 Communication with other actors........................................................................................... 166 Learning needs and opportunities for the professional aid worker ...................................... 179 Communal Knowledge........................................................................................................... 189

5.4 Learning across the humanitarian system............................................................................................. 178

5.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 193

THE INTERNET AND THE EXCHANGE OF HUMANITARIAN INFORMATION ..................................195

6.1 Situating this chapter in the context of the thesis .................................................................................. 198 6.2 Internet: access and accessibility.......................................................................................................... 200 6.2.1 6.2.2 Achieving real access.......................................................................................................... 201 The use of the Internet by aid-workers. Data from the questionnaire .................................... 204

6.3 Using the Internet: substitution, extension, expansion .......................................................................... 207 6.4 From information management to knowledge management: Internet as a relational space ................. 211 6.5 Availability of information on shelter and settlement ............................................................................. 214 6.6 Communities and networks ................................................................................................................... 217 6.6.1 Communities for humanitarian shelter and settlement professionals..................................... 222 6.7 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 228

CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................................231

7.1 Putting it all together.............................................................................................................................. 233 7.1.1 7.1.2 Framing the thesis: the use of grounded theory..................................................................... 234 Elements of a framework for communication for shelter and settlement................................ 234

7.2 Reconceptualising communication........................................................................................................ 239

v

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

Gaps and communication options.......................................................................................... 239 Other relevant gaps and grey areas....................................................................................... 245 Communication: different modalities for different challenges................................................. 246

7.3 Communication as a way to improve practices: Building a case........................................................... 248 7.4 Shelter and settlement: a contingency or an exemplar? ....................................................................... 252 7.4.1 7.4.2 Communication as a strategic and actionable tool for improving practices............................ 253 Can communication make a difference?................................................................................ 255

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................................258

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................304

vi

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Development, relief and rehabilitation................................................................................................... 55 Table 2.2. Parameters describing settlements....................................................................................................... 58 Table 2.3. Options for settlement........................................................................................................................... 60 Table 2.4. Levels of interventions: from roofs to peace. ........................................................................................ 78 Table 2.5: Articulating the right to housing: the entitlement. .................................................................................. 83 Table 3.1. Modes of information management that have been supported by HICs in recent crises .................... 103 Table 4.1. Types of learning. ............................................................................................................................... 118 Table 4.2. Levels of knowledge management in organisations. .......................................................................... 136 Table 4.3. Types of knowledge transfer [Adapted from Dixon 2000]. .................................................................. 139 Table 4.4. Codification and personalisation strategies......................................................................................... 149 Table 5.1. Facets of the professionalisation of aid workers. ................................................................................ 188 Table 6.1. Determining factors for real access. ................................................................................................. 203

vii

INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The development of the research. ....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.2: Contrasting lines of investigative action: hypothetico-deductive approach vs. grounded theory applied to a research on shelter and settlement planning. ............................................................................. 13 Figure 1.3. Phases of appreciative enquiry. The 4-D model. ................................................................................. 16 Figure 1.4. Emergence of grounded theory approach ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 1.5. The alternance between induction and deduction in building theory. .................................................. 19 Figure 1.6. The homepage of the Refsettle Website.............................................................................................. 31 Figure 1.7. Organisation of the thesis. ................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 2.1.The centre of attention for this research. .............................................................................................. 43 Figure 2.2. Modalities of assistance to refugees.................................................................................................... 56 Figure 2.3. Camp dimensions and population........................................................................................................ 59 Figure 2.4. Financial tracking of humanitarian assistance in selected crisis.......................................................... 65 Figure 2.5. Intermingling goals of Sphere .............................................................................................................. 68 Figure 2.6. Multiple dimensions of shelter and settlement..................................................................................... 76 Figure 2.7. Multiple levels of shelter ...................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 2.8. Human rights and humanitarian law .................................................................................................... 81 Figure 2.9. Information for operations, information from learning. ......................................................................... 92

Figure 3.1. An example of mechanisms for coordinating between IGOs, UN, NGOs and the military used in Somalia. ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Figure 3.2. Modalities of information exchange for operations. ........................................................................... 101 Figure 3.3. A screenshot of AzerWeb. ................................................................................................................. 105 Figure 3.4. Screenshots of HICs.......................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 3.5. Assessment of damaged building in Kosovo. .................................................................................... 107 Figure 3.6. Rapid Village Assessment (RVA) housing damages. ..................................................................... 107 Figure 3.7. Shelter interventions in Afghanistan. ................................................................................................. 107 Figure 3.8. Integrated system model vs. independent service model .................................................................. 110

Figure 4.1. Changing approaches towards M&E, from control to enablement..................................................... 125 Figure 4.2. Emergent M&E activities.................................................................................................................... 125
viii

Figure 4.3. Inefficiencies in the communication of M&E results........................................................................... 126 Figure 4.4. Institutional settings for M&E. ............................................................................................................ 127 Figure 4.5. Fluxes of effective M&E driven communication. ................................................................................ 129 Figure 4.6. Learning in organisations................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 4.7. The World Bank as a learning organisation....................................................................................... 132 Figure 4.8. Knowledge Management in Tearfund................................................................................................ 133 Figure 4.9. Dichotomies and dualities of knowledge............................................................................................ 135 Figure 4.10. The challenge of change. ................................................................................................................ 138 Figure 4.11. Knowledge transfer in action. .......................................................................................................... 140 Figure 4.12. An example of far transfer: the UN-Habitat model of best south-south best practices exchange.... 141 Figure 4.13. Building change through communication. Complementarity of top-down and bottom-up approach.145 Figure 4.14 Single loop and double loop learning................................................................................................ 147 Figure 4.15. Every crisis is unique vs. ready-made solutions. ............................................................................. 148 Figure 4.16: Dimensions of advocacy.................................................................................................................. 151 Figure 4.17. Dimensions influencing the linkages between research and policy. ................................................ 152

Figure 5.1. The international relief system........................................................................................................... 158 Figure 5.2. Vertical and horizontal relations......................................................................................................... 159 Figure 5.3. How do organisations position themselves on the relief development continuum? ........................... 165 Figure 5.4. Communication amongst NGOs and other actors. ............................................................................ 166 Figure 5.5. Questionnaire results: information sharing, favoured options............................................................ 168 Figure 5.6.Questionnaire results: Information sources. ....................................................................................... 170 Figure 5.7.Questionnaire results: information sources, journals. ......................................................................... 171 Figure 5.8. The links amongst action and reflection: a continuum for research................................................... 171 Figure 5.9. Best practice learning: joint benefits. ................................................................................................. 173 Figure 5.10. The humanitarian system and the mobility of aid-workers............................................................... 178 Figure 5.11. Questionnaire results: types of course attended.............................................................................. 181 Figure 5.12 Questionnaire results: academic qualifications................................................................................. 181 Figure 5.13. Reason for attending training courses. ............................................................................................ 182 Figure 5.14. Reason for not attending training courses. ...................................................................................... 182 Figure 5.15. Questionnaire results: keeping up to date: perceived attainments. ................................................. 183 Figure 5.16. Questionnaire results: reason for not keeping up to date . .............................................................. 183 Figure 5.17. Questionnaire results: methods for keeping up to date. .................................................................. 184 Figure 5.18.Questionnaire results: information sources....................................................................................... 184 Figure 5.19. Humanitarian organizational culture and behaviour......................................................................... 185 Figure 5.20. Space for collective and shared learning......................................................................................... 190 Figure 5.21. Learning in the LSO. Learning IN, OUT and LATERAL learning. .................................................... 191
ix

Figure 6.1. Information exchanges and linked information generation processes. .............................................. 195 Figure 6.2. Dimensions of the Internet: hardware, content, community............................................................... 196 Figure 6.3. Internet World Users Map (2003)....................................................................................................... 200 Figure 6.4. Connectivity, from centre to periphery. ......................................................................................... 201 Figure 6.5. Humanitarian Information Centre, Liberia.......................................................................................... 202 Figure 6.6. Searching information on-line. Attitudes of fieldworkers (source: questionnaire). ............................. 204 Figure 6.7. Perception of the Internet by fieldworkers.......................................................................................... 205 Figure 6.8. Tools at disposal and considerations that should be guiding their choice. ........................................ 209 Figure 6.9. The spiral of knowledge..................................................................................................................... 212 Figure 6.10. Knowledge management and information management and the relation of tacit vs. explicit knowledge........................................................................................................................................ 212 Figure 6.11. The duality of participation and reification........................................................................................ 213 Figure 6.12. Challenges in retrieving information................................................................................................. 215 Figure 6.13. Humanitarian communities. ............................................................................................................. 217 Figure 6.14. Characteristics of communities of practice. ..................................................................................... 218 Figure 6.15. Networks, communities, teams........................................................................................................ 219 Figure 6.16. The web interface of two development / relief oriented communities: the development gateway (Humanitarian relief section / Afghanistan) and Dgroups................................................................. 220 Figure 6.17. Life cycle of a community of practice............................................................................................... 221 Figure 6.18. Roles, responsibilities and degrees of participation in virtual communities. .................................... 222 Figure 6.19: the structure of the AWN. ................................................................................................................ 224 Figure 6.20. The demand driven information generation and consolidation mechanism. .................................... 227

Figure 7.1. The structure of the thesis. ................................................................................................................ 233 Figure 7.2: lesson learning and knowledge exchange across crises ................................................................... 241 Figure 7.3. Communication as a response to fragmentation. .............................................................................. 242 Figure 7.4. Communication between centre and periphery, field and HQ............................................................ 244 Figure 7.5. Communication. An opportunity to bridge the gaps. .......................................................................... 247

GLOSSARY

AAR ACFOA AIMS ALNAP APC BP CAP CBO CESCR COHRE DANIDA DFID DHA DRC ECHO GIS HIC HQ IASC ICESCR ICG ICRC ICVA ICT IDP IFRC IGO ILO IM IMAS IMG

After Action Review Australian Council for Overseas Aid Afghanistan Information Management Service Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action Association for progressive communication British Petroleum Consolidated Appeal Process Community-based organization Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions Danish International Development Assistance Department for International Development (UK) Department of Humanitarian Affairs Danish Refugee Council European Community Humanitarian Office Geographic Information System Humanitarian Information Centre Headquarters Inter Agency Standing Committee International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Crisis Group International Committee of the Red Cross ICVA International Council of Voluntary Agencies Information and communication technology Internally Displaced Population International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies International Inter-governmental Organization International labour Organization Information management International Mine Action Standards International Management Group

xi

IRIN IOM IT ITU KM M&E MSF NGO OCHA ODI OECD DAC OHCHR ORHA PPHO RedR SCHR SDC SIDA UNCHS (Habitat) UNDP UNEP UN-HABITAT UNHCR UNHRP UNICEF USAID / OFDA UXO VOICE WHO

UN Integrated Regional Information Networks International Organization for Migration International Telecommunication Union Knowledge Management Knowledge Management Monitoring and Evaluation Mdecins Sans Frontires Non-governmental organization Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Overseas Development Institute Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Co-operation Directorate United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (until 1997 known as United Nations Centre for Human Rights) Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (Iraq) Principles and Protocols of Humanitarian Operation Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (since 1 January 2002 known as UNHABITAT) United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Human Settlements Programme (until 31 December 2001 known as UNCHS (Habitat)) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Housing Rights Programme United Nations Childrens Fund Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence ... Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies World Health Organisation

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to the entire staff in Oxford Brookes who assisted me during the preparation of this research, in particular to my supervisor Roger Zetter who has been supportive throughout the research. I am most grateful to him for allowing me the freedom to adopt an unconventional approach to the research and, at the same time, for inspiring me with sharp insights and comments. Thanks also to the ESCR for granting a scholarship for this research. Thanks to all the persons I contacted during this research, they are really too many to mention. All my questions had interesting and stimulating answers. Thanks to those who visited the RefSettle site and got in touch with me, sending ideas and writing messages of encouragement. Knowing that someone out there was looking at my research was an important incentive. A very special thank goes to the people I met through the Aid Workers Network. It has been a privilege to be involved with a group with such an open attitude to knowledge sharing and above all who are so enthusiastic, committed and innovative. The Knowledge Management tea and biscuits group in Oxford was also a great environment for sharing ideas. Our chats never failed to provide me with new perspectives and insights on Knowledge Management. Thanks to my friends and family for their encouragement and support, and in particular to all those who shared and visited Alma Place and room A107. These have been very special places - living happily, discussing and sharing inspirational ideas. Thanks to Cecilita, Heather, Mark, MukkiDu, Sara, Simon, Stefan for their help in editing and printing this thesis (and thanks to baby Silva who tried to help!). Grazie to Raluca and Nando for the comfort food. Thanks also to the friends and the colleagues I met in the field. By openly sharing their experiences with me, they have helped me a great deal in understanding the challenges of humanitarian interventions. They persuaded me of the need to keep my feet solidly grounded in the field even when my mind was flying amongst the Oxford Spires.

xiii

THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND ITS STRUCTURING

This introductory chapter discusses:

The focus of the study: an overview of the research topic. The evolution of the study. The focus of the research broadened from an initial proposal - aimed simply at building a clearinghouse on shelter and settlement, and to revise its impact - to a much broader analysis on how different perceptions and modalities of communication could help improving the shelter and settlement sector.

The methodological standpoint: Grounded theory was chosen to support an iterative analysis. It allowed encapsulating findings that emerged from multiple research questions and data sources, in an interdisciplinary context.

The structuring of the findings. An outline of the research explains how the narratives that constitute the body of this thesis converge to the building of a comprehensive framework on communication.

1.1

THE FOCUS OF THE STUDY

This research investigates if, and through what processes, communication can help to improve shelter and settlement projects for refugees, in the context of humanitarian assistance. In doing so, it recognises that improvement in practices is linked to the creation and dissemination of better policies, and that communication is a pursuit that can effectively link the two. Noticeably the starting point of this research was shelter and settlement, and not communication. In other words, this research acknowledges the need of the shelter and settlement sector to improve its modes of action. As other studies before [e.g. Zetter 1995] it identified lack of information as a problem area. But, at the same time, it also recognised that communication could offer opportunities for improving practices. The research consequently moved to identify what modalities of communication could respond to the challenges identified for improving policies and practices, and did it so with an exploratory approach, by looking at opportunities and challenges that emerged in the course of the project. The research also took a broad view, looking at different facets of communication. For example, it looked at the changing modalities of information exchange for humanitarian action. It looked at the attitudes of different actors towards communication. It reflected on the role of the new media in fostering it, and in supporting innovative approaches. When looking at these different facets, it became evident that a comprehensive, broad and articulated view of communication needed to be built, if communication was to be used to improve practice. This broader framework emerged and was consolidated in the body of this thesis. This framework, as it will be discussed in the conclusion of this study, is also applicable, more broadly, to a vast spectrum of humanitarian interventions. The period in which this research took place turned up to be a very fecund one for communication for humanitarian interventions. The interest of looking at communication as an opportunity to improve practices was heightened by the prospects offered by new information technologies such as the Internet, by a growing interest around the issue of information and knowledge inside and across organisations, by the fast pace at which new communication initiatives flourished. At the same time, the debate on humanitarianism has been intense. It touched on issues with important consequences on the way assistance is delivered (e.g. the relief / development continuum / rights approaches). The methodological approach chosen for this research (grounded theory) allowed me to examine shelter and settlement practices in this dynamic context. I registered lack of communication (and lack of a broad understanding of communication) in the sector as a problem area, but I could also suggest opportunities and strategies for improving shelter and settlement practices through improved communication.

1.2

THE EVOLUTION OF THE STUDY

Initially this study intended to look at the impact of an on-line clearinghouse on improving the dissemination of practices. The limits of this approach soon became apparent: the challenges posed by the need for innovation in the shelter and settlement sector required a much broader view of communication.

1.2.1 The initial research hypothesis: looking at a clearinghouse model

The initial research proposal was much narrower than the final outcome. It aimed to understand if and to what extent a clearinghouse of best practices Internet based - could support shelter and settlement practices for refugees. The emphasis on shelter derived from my background (architecture and planning studies). The interest on communication derived from a personal history of involvement in Internet based projects for the dissemination of practices (for example about shelter and settlement in development). The concept of Internet-based clearinghouses of best practices was a popular theme at the end of the 90s, when best practice databases were developed to inform policies and action, and to avoid reinventing the wheel. Initiatives in the field of shelter and settlement in the context of development had already been put in place. For example, the best practices databases of UN-habitat (http://www.bestpractices.org/) or the Forum: habitat in developing countries (http://www.forumhabitat.polito.it/welcome.htm) an Internet resource for urban planning in development. So, at its very inception, the research concentrated on the use of information technologies to support the archiving and dissemination of good practices for refugee settlement. This meant focusing mainly on: a) the identification of best practices, b) an assessment of the use and accessibility of the Internet in the field (e.g. questions of connectivity and access), c) a review of communication projects focusing on the exchange of best practices in comparable sectors and of the technical and administration challenges that they pose. Those research streams would then have converged in a feasibility study and in the realisation of a prototype for a clearinghouse on shelter and settlement.

1.2.2 Limitations of a case study approach based on the clearinghouse model

As mentioned above, clearinghouses, in the nineties, had been a standard way to promote better practice, and the initial proposal was in line with this assumption. The turning point of this research was to acknowledge that the improvement of practices would require a much broader view of communication than the one offered by the clearinghouse model. In parallel to this, it emerged that the betterment of practices in the shelter and settlement sector was not to be solved by the tools that can be better disseminated by a clearinghouse, i.e. better guidelines and manuals. More critically, the whole shelter and settlement sector needed to be rethought.

The issue of access

When the study started, as the value of a clearinghouse was somewhat assumed, the problematic issue seemed to be the one of access. The weakest link seemed to be the availability of the Internet: could the Internet be a viable tool in settings where all infrastructures collapsed? Did field workers have the necessary technical hardware and the know-how to use it? Interestingly enough, the research soon discovered that the concern around the possibility of using the Internet in the field was simply not an issue. It is true that the Internet in the field was available to a less extent than in the North - limited by lack of infrastructure and high costs - and that this initially delayed its use in practice. However, fieldworkers seemed very keen to catch up, even if only to use the e-mail to contact their colleagues and friends. The Internet was available, was expanding, and while this research developed, it grew exponentially and started to be intensively used to support humanitarian operations. The central problem was no longer the availability of the Internet: attention needed to shift from an assessment of the availability of the Internet to the inclination to use it. But, more importantly, it became clear that the Internet could support many different forms of communication: a clearinghouse was only one amongst possible approaches to foster dialogue on innovative practices.

Lack of information on practices

A clearinghouse approach assumed that records of good practices were available: they simply needed to be communicated in such a way to get to the field, in situations where Internet connections were often quite poor. A major flaw in the clearinghouse idea was that best practices were, on the contrary, not available. An extensive research on lessons learned by the reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia proved that little was done to capture the outcomes of the aid programmes. Field reports, such as those written for donors, were simply not accessible, and the lack of availability of evaluation and research was dismaying [this research fed into the study Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002]. It also became apparent that, even if captured, practices would have portrayed a very narrow approach to shelter and settlements. Many realisations in the shelter and settlement sector have been modelled on a standardised blueprint approach. A gap between the academic literature, advocating a broader and participatory approach to shelter, and the narrow technical focus of many interventions began to emerge. Interventions were likely to show conformity rather than innovation, little which could foster debate and adoption of better practices.

Spreading practices or devising new policies?

In the course of the first phase of this research, it became clear that not only documented best practices were lacking, but, more importantly, there was a definite need to rethink the sector rather than only to confirm and consolidate the existing modus operandi. Improving shelter and settlement was not about improving techniques of intervention, but about questioning the positioning the shelter and settlement sector and related interventions in the humanitarian field. Could this be achieved through better communication? And, if so, what communication options were available?
6

It was observed that interventions on refugee settlements have often been reduced, in practice, to shelter

delivery. They have failed to operationalise the idea of housing as a verb, an idea that is common currency in development. The research needed to recognise this, and to identify some other wide critical themes for debate, for example: the need to recognise the multiple dimensions of shelter, the role of the beneficiaries, issues around the reliefdevelopment link, the competencies required of the aid-workers, the role and relevance of standards, the need to enhance coordination. These issues have been discussed to a large extent in recent years, but they are not yet solidly rooted in practice. Rather than focusing on technicalities and on the logistics of shelter delivery, the research acknowledged the importance of rethinking the shelter and settlement sector as a whole, hence realising a virtuous circle between the need to improve the policies and practices of action. A clearinghouse would have added little value in transmitting these issues. A broader vision of communication and information exchange, instead, could help realising this virtuous circle. The key was not to limit the research to issues of information availability, archiving and dissemination, but to investigate the processes through which information itself is produced and the attitude of actors involved in refugee assistance towards information exchange. Their needs, perspectives and involvement vis--vis communication needed to be considered. Whilst looking at a wide range of players, communication emerged as an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps amongst policy and practice, research and implementation.

From dissemination to generation and exchange of information

A clearinghouse approach assumed that communication was indeed a way to improve practices, but it was taken to mean mainly dissemination (hence the original title if this theses: information, communication, dissemination for refugee settlement planning). The research needed to shift its focus from issues of dissemination of information to its generation and exchange. It could then investigate modes of communication based on the involvement of a variety of actors, and emphasise the importance of networking and of the social construction of knowledge. It moved towards models of communication based on dialogue versus monologue, horizontal versus vertical information sharing, equitable participation, local ownership, empowerment.

1.2.3 The emergence of new research questions

The research needed then to be stirred by a different set of research questions, 1) to investigate to what extent shelter and settlement practices could be improved by better communication, but also 2) to understand what communication means and entails in the humanitarian sector (given the absence of comprehensive frameworks for communication in this arena).

Research on these issues was conducted making use of Grounded Theory as a methodological approach (as illustrated in the next chapter). Grounded theory does not presuppose hypotheses setting: a hypothesis emerges and is perfected as a result of the research process. For the sake of clarity, however, I anticipate here the hypothesis that emerged from the research and that was tested through the research. The emerging hypothesis is the improvement of practices for refugee settlement planning policies and practices can be supported by better communication. Sub-hypotheses help to further explore the meaning and the nature of communication as envisaged in the main hypothesis. a) improved communication requires the use of a variety of modalities; b) effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors; c) improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media. It should appear from the hypothesis that shelter and settlement (or better, the improvement of shelter and settlement interventions) is the problem area and communication is seen as a possible option to tackle it (or better, as a range of options). In this view, communication is a loose term that simply indicates the information exchange happening across different actors. This concept is kept loose precisely to allow for an exploration of different modalities of communication. The meaning of communication is then constructed as part of the thesis, and the sub-hypotheses exemplify the need to provide a framework for communication that considers different facets. Understanding what communication can mean and entail in this context was challenging. There is not a theory or framework of communication in the humanitarian sector. Communication itself is a term that defies easy and clear categorization, as it is articulated by many different disciplines. This is why this thesis does not depart on an analysis of a given communication theory. It rather looks at practices where communication has been put into use, in the shelter and settlement sector or in comparable sectors, to articulate a view of communication suited to the challenges outlined when looking at the shelter and settlement sector.

Figure 1.1 summarises the research processes that lead to the formulation of the emerging hypothesis. It highlights the research questions as they evolved to stir the study, and shows how threads for research emerged and overlapped:

Focus on the actors and on their interaction (see mainly chapter 5). The research focused on practical examples of information exchange across different actors, e.g.: 1) the action of networks tackling issues of relevance for shelter and settlement for refugees (e.g. in Sphere project, coordination mechanisms, learning offices); 2) emerging learning and knowledge management processes in the humanitarian sector. For example, a questionnaire amongst two groups of people active in refugee issues researchers and fieldworkers confirmed the existence of a wide information gap between them. This stream of research fed into sub-hypothesis B: effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors.

Focus on the medium (the Internet, in particular: see chapter 6). The Internet remained central in the research, but - rather than being perceived only as a medium of dissemination - it became the field of study, where to observe interactions amongst different actors and identify innovative practices (or, better, modalities of communication that could lead to improved practices). I had been looking at examples where the Internet was used as a tool to gather and disseminate information for shelter and settlement interventions (see them, for example, in chapter 3). However it was not simply research on a particular IT application for shelter and settlement that mattered, but the potential of the Internet as a space to multiply the possibility of interactions of different actors. This stream of research fed into sub-hypothesis C: improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media.

Focus on processes of generation of information (e.g. learning, knowledge generation: see chapter 3 and 4). In an effort to identify mechanisms for the production and exchange of new information, the study looked in particular at: 1) initiatives for data exchange and coordination (e.g. Humanitarian Information Centres); 2) monitoring and evaluation for learning; 3) processes of knowledge management. It appeared that some options for information production and communication are still insufficiently addressed. Whilst examples of data exchange could be found, little evidence of innovative learning processes in the shelter and settlement sector emerged. Hence, this stream of research was not only geared at finding direct applications of communication to the shelter and settlement sector, but also at suggesting options and possibilities based on the experience of other sectors. In the course of this research, I have also been actively involved in the ideation and management of innovative processes for knowledge management oriented to best practices. Alternative ways to realise knowledge exchanges have been tested, for example, through the Aid Workers Network, an initiative oriented to improve learning at field level. It provided a timely case study to question attitudes towards communication and an opportunity to try and match information needs with responsive practices and tools. This stream of research fed into sub-hypothesis A: Improved Communication requires the use of a variety of modalities.

Interesting distortions in the information exchange emerged. Initiatives to improve the exchange of information in the field appeared to have an almost exclusive focus on the logistics of assistance. Vital information on the why and how of interventions - and critical appraisals of their impact seemed to be circulated at a different level, the Headquarters. As a result, many debates on critical issues (such as the establishment of standards) only marginally reached fieldworkers. The next section will clarify the methodological approach that allowed the building of a theory from this research process. The final section will clarify how the findings emerging from this process have been articulated. It will be possible to recognise how the research questions emerged from the process fed into the emergent structure of this PhD.

CREATION OF A CLEARINGHOUSE OF INFORMATION ABOUT SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT FOR REFUGEES ON THE INTERNET
Is the Internet a viable medium for information exchange in the field?
Literature review on settlement, identification of key areas for improvement Accessibility to the Internet from the field: questions of connectivity

What are the key areas for improvement in the shelter sector?

What information is already on line? Does it match the needs?

Appraisal of information on former Yugoslavia on the Internet as a case study. Paucity of resources available

Defining potential of the Internet as a relational space

Other factors inhibiting access and information exchange?

Attitudes of individuals / organisation towards Internet use

Mapping the Internet as an archival space (focus on resources).

Appraisal of information exchange initiatives in the humanitarian realm.

How can relevant knowledge be generated?

Attitudes of individuals and organisations to information exchange / knowledge sharing

M&E initiatives in crisis and unstable contexts

Review of theories on knowledge generation

Exploration of knowledge management practices Testing alternative / complementary practices (AWN)

How can generated information reach aid workers and the field?

Figure 1.1: the development of the research. The research started very practically by investigating the feasibility of a clearinghouse of information exchange on the Internet. However the research soon revealed that the limitation to the effectiveness of such clearinghouse in supporting, documenting and promoting effective practices was not imposed by the medium selected (the Internet), but was due to the unavailability of content. Knowledge generation processes in the humanitarian / development sectors needed to be questioned. People, organisation and their attitudes entered the equation. The diagram also shows how these streams consolidated in different sub-hypothesis (A,B, C): there are of course more interrelations those shown in the diagram.

10

1.3

METHODOLOGY

At its inception, this research intended to verify the feasibility of an Internet clearinghouse on shelter and settlement for refugees and test it in practice. It would have been research modelled on a case study, to be analysed using both quantitative (e.g. metrics of resource use, user surveys and polls, profiling of resources added, etc) and qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews with key informants). The reasons that led to discarding this approach have been discussed at length in the previous section. When the focus of the research shifted to a wider investigation on the role of communication for improving practices, different methodological approaches were taken into consideration, e.g.:

An analysis of the attitudes and behaviour of a large sample of individuals, to understand their use of information, and - more broadly to understand approaches to learning and perceptions on communication by people involved in shelter and settlement programs. The focus was on a variety of shelter experts who were identified by establishing contacts with various organizations (taking into consideration that shelter experts might range from logisticians to architects), registers and networks. This type of approach was mainly questionnaire-based and was complemented with qualitative data from key informants interviews. It was felt, however, that this kind of research, on its own, would fail to investigate the potential of new, alternative approaches to communication. Also, by focusing on the perspectives of individuals, it would have been problematic to capture issues faced by organisations vis--vis communication. So, whilst the practitioner survey was used to generate data for the research, as were key informants interviews, these were not the main tools for data collection and analysis. The data produced was used to supplement the growing body of information and analysis gathered by other data sources and from different methodological angles, described below.

Organizational studies, to examine the use and management of information in specific agencies. There are several problems in applying organizational studies to communication and/or to the shelter and settlement sector. Firstly, the focus on specific agencies could lead to limited scope in capturing the interactions across agencies. Secondly, at the inception of the thesis, the theme of organizational learning was not as popular as it is today amongst humanitarian agencies. Planning research on such a new and evolving field of interest would have been problematic. Thirdly, the largest relief agencies (e.g. Oxfam) do not place shelter amongst their priority area for action. This would have led to difficulties of tracing initiatives in a sector which - in some organizations - is a relatively marginal area. The problematic of defining the shelter and settlement sector will be discussed at length in chapter 2. In a nutshell, the challenge is to reconcile a technical/logistical approach pursued by clear-cut programmes limited to shelter delivery, with the interdisciplinary and cross sectoral concept of house.

Case study of communication happening in a specific emergency location, looking perhaps with an ethnographic approach - at the production and circulation of documentation in a context, and at the role of

11

networks and coordination mechanisms active in the area. However, a desk study undertaken for a parallel research on Shelter and Settlement in former Yugoslavia for SDC [Zetter, Ferretti, et al. 2002] showed that only limited information on shelter and settlement was produced in the context of that crisis. And, crucially only limited amounts of information may travel from one crisis to another. In other words, focusing on a specific crisis might shed light on informal communication processes, but would have little impact on a study that was looking at how experience was made generic and then disseminated and circulated between agencies to address subsequent crises. Actually, none of these options was fully discarded. However, it became apparent than none of these approaches, on its own, would provide the wider outlook on the role of communication for improving shelter and settlement practices which was implied by the emerging research hypothesis. As outlined in figure 1, mini research projects and case studies looking at particular angles of communication were undertaken. What was needed was therefore a flexible methodology combining different areas and methods of research. Such an approach should not necessarily imply fragmentation or research scattering. The challenge was to enact a parallel process to categorise and conceptualise the data acquired, and to generate and revise hypothesis to stir the research and produce a connected theory. This approach was found in grounded theory. Prior to discussing in detail the methodological implications of the use of grounded theory for this research, it is also important to put things in perspective. At the beginning of this research, the idea that communication could be an option to support the improvement of humanitarian intervention in the shelter and settlement sector was not as relevant as it is today. Communication initiatives in the field were scanty. For example, information centres for data exchange were still isolated experiments, whilst today Humanitarian Information Centres (see chapter 3) are a support structure routinely deployed when major crises strike. The emphasis on learning in organisations was not as strong as it is today, with many agencies now opening learning units. So, concepts that have been absorbed and discussed in this thesis during its evolution were not apparent at its inception. Hence the need for a methodology that could look for, capture and react to the fast changes happening in communication, humanitarianism and in the shelter and settlement sector. And the need for a research approach that took in the breadth (i.e. multiple research questions and streams, allowing an elaboration of emerging ideas and to connect them in a wider framework) rather then focusing only on depth (i.e. hypothesis too narrowly focused, insufficient to envision the perspectives offered by a more holistic and articulated view of communication).

1.3.1 Grounding theory

The characteristics of the research problematic suggested adopting grounded theory as the methodology of choice. Grounded theory has been increasingly accepted and widely adopted since the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967 [Glaser & Strauss 1967]. It is interesting to note that the use of grounded theory expanded from the sociological field, for which it was originally devised: it has been applied in many other
12

disciplines such as management and organisational research. These fields are very relevant in the context of this interdisciplinary research [Goulding 2002, Locke 2001]. Grounded theory serves as an inductive approach to research. In hypothetico-deductive models of research, the line of investigative action begins with theory; it moves from the definition of concepts and their proposed relations out to the real world where, according to the theory, they ought to be observed and where they are tested. In the grounded theory model, the line of investigative action is reversed. It moves from empirical observation to the definition of concepts [Locke 2001: 37]. As described by Locke, grounded theory serves for research that like this one attempt to move from empirical observation to the definition of conceptual categories. For research executing this move, the creative opportunity and the particular challenge of working within the grounded theory style is that they have to invent some aspect of the social world through their conceptualisation [Locke 2001: 37]. How this type of process has been applied to this research, has been illustrated in Figure 1.2.

What this research is NOT (hypotetico- deductive approach)

Review of theory(es) of communication

What this research is (Grounded theory)

Reflection on challenges in improving shelter and settlement planning practices Identification of emerging challenging areas where communication could have an impact and of existing communication initiatives in shelter & settlement.

Formulation of hypothesis to verify correspondence of theory to shelter and settlement planning

Use of shelter and settlement planning as a case study

Identification / testing of mechanisms to foster knowledge generation and exchange in the field

Parallel review of the emergent studies and practice on communication and knowledge management

Data collection and analysis

Elaboration of hypothesis and conceptual frameworks that systematises options for communication in the shelter and settlement sector

Emergence of communication as a viable option for improving practices and frameworks for action

Verification of initial hypothesis

Re-conceptualisation of communication looking at broader humanitarian interventions

Figure 1.2: contrasting lines of investigative action: hypothetico-deductive approach vs. grounded theory applied to a research on shelter and settlement planning.

13

In the following I will discuss how key characteristics of the grounded theory as identified and described by many researchers who have contributed to its conceptualisation are matched to the challenges of this research. An inductive, grounded approach proves to be particularly useful when:

The aim is to generate or discover a theory. Glaser and Strauss auspicate a theory generated from the data, systematically obtained and analysed [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 1].

There is a need to investigate and support theorising new substantive areas. It has been noticed, for example, that many of the features of organisational life associated with the revolutionary effects of technology are an obvious instance of such new areas of concern [Locke 2001]. As they arrived on the organisational scene they called for new conceptualisation of the kind that grounded theory could provide. The use of e-communication in the humanitarian realm is an obvious candidate for this type of research. In looking at new areas, grounded theory also supports an interdisciplinary, problem-driven approach. It was useful, in this research, to explore grey areas that are still overlooked in the literature and in the practice, such as the inter-organisational space for information and knowledge exchange.

The emphasis is in connecting and expanding concepts, rather than on verification. Dey pointed out that one of the features of grounded theory is that the researcher becomes active not so much in conceptualising data as in making connections between concepts. The activity also tends to focus on further collection and comparison of data to extend the process of connecting concepts [Dey 1999 : 35]. In this research, the focus was precisely on the amalgamation of different concepts and practices in a fluid framework. It was a process that constantly looked out to identify new exemplars of communication practices applied to the shelter and settlement sector rather than verify few cases identified beforehand.

The aim is to establish connections amongst apparently unrelated facts. A theory provides the best comprehensive, coherent and simplest model for linking diverse and unrelated facts in a useful and pragmatic way. It is a way to reveal the obvious, the implicit, the unrecognised and the unknown. Theorising is the process of constructing alternative explanations until a best fit that explains the data most simply is obtained. This involves asking questions to the data that will create links to established theory [Morse 25-6 in Goulding 2002: 45]. This is particularly important in research with a strong interdisciplinary character, like this one. It draws from different disciplines and looks at things as different as the current practices in the field of shelter, new technologies in supporting communication, the geography of cyberspace, the processes and practices involved in monitoring and evaluation projects, and theories of learning Hence, the need to combine and connect many research streams, to suggest the importance of a holistic approach to communication for shelter and settlement programmes.

14

Data are gathered through a variety of data collection methods. This research puts together many streams and as a result - data have been captured through a variety of methods, both qualitative and quantitative. To this regard the founders of the theory noticed that: There is no fundamental clash between the purposes and capacities of qualitative and quantitative methods or data. [] each form of data is useful for both verification and generation of theory, whatever the primacy or emphasis. Primacy depends only on the circumstances of research, on the interests and training of the researcher, and on the kinds of material he needs for his theory. In many instances, both forms of data are necessary not quantitative used to test qualitative, but both used as supplements, as mutual verification and, most important for us, as different forms of data on the same subject, which, when compared, will generate theory [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 1718]. When arriving at the conceptualisation proposed by this thesis, quantitative observations (e.g. data from the questionnaire) have been matched with qualitative information emerging from participant observation, for example. Data could be effectively triangulated not only across different sources, but also different methods (see the section on triangulation later on in this chapter).

Research and practice are moving at a fast pace. A challenge for this study has been the fast moving pace of research and practice both in the humanitarian and communication fields. Since the inception of this dissertation, a number of major crises have emerged and polarised the debate on humanitarian intervention, posing new questions and suggesting new approaches. Likewise information and knowledge studies have evolved and the use of the Internet as a medium has thrived. All this has meant a constant and careful process of revision of the findings and of the issues of interest, to avoid a premature obsolescence. Glaser and Strauss discussed how the pace of social change might preclude traditional means of verification, pointing out that a great deal of sociological work, unlike research in physical science, never gets to the stage of rigorous demonstration because the social structures being studied are undergoing continuous change. Older structures frequently take on new dimensions before rigorous research can be accomplished. [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 31]. In this context the emphasis should be on exploring and discovering new structures rather than on undue emphasis on being scientific [ibidem]. This brings Dey to conclude that ultimately, then, the task is neither to evaluate theory nor even to amend it, but rather to generate new grounded theory to account for emerging structures . [Dey 1999: 31]

The research is oriented to practical use of the data. Research fits the data and creates an understanding that also suits the layman. Because it represents that reality, it should also be comprehensible and make sense both to the persons who were studied and to those practicing in that area. [Strauss & Corbin 1990: 23]. This research was, in fact, oriented at looking for actionable ways through which shelter and settlement practices could be improved by better communication. The focus has been on the layman, never forgetting, however, the need to link improved practices with changing policies. It is worth, at this point, clarifying the relation between practices and policies in this research. The two are often seen as separate spheres of action. However this research soon recognised that this distinction neither serves

15

communication, nor the shelter and settlement sector. There is a virtuous circle to be realised in blurring the borders amongst policies and practices. Practices need to be re-conceptualised in policies, and such policies should then be fed effectively back to guide new interventions. Communication is precisely at the heart of this virtuous circle, as will be pointed out in chapter 4.

The research needs to look and borrow from a variety of methodological approaches, and there is no fixed recipe to be followed. Grounded theory has the advantage of accommodating a variety of qualitative approaches that have been used in the course of this research when investigating, one by one, emerging research sub-questions. For example, when using the Internet as the field of the study, the research took an ethnographic perspective. When looking at Humanitarian Information Centres, it took a case study approach. When working on learning initiatives, such as the Aid Workers Network, action research tools were used (for more details, see the data collection section).

Emerging methodologies such as Appreciative-enquiry have also influenced my attitude towards research. At the core of this research there is the strong desire to point out viable paths and to devise practical ways to improve information and communication. My aim is to open new actionable perspectives, rather than simply bar the existing ones by negative criticism. Appreciative-enquiry is - amongst research and evaluative techniques - the one that is more oriented towards visions, and has been guiding activities of experts who are involved both in practise and research. To the extent that action research maintains a problem-oriented view of the world, it diminishes the capacity of researchers and practitioners to produce innovative theory capable of inspiring the imagination, commitment and passionate dialogue required for the consensual reordering of social conduct. [Ludema, Cooperrider, and Barrett 2001: 192]. The 4-D model of appreciative enquiry is the one that can better reflect the approach taken when reflecting and consequently getting engaged on practical information and knowledge management projects.
DISCOVERY Appreciating the best of what is DESTINY Sustaining what will be DESIGN What should be- the ideal? DREAM Envisioning what could be

Figure 1.3. Phases of appreciative enquiry. The 4-D model. [Source: Ludema, Cooperrider, and Barrett 2001]

I will now further discuss the value of grounded theory focusing on its orientation towards inductive processes and then describing its methodological categories and modus operandi (e.g. theoretical sampling, saturation, attitudes to literature review).

16

1.3.2 Stirring the direction of the process

As illustrated in Figure 1.4., the research process starts by looking at the data and at the situation on the ground. The research path is kept open to discover angles that can shed new light on the reality on the ground. What next? is the key question that drives the research.

Theoretical sampling
Definition of questions for research Data collection / testing

Redefinition of areas for investigation: What next?

Systematization of data, establishing analytical relationships

Generation of hypothesis

Figure 1.4. Emergence of grounded theory approach.

Collecting data: theoretical sampling and saturation

The process of data collection is guided by theoretical sampling, "the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop its theory as it emerges [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 45]. It is a process controlled by the emerging theory, not modelled on a preconceived theoretical framework. Theoretical sampling relies on criteria of theoretical purpose and relevance [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 48]. It is planned as in well thought out but is also flexible, so that the researcher can respond to and make the most out of data relevant situations that appear in the field [Strauss & Corbin 1990: 121]. It has been observed that theoretical sampling is: a happy marriage of induction and deduction [Goulding 2002: 68]. As such it provides flexibility in the research, allows the researcher to change the emphasis if the evidence gathered suggests the need to do so. In other words, the data gathered are a reflection of what is occurring in the field rather than speculation about what should have been observed [ibidem]. This was an important feature in research that needed to look at a rapidly evolving field, as this one did. As previously pointed out, many things that have been researched by this study were simply non-existent at its inception. A very concrete example of this is the appearance of new information resources that undoubtedly changed the quality and quantity of information at disposal for humanitarian actors in the field (e.g. the Humanitarian Information Centres). Assuming a given

17

information landscape at the beginning of the research would not have led to discover new modes of communication. The idea of theoretical sampling fits on an iterative process of discovery. This also means that it was not possible to fully plan the research beforehand, but that successive data collection needed to be planned based on the results of the data gathering / conceptualisation process that was put in place [Charmaz 2000: 519]. The emergence of new categories and areas of interest required to stage the research process as many interconnected mini-research cases. This whole process, as enacted in the thesis, has been described in Figure 1.1. The cyclical process of data collection, comparison and systematisation continues until theoretical saturation is reached, i.e. when new properties, categories, relationships cease to emerge. Once the data no longer offer any distinctions of conceptual importance, categories could be described as saturated and no further evidence needs to be collected [Dey 1999: 8]. Saturation is not about overwhelming excess in data collection, but, on the contrary, is about being parsimonious with data, and learning how to use them mainly to indicate ideas. After an analysis has coded incidents for the same category a number of times, he [the researcher] learns to see quickly whether or not the next applicable index points to a new aspect. If yes, then the incident is coded and compared. If no, the incident is not coded, as it only adds bulk to the coded data and nothing to the theory [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 111]. The framework for communication used in this research has been built up precisely following a process of categorisation. Individual instances of information exchanges linked to shelter and settlement or, more widely, to humanitarian practices have been aggregated together in abstract categories that ultimately could be analysed under the umbrella of information for operations or information for learning.

Supporting findings: creativity vs. validation

Central to the grounded theory is the relationship between discovery and verification. For a theory to emerge it is important to combine creative insights and respect for the data. Creativity is a vital component of the grounded theory method. Its procedures force the researcher to break through assumptions and to create new order from the old. Creativity manifests itself in the ability of the researcher to [] let the mind wander and make the free associations that are necessary to generating stimulating questions, and coming up with the comparisons that led to discovery. [] While creativity is necessary to develop an effective theory, of course, the research must always validate any categories and statements of relationships arrived at creativity through the total research process [Strauss & Corbin 1990: 27]. This vision clearly resonates with the process of this research that explores relationships amongst poorly interconnected areas (shelter and settlement and communication). It is about looking at possible links, creating associations, and verifying them in the practice.

18

However, the key point is that whilst creativity is important a theory is not created, but is rather discovered. The language of facts, so dear to the grounded theorists, reinforces an idea of discovery as revelation rather than as invention []. And the language of discovery implies a high degree of certitude, as though these facts are established beyond reasonable contention [Dey 1999: 36]. By grounding ideas in facts, hypotheses are validated ex-ante rather than ex-post. The verification process is integral to the construction of theory, as the discovery is anchored in the reality on the field. As Goulding puts it, it might be strongly argued that grounded theory is also validational owing to the symbiosis of induction and abduction during constant comparison of data [Goulding 2002]. It is theoretical sampling, as a marriage of deduction and induction that allows for a continuous alternation between creation/generation and verification. There is a constant interplay between proposing and checking. The back and forth movement is what makes our theory grounded! [Strauss & Corbin 1990: 111]. This movement has been visualised in Figure 1.5.

The data

The theory

Validation (checking) Deduction

Figure 1.5. The alternance between induction and deduction in building theory.

Creativity (proposing) Induction

This research reflects this process. It grounds new conceptualisations and relationships amongst facts in the data. Figure 1.1 can help to illustrate this process. When reflecting on shelter and settlement and communication, new fields for investigation appeared, and new emerging sub hypothesis had to be validated. There were many turning points where new lenses were necessary. For example, the research assumed that dissemination was key. But the paltry amount of research being disseminated discovered by the process of verification of this hypothesis leads one to ask: is dissemination really the problem, or is it rather the production of information? New questions were generated and needed to be validated. At another stage the research was led to look at monitoring and evaluation as a key option for gathering more information, and preceded to an extensive review of M&E activities in the shelter and settlement sector to validate this angle. But, again, the parallel emergence of organisational learning processes prompted to propose the need to link M&E to wider organisational learning processes. To sum up, the research continuously formulated new questions, and then verified them through more orthodox processes of theoretical sampling. It looked for new research paths when the emergence of new incidents or the
19

falsification of emerging concepts challenged theories and frameworks or proved them insufficient. Theoretical samples resorted both to hard data (for example, significantly, the quantitative questionnaire was launched at a late stage in this research), and to qualitative data and literature reviews (for example: analysis of grey literature on emerging areas of investigation; contact with key informants).

The emergence of hypothesis and the role of hypothesis in grounded theory

Hypothesis setting, in grounded theory, emerges from the data, through inductive processes of data analysis and generalisation. Hypotheses have at first the status of suggested, not tested, relations amongst categories and their properties, though they are verified as much as possible in the course of research [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 39]. Hypotheses are shaped in successive phases as discussed - by building relations amongst facts and emerging categories. The emerging theory and hypothesis then guide subsequent data collection activities: evidence is gathered to validate or, also, to reshape them. The result is a process of hypothesis building that, at each stage, is linked to the data collection and analysis processes. The exploration of research questions continues until data saturation is reached, - i.e. no new evidence emerges which can inform or underpin the development of a theoretical point [Goulding 2002: 44]. In the process hypothesis and research question are refined and re-conceptualised to better capture the theory emerging from the data. In other words, hypotheses are not defined once for all, and verified ex post. They are shaped and challenged in a continuous process. A hypothesis is proved by the process that helped to formulate it. Because of the freedom that is allowed by grounded theory in collecting data, the emerging hypothesis can then connect what were, at the beginning, apparently unrelated facts (or were treated as such by existing studies and research). No hypothesis constrains the choice of data from the start. On the contrary, the emerging hypotheses synthesise the variety of inputs sought and received in the research process. The broader hypotheses and subhypotheses that emerged from the research are an embodiment of the theory discovered through the data.

The emergence of concepts

Not only hypotheses emerged as a result of the research. The very same concepts that lie at its core evolved in the study. That was because the research was aimed at providing new frameworks to challenge the apparent simplicity of the concepts at the core of the dissertation (e.g. shelter, information, communication). The widening of the scope of the research (that had been looking at issues emerging from a vast range of disciplines, e.g., architecture and planning, humanitarianism and developmentalisms, computer science and IT, behavioural sciences and organisational ones) meant that the concepts of the thesis needed to be continuously reformulated and enriched. Shelter and settlement, for example, are seen not only as physical realisations (e.g. the houses, the site), but their multiple dimensions (social, economic, etc.) are emphasised. In the same way, communication and information were explored to show the variety of the processes and modalities that these ideas too often used narrowly and uncritically might imply.
20

Seldom does one see an extensive "definitions of terms" section in a qualitative study, as concepts evolve during the study rather than being defined by the researcher at the beginning of the study [Creswell 1998: 77]. The following definitions rather intend to provide a broad outlook on some key terms, and to point to the relevant section where they are dealt with in more detail.

The idea of shelter has been questioned and expanded. The need for moving from shelter as a noun to shelter as a verb indicating the processes of sheltering and, possibly, housing - was discussed in chapter 2. This change of perspective on shelter (that happened in the 70s in the developmental sphere, but is not yet evident in shelter and settlement for refugees) forced to look at existing shelter and settlement policies from different angles. An emphasis on processes rather than manufacts required to widen the remit of shelter and settlement programmes, and to establish linkages with other sectors. Section 2.5 looks at what dimensions of shelter need to be considered to realise a holistic approach to the habitat for refugees.

The Geneva Convention defines the meaning of refugee. What needs to be questioned and investigated is the impact of the label refugee on practice: why shelter and settlement for refugees? The research reflects to what extent the circumstances of refugees are different from other similar groups, for example: IDPs, victims of disasters, forced migrants (see chapter 2). This leads to a reflection on the character of relief and on its linkages to development.

Definitions of information, based on the literature, are presented in sections 2.6 (when clarifying differences amongst data, information, knowledge), and in section 4.4 (when discussing differences between information management and knowledge management). Information has been expanded and thoroughly explored by the thesis, and conceptualised in its different facets. An important distinction that emerged to usefully describe and serve current practices was the difference between information for operation and information from learning, as discussed in chapter 3 and 4.

Learning is a very broad concept analysed by a vast range of disciplines, ranging from behavioural sciences to knowledge management. Learning became centre stage in the humanitarian field following the publication of the ALNAP 2002 report. It was then defined as disciplining the mind to search for relevant data to support particular actions in particular contexts [ALNAP 2002: 24]. There is now much research and debate on learning, particularly field learning initiatives, but such research is not yet at a stage to be consolidated in a newer framework that can justify a reformulation of the definition above. The take on learning of this new body of research and related emerging frameworks, will be discussed and clarified in the course of chapter 4.

The Internet that is central to this research, has been analysed from many different angles (as a technical infrastructure for communication, as a place, a field for study, as a network of users). The conceptualisation of the Internet emerging from this research looks at it as an overlay of hardware, content and a network of people using it (see chapter 5). Understanding the Internet as a network of users and as the place where they interrelate, rather than as a mere IT tool, is fundamental to moving away from a reflection specifically on

21

the role of IT in communication to a wider reflection on the role of communication as an option to improve practices. The technical development of a new medium, alone, cannot improve practices. Communication has been intended very broadly, in this thesis, as the activity of conveying information. It remained a loosely defined concept, giving direction to the study, but allowing at the same time - for the exploration of different fields, ambits, and theories. This approach allowed the construction and testing inductively and iteratively of an interdisciplinary framework on communication. Such a framework is particular as it was built from the perspective of a shelter and settlement practitioner interested in testing the potential of communication in practice, in the humanitarian context. The research unveils different angles from which to look at communication with reference to shelter and settlement: modalities and examples of communication; opportunities for its enhancement; perspectives from different actors and disciplines. Chapter 2 discusses the relevance of information and communication for improving practice. Chapter 6 looks at how advancements on IT can offer new perspectives for communication. Chapter 5 focuses on the actors amongst which information is conveyed. Chapters 3 and 4 explore the modalities through which communication can happen and its linkages with change. In other words, the thesis as a whole explores the concept of communication. It explores the meaning, the relevance and the practical implication of communication. It looks at its different facets and provides frameworks to enact it in practice.

1.3.3 Literature reviews and analysis of secondary sources

Grounded theory is used to consolidate new areas of study, and hence calls for an unconventional approach to the 'literature review'. Precisely because they are new, and still need to be defined, these areas could not be systematically explored through a conventional literature review at the inception of the work. In the hypotheticodeductive model, researchers begin their study of a phenomenon by reviewing literature, and the presentation of the findings follows the same logic. But what happens when the literature blurs with data, and constitutes evidence for the thesis? Whilst some key literature is used to set the scene and position the research in conventional terms, most references are used instrumentally, as data and evidence. Literature is continually searched for, in the process of research, as new areas appear for investigation. Furthermore, the relationship between their grounded theoretical frame and a broader literature to which it makes a contribution is sometimes a problematic issue, because the research questions are not usually framed in terms of an existing theory [Locke 2001: 121]. Consequently, when writing up, the literature review is not confined as an introductory chapter. It is woven in the narrative of the research, as an integral part of the process of building a new theory. This is also the case in this research, where most references are woven in the body of the thesis as evidence to build a case. This research makes extensive use of 'secondary sources', both when looking at shelter and settlement for refugees and when looking at communication. However, different challenges arose in using the literature.

22

Presenting the literature

The literature is presented in the study with a view to reproduce the process of linking literature to emerging concepts. Very broad pointers to key literature have been offered to situate specific topics in the context. However, in the spirit of grounded research, there is no overarching literature review on communication for shelter and settlement. The possibility to frame such a topic emerged only as a result of the research, when literature from various streams was compared with the data. Theories and concepts emerging from the narrative have been presented when building a case, in the narrative. The literature presented there is not by all means all that has been consulted and analysed in the process of research, but all that proved to fit the data that was emerging from practice.

Reviewing literature on shelter and settlement for refugees

Shelter and settlement for refugees has been looked at by a consolidated literature. Zetter [Zetter 1995] provided a comprehensive review of the subject in 1995. Other key references appeared since, and they have been pointed out in this research in section 2.2. In addition to this, a vast body of literature addresses the problematic of shelter and settlements in comparable ambits, focusing for example on situations of disasters or forced migration [see section 2.3]. Literature on shelter and settlement will be referred to in chapter 2. The point that I want to make here is that the analysis of the literature was not only important to establish the state of the art of shelter and settlement practices. Based on an extensive review of such literature the research could also identify key evidence and questions that would stir the study What body of knowledge is available for dissemination? An extensive desk review of materials relating to the interventions in the former Yugoslavia and in the CIS republics, for example, could identify only little material based on shelter and settlement practices, or lessons learned and ready to feed in to other crisis. The lack of literature became evidence of the relevance of a challenge that would drive this research: how to capitalise on experience, how to translate action into learning, and how to reduce the gap between policies and practices. A close scrutiny of the literature on shelter and settlement for refugees showed that it is was possible to highlight challenges for the sector, but it was much harder to pinpoint good practices. Hence the analysis of secondary sources became a way to understand to what extent communication was already happening and what areas were problematic. So, what are the issues and challenges for shelter and settlement, as a sector in refugee situations? This constitutes the basis on which to look at the role of communication in improving practices but, crucially, at improving policies too. The need to tackle the multi-sectoral dimensions of housing rather than the logistic and technical aspects of shelter delivery clearly emerged as a priority [see section 2.6].

23

Reviewing literature on communication

Whilst shelter and settlement literature for refugees was already effectively framed, the same was not true for communication. This thesis is aware of the complexity of the concept of communication, a concept that is situated at the crossroads of many, diverse disciplines, ranging from sociology to information theory, from cognitive science to political theory, from semantics to cybernetics, from structural linguistics to structural anthropology from business studies to critical theory. However, as Hartley points out, despite the earlier ambitions of finding a unified theory of communication, these different tendencies sometimes are connected, but never fully integrated [Hartley 2002]. Particularly interesting for this thesis was the emphasis that has been put on information/communication following the advent of the Internet [e.g. Castells 1996] and in studies that look at the practical implication of new modalities of communication exchange in the organisational context [Senge 1990, Argyris 1999]. They resulted in a vast literature as been referred to in the course of chapter 4 and 5. The point is that these various approaches and views on communication do not converge yet in a theory of communication, and the emphasis on only one of them as a starting point for investigation could be counterproductive. For example, if theories developed to look at communication in organisations are not mitigated by the view originating from other theories focusing on issues of power and control, the result is an over-functionalistic view of communication [Mattelart & Mattelart 2000]. Many aspects were found useful to understand communication for shelter and settlement in the course of the research, and the emphasis was on the integration of views offered by different theories. Significantly, different communication theories and angles do not yet come together in a vision of communication that can be readily applied to the humanitarian sector. And, reciprocally, the humanitarian sector does not investigate communication to provide a theory of its own. A broad framework for communication that could be applied to the humanitarian context was not available. Literature on communication in the humanitarian context is scattered amongst different disciplines: to name a few M&E, organizational learning, knowledge management. However, it tends to be quite sectoral and fragmented. Communication in the field of relief and development, tends to be linked to operational challenges rather than to broad theories. In the field of development (as it will be discussed in section 2.3), the push to communication mainly meant dissemination. In recent years, communication has been linked to initiatives aimed at spreading know-how [for a review of communication and the urban sector, for example, see Gandelsonas 2002]. In the ambit of relief, communication has been seen mainly as a technological challenge or as a coordination challenge [those aspects will be discussed in chapter 5 and 6 with reference to specific literature]. In looking at communication the research tries not to be limited by these perceptions. It has attempted a wider overview, making use of different concepts and perspectives on communication, given the nature of the topic. I wish to stress further two challenges that emerged, when it came to assess the ambit and the boundaries of the literature that needed to be consulted:

24

The wide debate on communication, knowledge, learning (i.e. not limited to the humanitarian sector), evolved quite rapidly in recent times. As an example, concepts that are now commonplace, such as communities of practices, were forged only after the inception of this research [Wenger 1998]. In this case, literature needed to be woven in the research process rather than systematically analysed beforehand. It is evident that literature needed to be used instrumentally, to spot new opportunities and directions in the quest for better communication for shelter and settlement. This confirms the validity of adopting a grounded theory approach.

Communication is still a relatively little studied topic in the humanitarian ambit, and the interest on communication and on related issues (learning, for example) started to take off very recently, when this research was well underway. Different aspects of communication have been looked at e.g. learning, M&E, reporting, etc. (see Edwards 1997, Van Brabant 1997, Alnap 2001, Alnap 2002) but still they are not framed cohesively. There is not an understanding of the wider meaning of communication in the humanitarian sector. The word communication is used reductively, or selectively. An example: communication jobs in the humanitarian sector (as they appear in the various websites like ReliefWeb or AlertNet) are still understood either as report writing for donors or as work with external media. So, simply, literature pertaining to communication in the humanitarian sector could not be reviewed in a conventional fashion: sectoral essays needed to be connected in new ways, to provide the holistic take on communication that is still missing. This required a process of framework building corroborated by data rather than one of review.

It should now be evident that since communication was not framed coherently and univocally, and because it was an evolving field, a conventional literature review was not viable. There were no pre-made visions of communications for shelter and settlement the relevance of which could simply be questioned and verified. The task of framing communication and building theory that could respond to the need of shelter and settlement sector was not a task that could be solved by a literature review: it was actually a task that the research, as a whole, needed to tackle. It was a process in which literature was to become - itself - evidence, and had to be triangulated with other perspectives gained through data collection. This is why grounded theory research does not normally proceed in the usual fashion of hypothesis development - literature search field research. The literature is used instrumentally and adapted - rather than imposed onto to the situation under study. It is elaborated in the process of intuition-verification described in the previous section. Glaser and Strauss point out the difficulties of trying to fit a category from another theory to the situation under study, describing it as forcing "round data" into "square categories". They suggest that "an effective strategy is, at first, literally to ignore the literature of theory and fact in the area under study, in order to assure that the emergence of categories will not be contaminated by concepts more suited to different areas. Similarities and convergence with the literature can be established after the analytic core of categories emerged [Glaser & Strauss 1967]. This instrumental use of literature was particularly suited as a way to look at different facets of communication. Communication for humanitarian intervention has not a consolidated theory that could serve as

25

an entry point in the subject. Relevant literature, on a case-by-case basis, needed to be searched across a vast range of disciplines. Literature was encountered in the process of this research (e.g. behavioural sciences, computer sciences, management). This way of proceeding has also the consequences on the writing up process: literature review is not offered beforehand, but becomes an integral part of the narrative of the research.

1.3.4 Data collection methods

As already indicated in Figure 1.1, the research consolidates the findings of many research streams. Data have been collected through a variety of modalities, and continuously triangulated. As pointed beforehand, the use of multiple data collection methods and data sources is well suited to a Grounded Theory approach. This is particularly true in a context like the one of this research, where different ambits and fields had to be tackled.

The importance of triangulation

The elaboration of data collected involved continuous comparisons and triangulation of data, considering:

Different methodological perspectives: triangulation is not limited to the use of different sets of data, but can extend to the use of multiple methods for study (as discussed - grounded theory encompasses different traditions of qualitative research) and/or multiple methodological perspectives to interpret a single set of data. This point has been already discussed in this chapter when pointing out how different methodological approach fed into the research.

Different ambits. The evidence emerging from the humanitarian sector was compared to other fields of expertise. Empirical data collected in crisis areas were scrutinised in connection with emerging theoretical debate. So, for example, the on-going experiments of communication for practitioners in the humanitarian sector were validated with experiences and models emerging from the private sector.

Different categories of informants: Much effort was put into contacting informants in different fields (different organisations, field/HQ, NGOs/other actors, knowledge managers/practitioners, doers/thinkers). Different data collection exercises, e.g. interviews, questionnaires, participant observation as detailed in the following.

A multiplicity of research methods and tools

Different data gathering modalities have been used. Rather than following a research methodology set on day one, the research relied on the use of a flexible methodological toolbox - a mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques to be adapted from case to case. Data gathering techniques had to be adapted to the challenges of research on knowledge and information. Previous studies on communication, dissemination, Internet for development have been useful in structuring strategies for data collection [see, for example Fitzgerald et al. 1984, Pinsonneault and Kraemer 1991, Myers 1997, Saywell and Cotton 1999, Rose 2000, Taylor 2001].
26

Participant observation in humanitarian settings.

During the course of this research I have been engaged in work in the field (in reconstruction projects as well as M&E). I have therefore gained first hand experience of some of the issues I have been dealing with in the research Being in the field, also provided the opportunity to engage in informal and frank discussions with other colleagues over their perceptions on communications in the humanitarian field. This proved to be invaluable in providing an insight and gaining a grasp on the challenges for information exchanges and learning at the field level. The perceptions gathered by participating in humanitarian missions were further widened by my involvement in parallel research projects, in particular one undertaken with the SDC on resettlement in the Balkans [Zetter, Ferretti, et al. 2002].

Participant observation in communication initiatives

The evidence gained from the research and the emerging frameworks have been tested through my practical involvement in relief and communication initiatives. I have been involved directly in running information and knowledge management projects, the two major initiatives were the Forum: habitat in developing countries prior to the beginning of this research and the Aid Workers Networks - towards the end of it. My role in both projects was very much the active one of doer rather than that of detached researcher. The investigation of those experiences was therefore modelled on practitioner-researcher [IDPproject 1999, ICG 2002] rather than on the more canonical form of Action Research [Baskerville 1999]. The work with both projects allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the foundations of information and knowledge management projects. It gave me a direct exposure to ideas, people, attitudes and challenges that no purely academic study alone could have provided. Practitioners and knowledge champions that I could not easily approach when wearing my academic hat - for lack of time or engagement - were eager to discuss and exchange ideas when confronted, instead, with a practical project. The involvement in the Aid Workers Network proved invaluable in reflecting on the challenges of improving communication amongst practitioners. It was also a formidable window on the world of knowledge management for humanitarian aid. Also, the project conquered the attention of many of those engaged in cutting edge humanitarian information / knowledge exchange projects and programmes, who contributed their visions, ideas, energies to the project, enriching it continuously. My main role has been mainly that of network facilitator, supporting users and animating exchanges. The day-to-day work on the network gave me a first hand exposure on the willingness of many field-workers to be part of a learning community, as well as to the stumbling blocks in the process. The key lesson of the AWN - a volunteer project - is that there is a strong desire among aid workers to exchange information, what is lacking is the opportunity to do so. The development of the network has been closely monitored. Quantitative metrics of the use have been collected. Feedback has been solicited and received

27

from users. Structured M&E exercises had not been launched, but the day-to-day feedback nevertheless provided useful insights on the communication needs and capacities of the aid workers community.

Questionnaires
Two questionnaires were launched in order to gather quantitative evidence about processes of information circulation.

A questionnaire aimed to understand individual perspectives on information (access to, availability and use of information). It was directed to two sample groups (one of researchers and one of aid-workers engaged in refugee settlement). An overview of the methodology followed is given in the next section. Appendix A contains the questionnaire and key results.

A questionnaire more qualitative in nature - directed to managers in the Humanitarian Information Centres, to gather data on their activity. This questionnaire clearly did not fit with the priorities in the HICs and had a very low response (one reply only out of 10 centres contacted). It is worth pointing out that face-to-face conversation with HIC personnel that I met in the centres themselves (Albania, Pakistan) or in contexts such as the Symposium on Humanitarian Assistance (Geneva 2002) proved to be a much better alternative to collecting proforma based data on the HIC.

The RedR/Forced Migration questionnaire At the end of 2001 an Internet questionnaire was launched in cooperation with RedR (Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief) and the Forced Migration Mailing List. Pros and cons of using the Internet have been pondered. The usage of e-mail as a tool to spread the questionnaire might create a bias, since the persons without access to Internet cannot be targeted in the first place. However, on the other side, this way of divulging it permitted me to reach a population that was scattered and highly mobile and could have hardly been reached by other means. The format of the questionnaire was discussed with representatives from both groups in order to be fine-tuned, and then sent out through e-mail. Users had two options to return the questionnaire: a) directly reply to the e-mail they received or b) respond on line on the given website. RedR selected a sample of aid-workers from its register of humanitarian workers. The criteria for selection were a competency level of 3 (out of 5) on construction / civil engineering in their database. This resulted in 269 candidates, of which 48 replied. A word of caution on the sample used is necessary here. The aid-workers reached by the questionnaire belonged to RedR, a register of aid-workers selected following an in-depth interview. They might be a sample well above average in terms of professional skills, expertise, contacts of those who can be met in the field working in shelter and settlement.

28

Whilst the RedR sample consisted of practitioners, the FM list primarily reached researchers and academics. The questionnaire was sent to the whole list twice, as the manager strongly supported it. Despite this, only 30 replies were received from a list that had several hundred members. So the results gathered from the researcher sample were less representative. The different response rate may indicate a different commitment of the respondents to the source. Members of FM List generally use it more casually, basically as a quick source of information. RedR members showed a stronger commitment to the invitation from their organisation and seemed to be keener to reply to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed and processed through Perseus, an Internet questionnaire software. The advantage of using that software is that the replies received by mail or through the web page could be automatically processed, with no need for inputting the data. Results could be collected in a spreadsheet that was then analysed. Selected results are presented at various points of this thesis (mainly chapters 5-6) as corroborating evidence.

Interviews and meetings

Interviews were held with representatives of development and relief organisations engaged in information and knowledge management, in various capacities (e.g. in Save the Children, Oxfam, Tearfund). In addition to this, I established face-to-face dialogue with key-informants on a wide number of specific topics. I had the chance to participate in a number of conferences and working groups of information and knowledge management practitioners (e.g. York Conference on Researching on Humanitarian Assistance in Conflict Areas, 2002; Geneva Symposium on Humanitarian Information Exchange, 2002; GIDN conference in Rome, 2002; EADI/IMWG Dublin 2003; Shelter Forum, Brussels 2003; REMAPP, 2003). It was a lively and rapidly evolving scene, where I could introduce and discuss the provisional results of my work, gaining feedback, as well as having a say on the ongoing debate.

The use of the Internet

Much data has been obtained through the Internet. It allowed to access a variety of actors and data, supporting a modality of research consistent with the pluralistic nature of grounded theory. The Internet has been explored in a variety of fashions: As a library, to gather formalised articles and publications as well as unpublished documents and reports held by organisations. And as a portal to whole websites. This was undertaken with caution as the heavy use of the Internet raises methodological issues such as quality and sourcing [Bryman 2000]. The extreme facility with which material can be posted on the Internet means, for example, that virtually everyone can publish materials, it was therefore vital to identify reliable sites and information providers. The researcher also had to deal with a range of materials which were of a temporary nature and could be removed or altered at short notice. Sometimes they were a hybrid between the informality of an oral source and the rigour of a written
29

communication. This investigation also resulted in the production of a vast repertory: sites, discussion lists, contacts have been identified, catalogued. This list was systematically revised and updated throughout the research. As a "conference room" or "workshop setting" where it has been possible to observe and participate in a number of on-going discussions. What emerged was the existence of a bustling community (organisations as well as individuals) that makes full use of the new technologies. As a vehicle for personal contacts through which it has been possible to get in touch with people active in humanitarian relief, and engage in exchanges of e-mail / grey literature; and As a vehicle for data gathering, to distribute the questionnaire. The Internet was a very powerful tool for the study. But, more important, it was also a field of study. The Fieldwork was aimed at looking at the interactions that happen on the Internet, when seen as a relational space. As explained in chapter 6, in fact, the Internet is not only a collection of documentation, but also a place where interaction and debates happen. The way information is produced, discussed, shared on the Internet is different from more traditional ways of exchange. The Internet supports exchanges among users in remote locations which could otherwise incur prohibitive communication costs. It sustains new forums, settings and actors for discussion. It allows for a more interactive knowledge environment, where people can more easily co-author documents and debate them. It blurs the distinction between author and publisher, and allows access to a wealth of "unpublished materials" (either in the form of formal reports as well as snappy articles and reviews). Those are only some of the aspects that are shaping new modalities of information exchange that I could observe in the field. Research methodology needs to adapt and understand this evolving information space to fully benefit from it. This means gaining new technical skills, but, above all, becoming familiar with the use of a new range of - still imperfect - tools (e.g. search engines) as well as of the "netiquette" that gives the rules of social relations on the net.

1.3.5 Presenting the findings

As noted in the introduction, this research is the result of many different streams. Each stream constitutes a miniresearch with its own literature review and methodology. The overall thesis is a combination of these research streams. The discussion so far should have clarified that each of these research streams has been tackled methodologically. They were based on sound methods for data gathering, and on top of this, they contributed to build an information pool that could be triangulated. However, it is important to point out here that the inductive and interconnected nature of a research based on grounded theory makes it more difficult to detail the evolution of the research in each of these individual streams. When it comes to presenting the findings, the focus is on integrating them, and not so much in describing individual streams of research. This is why so much emphasis
30

has been put in this introductory chapter in reconstructing the process that led to this thesis, so that the reader can reconnect the data with the research streams. I have already pointed out the peculiarities of presenting the literature review in research employing grounded theory. Similar challenges appear when presenting the findings. The relationships amongst the data are not presented in a step-by-step way, moving deductively from a hypothesis, but proceeding by re-conceptualisation and abstraction to create frameworks. Since the hypothesis emerges from the data, the process of linking hypothesis and evidence is less linear than in more orthodox methods. On the other side, this approach has the advantage of forcing an original re-conceptualisation of the data herewith including the literature review - to provide frameworks for interpreting communication. Frameworks to integrate concepts such as information for operations (chapter 3) and information for learning (chapter 4) actually emerged in the process of re-conceptualising the research streams. It can be argued that the writing up process was an integral part of the research process, as it allowed forming categories and relationships amongst different streams of research to emerge. And, as pointed out by Glaser and Strauss, writing up is not a process that follows research, but an endeavour that happens when research is still in progress, because research is constantly in progress in grounded theory. When generation of theory is the aim, however, one is constantly alert to emergent perspectives that will change and develop his theory. These perspectives can easily occur even on the final day of the study or when the manuscript is reviewed in page proof: so the published word is not the final one, but only a pause in the neverending process of generating theory. When verification is the main aim, publication of the study tends to give readers the impression that this is the last word [Glaser & Strauss 1967: 40].

The RefSettle website

Figure 1.6. The homepage of the Refsettle Website.

31

The research has made use of the Internet to circulate results and findings through the RefSettle website (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/refsettle). It was used to present the research as well as to share the resources collected through the study (for example, an extensive links collection that was assembled at the inception of the study to gain knowledge of what resources were available on line).

32

1.4

PROCESS OF FRAMEWORK BUILDING AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

A substantial contribution of the research lies in the conceptualisation of communication for shelter and settlement. Frameworks are grounded in the data, but seek to build an alternative discourse. A considerable amount of work went into tentatively organising the material and building the necessary conceptual maps, to provide a framework that could fit the data. The division of this thesis in chapters responds to the need of building a narrative that fits and organises the data. The iterative process of creation and verification of new questions arising in the course of the research was exemplified in Figure 1.1. Building blocks, sets of data and new categories emerged in the process. They need to be consolidated in a new framework. The structure of this thesis is modelled on the results of such endeavour. Communication emerges as an option to improve shelter and settlement practices from an analysis of: Shelter and settlement planning: orientations in the debate and practice in the sector. Identification of critical areas that could benefit from improved communication (see chapter 2). Information: review of the communication strategies and processes in the humanitarian sector, conceptualised as delivering information for operations and information from learning (see chapter 3 and 4). Organising a variety of communication processes (focusing, wherever possible, on shelter and settlement, but looking also at comparable sectors) in a comprehensive framework was a key undertaking of this thesis. The humanitarian sector lacks a holistic framework to tackle and deal with communication and information. Priorities and perspectives of different actors towards the information exchange, and tensions between exchanges at the individual and organisational level (see chapter 5). Conceptualisation of the Internet (as connected people rather than Internet as interconnected computers) and frameworks illustrating modalities and limitations for exchange of information (see chapter 6) Figure 1.7 shows how communication emerged as an option for improving practices, by continuously comparing these different perspectives. The figure also summarises the underlying conceptualisation that emerged to structure and interpret the data. The concluding chapter puts all these perspectives together. It discusses how the conjuncture of shelter and settlement policies and practices with communication provides an opportunity to improve practices and to rethink modalities of assistance. It also points out that the benefits of improved communication are not limited to shelter and settlement, but are central to the humanitarian debate and action as a whole.

33

Analysis of the humanitarian shelter and settlement sector (practices and reviews) to identify emergent challenges Identification of problem areas ... and linked communication challenges

Emerging challenges Grounding the hypothesis: Communication emerges as an option to improve shelter and settlement practices Emerging modalities

Analysis of communication practices in the humanitarian and comparable

Info for operations

Info from learning

Analysis of attitudes and behaviours of different actors

Emergence of spaces for communication

Analysis of the role of the Internet in enhancing the exchange of information for better practices

At the organisational level

As hardware As content

At the individual level

As network of people

Figure 1.7. Organisation of the thesis.

34

SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT PLANNING FOR REFUGEES

This chapter articulates key challenges for improving policies and practices in the refugee assistance through the shelter and settlement sector. It emerges that many challenges can be tackled through better communication. At this stage given the lack of a communication framework for humanitarian intervention the word communication is simply intended as an activity to convey information, but its meaning will be unpacked in the following chapters. The questions that will remain open and which will also be dealt with in the next chapters - is what communication can address such challenges. It will become evident in the course of this chapter that challenges for the shelter and settlement sector need to be spelt out, and that different challenges require different modalities of communication. The idea of communication needs to be explored and articulated. Communication can in fact - have different meanings, ranging from the enactment of a better exchange of contextual data or lessons learnt to the need to open a dialogue to redefine the shelter and settlement sector as a whole. Hence the need to frame communication, its medium and its actors, with reference to shelter and settlement and to the humanitarian sector as a whole. This will be done in the chapters that follow. In looking at shelter and settlement for refugees, this chapter tends to focus on broader issues than the how to of delivery. There are two main reasons for this: 1) experience in shelter and settlement delivery is scanty, and - as this research has acknowledged - relatively little experience has been accumulated in an easily transmittable format. This chapter will show instances of change (e.g. ShelterProject and the Sphere Standards). However the need for ways to increase accumulation of practical experience (in order not to reinvent the wheel) remains an important concern for this thesis; 2) better shelter and settlement for refugees are not only achieved through more efficient delivery, but by questioning the conceptual underpinning of the shelter and settlement sector (e.g. perceptions of needs and rights of refugees, understanding habitat as a holistic issue). Despite many reviews and years of practice in emergency situations, shelter and settlement is still an illdefined sector, vis--vis comparable sectors (water and sanitation, for example). It is more likely to be squeezed amongst non-food items (for example in the broader funding appeals) than to be regarded as a sector in its own right. Furthermore, shelter and settlement is conceived and implemented in a very restrictive sense (i.e. housing as a physical item). A further challenge for the sector that will be discussed in this chapter

35

is the operational separation of relief and development, which clashes with the character of permanence of shelter and settlement work. In the context of both exile and repatriation, the exclusive focus on delivery precludes the realisation of the potential of shelter and settlement as an economic multiplier, supporting livelihoods. Shelter and settlement work then fails to fulfil its potential in aggregating the multiple activities that are connected with habitat. Coping strategies of primary stakeholders are little appreciated and poorly integrated in the shelter and settlement response; and a considerable proportion of primary stakeholders actually fall out willingly or unwillingly of the assistance net. This chapter also highlights the distance between theory, which often proposes habitat processes supporting rather than hindering the capacity of refugees, and practice, too often limited to the application of schematic modalities of intervention. This is why realising a virtuous circle of policy feeding into practice (and viceversa) through better lesson learning and dissemination i.e. through better communication becomes key. I contend that improved communication is a factor conducive to improved conceptualisation and practice. But, in order to achieve this, communication needs to have different dimensions. Instances of communication might range from data exchange to the support of interdisciplinary dialogue around policies. Communication around operational issues is increasingly addressed, as I will discuss in chapter 3, but the potential of communication in supporting learning and the revision of practices and policies is still little exploited. Options for this will be discussed in chapter 4. Perspectives and contributions of different actors should also be taken into consideration when highlighting communication needs and possibilities. This will be done in chapter 5. There are still wide gaps amongst various actors looking at shelter and settlement for refugees from different and complementary perspectives. This is the case, for example, of anthropological conceptualisations pointing to interesting issues of self-reliance or of integration with host population which do not reach practitioners. The diffidence of practitioners towards academic products and the lack of arenas and tools to build dialogue (see chapter 5) have limited exchanges so far. The changing humanitarian landscape and the emergence of new issues and topics (e.g. rights based approaches, formulation of standards, professionalisation of the aid workers) might create an opportunity to open dialogue, and to rethink the shelter and settlement sector. Hence the need to identify which issues could benefit from improved communication, when revising practices and when sharing alternative strategies of intervention. It is also important to question if, and to what extent, shelter and settlement can become a better defined sector as well as a meeting point for different humanitarian actors, where to share skills, experience and expertise around the theme of habitat.

36

This chapter starts by revising the current orientations of the debate surrounding shelter and settlement focusing on different streams: a review of socio-anthropological studies, the debate on the new humanitarianism, and the debate on practices (2.2). I then discuss how shelter and settlement interventions in the humanitarian realm are shaped by political and cultural factors, such as the perception of refugees as victims or the conceptualisation of relief and development as two separate areas. I reflect on the resulting modalities of assistance (2.3). To indicate possible ways forward, I examine the on going debate on the need to create a shelter and settlement sector, through initiatives such as the ShelterProject and the Sphere Standards. I highlight the communication benefits of this endeavour in terms of creating an arena for debate and a shared body of practice and common standards (2.4). However, I also discuss the dangers of an excessive sectoralisation of shelter and settlement. Standards might be useful, but not standardized approaches. The multiple dimensions of shelter and the need for connectedness with other sectors are discussed. A holistic vision of shelter - not as a deliverable, but as a process - is endorsed. A more coherent approach that looks at rights over needs is advocated (2.5). Finally, the chapter points out that improving shelter and settlement involves communication around a vast number of issues, and highlights some of them. Communication modes suited to respond to the challenges highlighted are identified and grouped into two broad areas: communication for operations and communication from learning (2.6). Chapter 3 and 4 will discuss each of them in detail.

37

2.1

SITUATING THIS CHAPTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THESIS

Chapter 1 highlights the challenges that confront the shelter and settlement sector, and tentatively looks at how communication could respond to them. It is a key chapter, as it identifies the gaps that communication can help to bridge. The following chapters will build a framework on communication and will discuss, through it, how the needed communication processes can be enacted in practice, and what are the constraints in doing so.

Shelter and settlement sector

Challenges

Grounding the hypothesis

Information

Communication Options

Actors

Media

38

2.2

ORIENTATION OF THE DEBATE ON SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT

In 1995 Zetter published a review on shelter and settlement for refugees highlighting the state of the art and the challenges for the sector [Zetter 1995a]. His findings still hold. The critique of the refugee camp and the proposition of a more developmental approach to relief are still relevant themes, as confirmed by a wealth of research. Since then, the emergence of highly politicised crises imposed a broader debate on the nature of complex emergencies and responses to them. Humanitarian principles were challenged, and new yardsticks for interventions proposed. The Rwanda joint evaluation [Steering Committee 1996] was a groundbreaking exercise revealing the need to improve the quality and the professionalism of relief interventions. Donors demands, coupled with a genuine desire to improve interventions by humanitarian agencies, meant that significant effort had been devoted to gauging the efficiency and monitoring the effect of aid. Noticeably, agencies have joined their efforts to do this. Shared standards for intervention have been devised [Sphere Project 2003]. The push for greater collaboration has also resulted in better coordination in the field, in particular through improved information exchange. In recent years, the iconic image of refugee settlements as city-camps of Africa was superseded by the images of destroyed homes in the Balkans. Temporary settlements and returnee resettlement in temperate climates became in the light of the events in the Former Yugoslavia - the flavour of the day, and most research and action focused on this theme. Not that other refugee situations were lacking. Simply, most intervention and a disproportionate amount of funding reached the Balkans - a striking demonstration of the imbalance of the humanitarian landscape in the late 90s. The considerations on the state of the shelter and settlement sector put forward in the chapter are based on a broad review of literature produced in recent years. Three main streams stand out: Studies of a socio-anthropological nature, examining impacts of refugee situations. A vast body of knowledge illustrating the coping mechanisms of refugees is now available. It has a very broad geographical focus, but looks in particular at the African context. A leitmotif of this stream is the discussion on dependence vs. refugees as a resource. The seminal study of Harrell-Bond [Harrell-Bond 1993] was followed by a growing body of literature exemplifying these tensions in different settings. Another important theme is the discussion on the appropriateness of camps [Kibreab 1993, Black 1998a, Crisp 2003]. Those studies are mostly of an academic nature (for an overview on the anthropological studies in forced migration see: Colson 2003). As discussed in more detail further on in this study, practitioners only marginally consult these sources. Their impact on practice is therefore limited. It is, however, worth mentioning that the acknowledgement of the capacities of refugees resulted in some practical frameworks for use in the field, such as the do no harm approach and the capacity and vulnerability analysis [Anderson, Howarth, and Overholt 1992, Anderson 1999a, IFRC 1999].
39

Debate on the new humanitarianism. Recent years have been characterised by the emergence of a debate around the redefinition of humanitarianism and the modalities of aid delivery. Much debate was originated by the need to reconcile the character of relief as a neutral intervention in an increasingly politicised arena for action [Minear and Weis 1995, Tanguy and Terry 1999, Warner 1999, Chimni 2000, Leader 2000, Macrae 2002a, Oxley 2002, Porter 2002b, Rye Olsen, Carstensen, and Hyen 2002, ODI 2003, Smillie and Minear 2003a]. Humanitarian organisations and workers are continuously confronted with moral dilemmas [Slim 1997a] and are increasingly called to account for their choices [Callamard 2001, HAP 2003b]. The role of aid and humanitarian workers, the definition of the relationship between relief and development [European Commission 1996, Macrae et al. 1997, Crisp 2001], the need to ensure protection [Bonard 1999b, IASC 2002, UNHCR 2003b] and rights [COHRE 2000, Slim 2000, BouchetSaulnier 2001, Offenheiser and Holcombe 2001] are themes that engaged in discussion donors, implementing agencies and research groups with a strong orientation to practice (e.g. ODI). These emerging trends have a definite relevance for a discussion on shelter. However, a pool of experience that links those themes with practice is still lacking. Debate on practice (with reference to recent crisis). The modalities of intervention in the Former Yugoslavia were reviewed by several studies [on settlement and shelter for refugees see for example Barakat and Ellis 1995, Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002]. The crisis in east Timor and Afghanistan did not produce a comparable spurt of literature. A closer investigation looking at evaluations produced for these settings [e.g. Groupe URD 2002b] revealed that the role of the shelter sector was limited. All in all, there is relatively little material that captures the results of interventions. The vast array of documentation related to the crisis of former Yugoslavia that I could gather in the course of this research, for example, captured a good deal of contextual information and policy papers, but not much information related to practical field experience (e.g. details of projects, monitoring and evaluation reports, lessons learned). The lack of lessons learned weakens the debate on practice, depriving it of a solid foundation. Mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation and lesson learning are still poor, as discussed in chapter 4. And even when performed, the haphazard nature of such information (condensed in reports that have little or no circulation) as well as its sensitivity (as generated from a process of trial and error) makes it difficult to divulge and feed this information into a wider debate. Joint forums, such as ALNAP, are trying to actively collect and consolidate such information - also specifically in the shelter sector [ALNAP 2002a] - so that it can help inform this dialogue. However, despite these limitations, the debate on practice is progressing. Practitioners are actively sharing their own experience, and helping to consolidate that experience into standards and guidelines. One of the most important developments in the shelter sector is the development of a common set of standards for intervention through the Sphere Project. This enterprise channelled the experience of hundreds of practitioners towards the definition of minimum standards for assistance (see 2.4.2). The Shelter Project established in Cambridge, is a recent attempt to provide an arena for discussion to various
40

IGOs, NGOs and research groups involved in temporary shelter. Its main objective is the compilation of guidelines for transitional settlements [ShelterProject.org 2003b]. A few manuals devoted substantial parts to shelter and settlements [see for example: Davis and Lambert 1995, MSF 1997, Chalinder 1998, PAHO 2000, UNCHS (Habitat) 2001, Wisner and Adams 2002]. They mainly focus on the delivery of shelter and settlement to the field. These initiatives are certainly relevant, however it is worth pointing out that valuable information and experience gained at the field level is still insufficiently captured.

41

2.3

MODALITIES OF INTERVENTION

This research looks at refugees, people who left their home, forced by conflict and complex crisis. It discusses the response to their shelter and settlement needs whilst they are displaced, and when they return home. A first, fundamental question is: Is there a reason why the modalities of assistance for such groups are ad hoc? And to what extent, can practices and lessons learned from interventions in the shelter and settlement sector in other contexts (e.g. developmental interventions, natural disasters) be used and adapted? This section looks at how shelter and settlement interventions in conflict situations are shaped by political and cultural factors in such a way that resistance to the adoption of practices mediated from other sectors is created. Assumptions that underpin interventions (e.g. the temporariness of the condition, the vulnerability of the displaced, their separation from the social fabric) need to be scrutinized to see if they hold in practice, and what room for manoeuvre is left for borrowing and testing new practices and paradigms of action. Replying to this question will help to understand if, and to what extent, practices and concepts can be adapted from other sectors. It is really about understanding, how, and to what extent, interdisciplinary communication can support the improvement of shelter and settlement.

2.3.1 The recipients of shelter and settlement programmes

People displaced by a crisis: between disaster and forced migration

In looking at those displaced by conflict, this research encompasses several categories of people: refugees, IDPs and returnees. It also cuts through two broad ideas that are shaping how the debate and practice are conceptualised: the categories of forced migration and the idea of disaster. Both categories have been extensively scrutinised in the last decade. Forced Migration has been conceptualised as a fertile area of study, supported by a network of researchers and portals [Hansen no date, Forced Migration Online 2003]. Disaster (natural disaster in particular) has also been subject to considerable attention [publications specifically looking at shelter and settlement in the context of natural disaster include: Davis 1978, PADCO 1981, UNDRO 1982, Aysan anad Oliver 1987, Van Landerwijk & Shordt 1988, Dudley 1993, Aysan, Clayton et al. 1995, Disaster Management Center 1996, IFRCS 1998, Coburn & Spence 2002, Jugyasu 2002, Saunders 2002, Twigg 2002]. In particular, the decade for natural disaster reduction 1990-2000 created the opportunity for much research and reflection on modalities for risk reduction and disaster response [ISDR 2002], including specifically research for shelter and settlement [Aysan and Davis 1992].

42

This thesis focuses on a space that lies at the intersection of those categories, as shown in Figure 2.1. This is not, by any means, a clear-cut area. Rather than engaging in the impossible mission to define its borders, and list exactly what groups and situations are enclosed by it, the research shows how the limits of its centre of attention are fuzzy. In some cases it is pretty straightforward to determine whether a situation or a group gravitate towards the centre of the subject area. However, in many cases, the task is not so easy. Inclusion or exclusion in this area becomes also a matter of politics and choice. The problem is that different responses are adopted along a spectrum. The fuzziness of the situation in the field contrasts with a clear-cut division of modalities of assistance brought about by different actors and through different frameworks (see 2.3.2).

Forced migration
Development-induced.disaster induced

Disaster
Man made.natural

Figure 2.1.The centre of attention for this research. The graph shows how the central subject area of this research results from the intersection of disaster with forced migration. Further degrees of complexity could be achieved by plotting on it socio-political and economic factors, as well as individual choices (proactive vs. reactive migration), as proposed by Richmond [1994: 59]

The fuzzy borders around the central subject area of this research suggest a need for better coordination and for better communication of practice across developmental and relief approaches - to allow cross-fertilisation and expansion of available options, thus improving the responsiveness of interventions to situations that are rarely clear-cut.

Conflict-induced displaced as forced migrants

Forced migrants is a general term that refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced people (those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects [Loughna no date: web page].

43

Refugees, as defined in the Geneva Convention (1951) epitomise this category. Refugees is a powerful but restrictive label. The consequences of conceptualising it have been extensively discussed [Zetter 1991]. Originating from the need to offer protection, it comes at a cost: the stigma of separation. Refugees are aliens in a foreign territory, and, as such, they receive shelter, not houses. However, in recent years, it has been pointed out that other categories of forced migrants e.g. Internally Displaced Populations (IDPs) - could be in an even worse position. What makes refugees special is that they have crossed an international border, but the number of recent internal conflicts means that IDPs now are likely to double the number of refugees [Global IDP project 2003]. IDPs often experience the same levels of distress as refugees, but are less likely to receive assistance. UNHCR is entitled to take action only in limited cases; and donor funding is erratic. Attention for IDPs in recent years is increasing, as shown by the flourishing of many studies, such as Hampton [1998] and by the drafting of international guidelines for assistance, that have also been looking specifically at shelter and settlement for IDPs [UN-OCHA 1999, Birkeland 2003]. The work with IDPs can be even more challenging than relief operations for refugee influx: governments may limit access of international organisations to their territory, and the issue of balancing neutrality with a stance on human rights becomes acute. The humanitarian armamentarium of relief workers needs to be expanded to confront the challenges of operations in these situations. The wide term forced migrant also encompasses people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, famine, and development projects. It is thus a very blurred concept, which makes it hard to judge where along the migration-refugee continuum refugee type of assistance should stop. Much debate, for example, has surrounded the concept of environmental refugees, such as those displaced by the construction of dams and development projects, who have lost their homes and livelihoods [Castles 2002, Black 2001]. Forced migrants are often fleeing from conflict situations resulting from disaster. What form of assistance needs to be provided to such groups? Further, the very concept of forced migration is open to subversion: to what extent does forced migration differ from migration as a result of people forced to move for economic reasons - for example, in the case of rural-urban migration? This is a key question, because on one extreme of the forced migration spectrum there are refugees, with their entitlement to international assistance. On the other side there are thousands of people that migrate to urban areas. The response to their needs is diametrically different. Interventions for migrants encourage self-help and reliance, give priority to policies rather than direct delivery and increasingly value the contributions of immigrants to the local economies (for an overview of the latest trends see for example the reports of UN-HABITAT). The needs of a sizeable proportion of refugees are not catered for by humanitarian assistance. Refugees that fall out of the net of international protection can become rural or urban migrants. It is taken for granted that camp-based refugees will receive indefinite assistance [] while there has been an assumption that refugees in urban areas will always have to attain self-reliance [even if they] are not allowed to engage in income earning activities under national law nor are they able to access public services [Buscher 2003: 2].

44

In addition to the lack of international assistance, groups may be marginalized as minorities amongst tidal waves of other immigrants [on urban refugees see UNHCR 1995; Harrell-Bond 2002, Buscher 2003]. There might be some space for adopting modalities responsive to the needs of refugees modelled on those in use for other migrants. This is an issue of communication of practice amongst those operating in humanitarian assistance and those tackling developmental needs. However, there is very limited research on self settled refugees in the urban areas of the south [Black 1998b] and the specific challenges that they might face possible solutions are still, by large, unknown. There is also the question of what assistance should be provided to the displaced when host populations also experience poverty and distress. In these situations two-tiered modalities of assistance or exclusion can offend local people and foster tension between disaster-affected population and residents [Sphere Project Team and Management Committee 2002]. The dilemma is evident. In the case of self-settled refugees in urban centres, for example refugees live among their hosts in neighbourhoods and districts characterized by lack of resources, difficult access to education, and overall economic, social, and political neglect by the host government. Providing humanitarian assistance to refugees alone results in jealousy and anger by underprivileged urban locals, while NOT to recognize the special needs of refugees in many contexts means to relegate them to an even more marginalized, vulnerable, and risk-laden existence than their poor neighbours [Fbos 2003: 4].

Conflict-induced displaced peoples as victims of disaster.

The aim of humanitarian aid is to provide help to people in third countries, who have been victims of natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, droughts, hurricanes), or man-made disasters (wars, conflicts, outbreaks of fighting) or structural crises (severe political, economic or social breakdowns) [European Union 2002: web page]. Overlapping of causes also occurs (e.g. conflict/drought in Afghanistan). The interesting point is that despite the assertion that humanitarian aid decisions are to be taken impartially and solely according to the victims' needs and interests (ibidem) in fact diverging modalities of assistance are more and more apparent. In terms of natural disaster the reliance on local capacities is increasingly advocated [Blaikie et al. 1994]. In relief, assistance is a matter of delivery [Harrell-Bond 1993] and of temporary, band-aid solutions. The shelter and settlement sector epitomises this: while in the aftermath of a natural disaster the focus is on reconstruction as a way to channel local capacities, humanitarian assistance for complex crises fails to capitalise on the housing sector. Substitution strategies assume a lack of local counterparts. Furthermore, as housing would involve an idea of permanence that cannot be politically accepted, shelter is offered instead (see 2.5.1). This is why the provision of temporary shelter and settlement are so different in natural as compared to complex crises. In some cases, the response might be apparently similar (e.g. a tent, a provisional shelter).
45

But in the context of natural crisis, people are usually still living on their land, their rights are not questioned or limited, they are free to use their capacities. Hence response is oriented towards building and reinforcing these capacities. This thesis shows that in the context of relief, rights are curtailed, and capacities cannot be fully expressed. Whilst much could be learned from the response to natural disasters in terms of more responsive and victim-driven solutions, this cannot be realised in a context where communities are prevented from establishing their livelihoods. Interestingly the humanitarian mode of action extends also to the situation of returnees, where in fact the idea of separation that determines the difference in humanitarian modalities described above is no longer justifiable. Assistance is delivered by the same international organisations that operate in times of exodus. They maintain a focus on delivery of aid (e.g. direct reconstruction of a core of the house or distribution of shelter kits) rather than on local capacities. These organisations are still relatively ill equipped to operate in the developmental mode required by rehabilitation programmes. A good example of this includes the reconstruction programmes in the Balkans. For months after the crisis they were oriented to direct reconstruction of houses: aid ended up being used to rebuild houses, but not to support the housing industry [Boano 2003]. This is yet another example of the need to focus on expanding capacity through better communication and exchange of practice - not only the capacity of the victims of a crisis, but also of the organisations that are responding to the crisis. To summarise: there are, apparently, many similarities amongst natural disaster / refugee situations when the key issue is to house people. However, the experiences and the learning accumulated by those operating in natural disaster cannot be easily adapted to the refugee situation because the politics that surrounds housing of refugees, simply do not allow building permanent housing in the same way that it is done after an earthquake or a typhoon. Communication of experiences needs to happen of course, but broader dialogue and advocacy needs to take place to remove the barriers that still constrain the involvement of refugees in housing.

2.3.2 Paradigms for intervention: development vs. relief

In the paragraphs that follow I highlight current modalities of interventions in the shelter and settlement sector. I will discuss first how the perception of shelter and settlement for refugees as an emergency event shapes the response, and I will argue the need to question and to rethink the separation of relief and development. Rethinking the positioning of shelter and settlement amongst relief and development has important repercussions on a discussion about communication. For example, it forces to question why circulation of practices amongst relief and development practitioners have been limited, and if and to what extent it is possible to advocate more developmental modalities of intervention in the relief sphere. I will then illustrate
46

the current modalities of intervention, looking in particular at the issues linked to the camp approach. It should become evident that communication has a role in improving shelter and settlement. This communication should not only focus on better circulation of practices (i.e. how to build a better camp). It should suggest the need for stronger analysis that, ultimately would result in more options for housing the refugees.

The gaps, the bridges

Vis--vis a continuum of situations, forced migrants and victims of crisis tend to be supported through clearcut paradigms of intervention: development vs. relief. Whilst the situation in the field seems to suggest the intermingling of such paradigms, the operational reality is different. Relief and development have been traditionally pursued as separate activities. From a communication perspective, the problem is that this compartmentalisation constrains the circulation of expertise and limits synergy. These issues will be analysed more deeply in this chapter. An extensive literature has examined the relief / development dichotomy, discussing the gap [Macrae et al. 1997, Crisp 2001] and focusing on the continuum [European Commission 1996]. Shelter lies precariously in the space between relief and development. It is a life saving measure, the most durable relief measure. Its character of permanence should suggest the adoption of developmental approaches. However, the gap between relief and developmental practice remains. There is a need to understand to what extent different solutions are justified by the situation on the ground, and to what extent they result from the lack of familiarity with alternative tools (or from the impossibility of employing them). Relief can be characterised as oriented at temporary solutions, delivering hard items to satisfy the basic needs of the victims. Relief is planned within a short time frame and undertaken by international agencies acting in the absence of a State, or substituting for it. No cost recovery is planned. In shelter terms, it is epitomized by the delivery of plastic sheeting or by the direct reconstruction of houses. Development looks at long-term objectives, through soft programmes that enforce the rights of the population, and build their capacity. It aims at sustainable interventions, hence partnership with civil society and with the local institutions, as well as issues of cost-recovery, are deemed essential. If this characterised vision of relief versus development (stability / chaos, temporality / sustainability etc) is examined and contextualised, it becomes apparent that the distinction is not clear-cut in reality. It is the distinction amongst relief/development agencies and operators that is very real and can straitjacket interventions. Breaking down the distinction between relief/ development in smaller and actionable sections is an attempt to identify areas where the communication of know-how and practices, around operational issues, is feasible and could help in breaking the divide. Some of these couplets determine, broadly, the modalities followed not only in the shelter and settlement sector, but in all sphere of intervention. Even if in some cases direct reference to
47

the shelter and settlement sector is not obvious, they still need to be discussed. Relatively abstract conceptions (e.g. principled/political view) have at the end of the day - very practical repercussions in the way aid is delivered (or not delivered) as they determine the framework for interventions that will be followed by implementing agencies and donors.

PRINCIPLED

basis

POLITICAL

The emergency of a developmental orthodoxy - that relief aid should serve a developmental role, and that it can and should play a role in peace building [Macrae 1999: 1] - has been seen as a challenge to the specificity of humanitarian interventions, provoking intense debate amongst developmentalists and back-tobasic advocates [White and Cliffe 2000]. Should developmental relief be rejected as the Trojan horse that can weaken humanitarian aid by compromising its funding principles? Is it an attempt at normalising crisis, based on simplistic analyses which fail to understand the specificity of the context where humanitarians intervene, and hence risks to compromise efficiency? [Hendrickson 1998, Bradbury 2000, Leader 2000] Macrae dismisses easy solutions where the challenge of linking relief and development aid more effectively is essentially a technical and managerial task [Macrae 2001: 51] arguing that preserving this distinction, rather than blurring it, is crucial to maintaining the integrity and technical efficacy of both forms of aid []. It is not simply bullishness or an anti-development stance on the part of humanitarian actors that lead some to reject an emphasis on capacity building and sustainable development: it is a reflection of the particular political and economic context of conflict situation [Macrae 2001 : 51]. However, as Slim puts it, perpetuating a rigid distinction between humanitarian values and development values opens the door to absurd questions of comparison between the two. Is humanitarian work only about saving life? Is development work long term and humanitarian work short term? Is one apolitical and the other political? The answer is, of course, that both humanitarianism and development are concerned with saving life, both are short and long term, and both are political in the proper sense of being concerned with the use and abuse of power in human relations. The idea that there is an implicit distinction in values between humanitarianism and development, which is encouraged by the relief-development dualism, is misconceived [Slim 2000: 492].

CHAOS THREATS

operational environment

STABILITY SECURITY

Crises at their peak are certainly demanding. They require the capacity to be effective and to deliver lifesaving aid in Chaos, and in a situation of flux. They involve responding to the needs of many actors. Incidentally, Chaos has an important relationship with information: making sense out of chaos is a priority in emergencies, demanding rapid and efficient information gathering and exchange, and possibly coordination (see chapter 3). However relief does not always happen in chaotic and extreme conditions.
48

Crises fade away, there is rarely a distinct end to the emergency [Schafer 2002]. This leaves us with the problem of how to move from relief to developmental assistance. The end of the crisis is more likely to be marked by the slow death of funding and donor fatigue rather than by dramatic changes in the situation. There is also a problem of threshold: which situations can be defined as crisis situations? In the context of growing instability drawing a threshold is a highly subjective judgement, and objective criteria are lacking [Darcy 2003]. Employing relief might be a matter of choice, but when put in place with substantive and quickly disbursed (but also short term) funding, relief tends to override other modalities of assistance. Choosing to declare a crisis determines what resources will be available, which actors will intervene, what types of interventions are possible, what standards might be applied. Critically, whilst temporary shelter suits a situation of flux and is seen fit in the context of short term planning, durable solutions are not judged viable: they are perceived as an unwise investment of funds. Hence, the problem of setting up durable solutions in insecure contexts. Insecure contexts could still be tackled through longer term interventions, for example in terms of shelter and settlement interventions, but these prospects might be still too risky for implementing agencies and donors. Also delays and suspensions that can derive from security reasons, cannot be easily dealt with in a context of short term funding, In fact, a range of several factors may contribute to determine the status of a crisis in the international agenda: conditions imposed by the government in power, donor fatigue [Adinolfi 2002], pressure of public opinion and the media, and, above all, the degree of donor interest in the crisis area [Smillie 1998, Oxfam 2000a, Oxley 2001, Rye Olsen, Carstensen, and Hyen 2002, Smillie and Minear 2003a]. The nineties, a time of shifting geo-political equilibrium, were punctuated by many crises, but not all of them provoked the same response. The existence of double standards by the international community when dealing with humanitarian emergencies is a fact: most resources for assistance have been earmarked for loud emergencies [Porter 2002b], while other situations of need go under-financed or have not been recognised as crisis [Oxfam 2000a]. Interestingly, the availability of funds peaks when the crisis is under the spotlight, and it is often linked to the delivery of life saving aid, for example food. Costly shelter interventions might be scheduled when the prominence of a crisis fades, that is when the level of overall funding decreases. In the absence of agreed mechanisms for determining the response to crises, the levels of funding do not seem to correlate with levels of need [Darcy 2003: 2] and the failings of the system in this regard are too easily masked by ambiguity and inconsistency in the analysis of situations, and uncertainty in the aims of the humanitarian enterprise itself [Darcy 2003: 23]. Crises might happen behind the scenes, without being declared as such. People are displaced, settle, cope and return on their own, far from the spotlight. Development and relief co-exist: development actors can operate in conflict situations or humanitarian ones in relatively stable situations. Hence, the importance of improving communication of practices, to harmonise, connect and coordinate interventions, and to increase the capacity to operate in situations that are not clearcut.

49

SHORT-TERM TRANSIENCE

timeframe

LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

Moore pointed out that Humanitarian agencies do not design their work adequately to meet long-term goals; development organizations fail to design theirs to deal with fragile and volatile circumstances [Moore 1999: web page]. In humanitarian interventions, the timeframe is short term (despite the fact that refugee situation might last for years). The temporariness is connected to the emphasis on return as the ultimate solution (and refusal of integration) and is reinforced by the modalities of funding relief that are project and contract based, with short time frames. In a development situation, programmes work towards achieving lasting objectives and sustainability, and aim at increasing the capacity of the primary stakeholders. In the context of relief, instead, interventions have long been criticised as creating dependency [Cuny 1983] and the idea of realising sustainability is still poorly understood. In an acute crisis situation sustainability may be at odds with the lack of institutions and infrastructures on which development depends and moves towards sustainability can be premature [White and Cliffe 2000]. However, in other circumstances, a move towards longer-term sustainable interventions of which shelter and settlement are the most visible materialisation of durable solutions, is often not acceptable; both because it clashes with the wishes of achieving early repatriation of refugees on part of the host countries [Crisp and Jacobsen 1998] and with the reluctance of donors who are afraid of making long term commitments [Mancino, Malley, and Cornejo 2001]. The point is that even temporary solutions have long lasting effects [see for example Ellis & Barakat 1996 on the case of Croatian refugees]. The assumption of temporariness is sometimes only an operational myth. Protracted refugee situations [Stein 1985, Jamal 2000, Dick 2002, Crisp 2003] are an example of how the relief-mode is maintained for a long time, even in conditions of relative stability and security. Those are cases of development forbidden, rather than protracted relief - deriving from the incapacity of the international community to accept permanent solutions other than repatriation. The emphasis on repatriation as the preferred solution has been discussed in many studies, which question its feasibility [see for example: Chimni 1999, Bakewell 1999, Crisp 2000a]. Those who emphasise repatriation assume that asylum is a transient stage even when many refugee situations are, de-facto permanent (e.g. the Palestinian case, protracted refugee situation in Africa etc). The prevalent approach in relief is to work by short timeframes and reiterate the same form of assistance, based on short, self-contained, sectoral projects. As Crisp observes, rather than responding to this impasse in innovative ways, the principal members of the international refugee regime (host and donor countries, UNHCR and NGOs) chose to implement long-term 'care-and-maintenance' programmes which do little or nothing to promote self-reliance amongst refugees or to facilitate positive interactions between the exiled and local populations.... [this is partly because they] had a vested interest in perpetuating the 'relief model' of refugee assistance, which entailed the establishment of large, highly visible and internationally funded camps, administered entirely separately from the surrounding area and population [Crisp 2003: 4]. The provision of temporary shelter is then reduced to the periodical delivery of plastic sheeting, rather than investing in
50

incremental improvement of settlement options. In these cases, interventions that do not question the temporariness of those situations, far from being neutral espouse, in reality, a political choice. There is a need to move away from such band-aid solutions. The transience of the response to a sustainability paradigm requires communication across the relief and development divide. As a first step, operational communication across stakeholders might help to build continuity through better linkages and coordination of a succession of short-term projects, and start a virtuous circle of exchange and connection of practices.

SUBSTITUTION SEPARATION

governance

CAPACITY BUILDING INTEGRATION

Relief is delivered mostly through a substitution strategy, without relying on local counterparts. On the one hand, relief aid is unconditional but delivered outside the state. On the other hand, development aid is conditional upon the presence of an internationally accepted recognised state and assumes that the government is the legitimate and primary counterpart for aid relations [Macrae 1999 : 17]. I already mentioned that the interventions adopted for forced migrants not labelled as refugees, such as migrants from rural areas, are now modelled on paradigm of policy intervention (rather than delivery). In developmental settings, the state and the local administrations facilitate and promote the efforts of those who are helping themselves in getting a place to live. Clearly little can be made to adapt those models for interventions in a context where the state does not want to deal with the refugees or as in the context of return is too weak to do so. Humanitarian action in complex crises needs also to confront the fact that in highly politicised contexts - the adoption of developmental strategies would imply making difficult choices about the legitimacy and desirability of different national institutions [ODI 1998, Ellis 2001]. In most cases host countries agree to provide sanctuary to refugees if they are then kept separate from the local population [Crisp and Jacobsen 1998]. Shelter and settlement is provided through parallel systems, specifically targeted to the refugee population, and this is often coordinated by ad hoc refugee departments at the government level. At a more fundamental level, state and local structures have often collapsed; in which case the only option left to humanitarian organisations is to become directly involved in the provision of services. Is the substitution strategy always motivated by a desire for neutrality, or out of sheer necessity? Substitution strategies are the by-product of a regime that pursues the segregation of refugees. They are based on the perception of refugees as a burden [UNHCR 2002c, Phillips 2003, UNHCR no date], which does not acknowledge them as an opportunity to stimulate the local economy [Zetter 1992, Jacobsen 2001,
51

UNHCR 2002b]. Zetter, for example, noticed, that in situations where refuges are self-settled, the levels of investment necessary to achieve a modest stimulation of the regional economy (e.g. communications infrastructure, supply of building materials, trading and market centres, and selective investment in industrial and agricultural sectors) are likely to be far fewer and the returns far greater, for refugees and for the hosts, than for investment in conventional camps and settlement [Zetter 1995a]. The separation displaced / indigenous population is rooted in what Stein defines as host hesitancy: hosts are not prepared to offer durable solutions to integrate refugees in their societies [Stein 1985: web page]. Ensuring that refugees remain a visible and easily identified target group for international aid is important in demanding burden-sharing [Bakewell 2001: 3]. Some hosts are twice-shy about accepting refugees as past experiences with international integration assistance established services and infrastructure but did not cover the long-term recurrent costs of maintaining refugees [Stein 1985: web page]. Refugee camps - as selfcontained systems providing separate support and services to the inhabitants - are the physical incarnation of this parallel system, forcing separation rather than questioning it (2.3.3). The substitution strategy is often congruent with the vested interests of institutional actors involved in relief and results in duplicated structures that are very hard to dismantle: host governments establish separate offices for refugee affairs, and depend on international humanitarian agencies for financial assistance to maintain their staff and offices as well as to assist refugees. Humanitarian NGOs whose business was to provide these parallel relief services might also resist integration, because they could obviously lose their sources of funding [Harrell-Bond 2002]. A structural problem for relief is that it tends to operate through parallel, expatriate driven systems by default, and there is little familiarity with other alternatives. Once established, the system becomes self contained, myopic and fails to see and tackle unmet needs. The separation has an important impact on communication. It increases sectoralisation, and makes coordination amongst relief and developmental actors more difficult. It is also conducive to a separation of practices (resulting in lack of connectedness) and of experience and knowledge.

VICTIMS DEPENDENCY

perception of primary stakeholders

RESOURCES SELF RELIANCE

Whilst, increasingly, natural disaster responses now foster self-sufficiency of victims and focus on their capacities, in a refugee context questions of development and human capabilities are put on hold the situation is supposed to be merely temporary after all [Jacobsen 2001: 3].

52

Many studies have highlighted both the failure of the relief system to see refugees as resources [HarrellBond 1993, Blaikie et al. 1994] and the risk of relief creating a culture of dependency [Cuny 1983, HarrellBond 1993]. Contrary to what is agreed common practice in development projects, there is little consideration and contrasting pressures - for involving refugees in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes. This applies also to shelter and settlement interventions [Anderson 1995, Corsellis 2001, Kaiser 2002]. This results in weakening capacities that might have been in place when international assistance arrived, rather than capitalising on them [Quinn 2002]. For example, reconstruction processes often undermine the self-reliance that women gained through war situations, and may hamper their subsistence in the future [Rehn and Sirleaf 2002]. The need to build on existing capacity, as well as to address vulnerabilities, to improve participation, etc. has been pointed out repeatedly and has been put into practice [Anderson, Howarth, and Overholt 1992, IFRC 1995, IFRC 1999]. Objective limitations posed by working in conflict areas might reduce participation, but the permanence of a top-down approach is largely due to the rigidity of agency systems and procedures, and to the attitudes and understanding of key field staff [Boyden, Kaiser, and Springett 2002, Groupe URD 2003]. The challenge is how to phase out when the care and maintenance phase stretches indefinitely, and temporary settlements become permanent recipients of international aid [Stein 1985]. It is now agreed that refugees should become self-reliant. Self reliance does not presuppose that refugees will find a durable solution in the country of asylum [DeWolf 1994], it is rather seen as part of a continuum that will eventually allow assistance to fade out even in the absence of durable solutions. Self-reliance, in the current context, is a catch 22 situation. It can only be achieved in an enabling environment: access to the local economy, availability of affordable housing or access to land [ENNonline 1999, Kaiser 2000, UNHCR 2002b]. Small settlement sizes, organised communities and freedom of movement and interaction with the host population favour integration, whilst insecurity, negative attitudes, lack of connectedness amongst relief interventions and the attitudes of the host government limit it. [Stein 1985, Demusz 1998, Dick 2002, Muggah 2003]. All of this is linked to integration, but integration is precisely what is denied to the displaced. Building self-reliance in a relief situation is about striking a delicate balance. Bradbury noticed that forceful strategies to reduce reliance (e.g. reduction of food rations to war-displaced peoples) makes beneficiaries dependent on unsustainable 'coping strategies' and exploitative economic relations [Bradbury 2000]. Dick compares processes of facilitation of self reliance to the painful but necessary putting away the crutches in the treatment for a broken leg. He points out that it is necessary to assess needs on an individual or family basis to determine who is and who is not eligible for protection and for support programmes [Dick 2002]. Rather than assuming that the whole population is vulnerable in the same way, prolonged assistance should recognise differentials in the capacity and needs of displaced people. However, international assistance tends to work through modalities that are not responsive to the needs of dispersed refugee population. Especially in situations of mass influx, the label refugee tends to overshadow individual characteristics of refugees, and
53

proposes a relatively undifferentiated blanket approach, with little consideration of individual needs and resources of the people. It is only recently, for example, that frameworks and studies promoting a gender approach to relief have begun to emerge [see for example: Wiest, Mocellin, and Motsisi 1994, Byrne and Baden 1995, Benjamin and Fancy 1998, Karam and Ulrichsen 2002, Vann 2002, Hovy 2003]. The issue is still overlooked in practice. The issue here which is fundamentally a communication issue is not only advocating differentiated approaches in practice, but also promoting and disseminating the research that is needed to support them. Supporting self-reliance is about putting in practice developmental skills (e.g. community-development, income-generation and micro-finance activities, education, training as well as job-oriented skills development programmes) that are a scarce resource amongst many relief agencies. As Crisp points out, the expertise of relief actors is sometimes insufficient to deal with key factors influencing self-reliance, and in those circumstances the involvement of development actors - national, regional and international - is necessary. [Crisp 2003] At this stage partnerships among the various stakeholders is essential, as well as informationsharing, joint strategic planning and programming, coordination and division of labour between different actors [UNHCR 2002b]. These are clearly realms where effective communication amongst relief and development workers can improve interventions. It can enable an exchange of intervention paradigms and frameworks and also, foster the dialogue across development and relief organisations that is necessary to smooth the transition to self-reliance.

Rehabilitation
A new label is emerging, rehabilitation. It is an overall, dynamic and intermediate strategy of institutional reform and reinforcement, of reconstruction and improvement of infrastructure and services, supporting the initiatives and actions of the population concerned, in the political, economic and social domains, and aimed towards the resumption of sustainable development [European Commission 1996: web page]. The introduction of rehabilitation on one hand reduces relief to the pure provision of life saving measures, but, on the other, gives credit to the idea of adopting developmental measures in times of crisis. In short, emergency is saving lives, rehabilitation is saving livelihoods [UNCHS (Habitat) 2001: 13]. However rehabilitation is still under-funded, understudied and under-reported, suffering from unclear definition and form, uncertain aims and objectives [Smillie 1998]. Actors engaged in rehabilitation still lack coherent strategic long-term approaches to implementation [Pugh 1998]. Rehabilitation is still an uncertain territory for organisations working in relief or development. It requires forms of collaboration and exchange of practice that are still lacking, as well as support from donors, who seem to prefer funding short term [Moore 1999], quick result action.

54

Development operations have long-term objectives, extending beyond two years, and presume conditions of security and functioning administration pursuing national objectives and strategies in partnership with external actors. Feasibility studies and full project appraisal, economic rates of return, environmental impact assessments and social analysis (including gender) are common. Beneficiary and local government ownership is normally sought. Conflict prevention may include actions undertaken over the short term to reduce manifest tensions, and to prevent the outbreak or recurrence of violent conflict. Emergency relief involves immediate, survival assistance to the victims of crisis and violent conflict. Most relief operations are initiated at short notice and have a short implementation period with project objectives generally completed within a year. The main purpose is to save lives. External financial and personnel inputs are often predominant. Rehabilitation operations overlap with relief operations and objectives are normally targeted for achievement within two years. The principal aims are to initiate reconstruction of infrastructure at the national and local levels and to save livelihoods. As beneficiary self-sufficiency is a major objective, programme management is progressively put under local control. Cost recovery schemes, large-scale employment generating projects and revolving funds operations can be introduced. In situation of continuing instability, disaster prevention (avoiding a return to the emergency) and mitigation (reducing the impact of any deterioration in the situation) are essential aspects of the rehabilitation effort. Peace building and reconciliation: long term support to, and establishment of, viable political and socioeconomic and cultural institutions capable of addressing the root causes of conflicts, as well as other initiatives aims at creating the necessary conditions for sustained peace and stability. These activities also seek to promote the integration of competing or marginalized groups within mainstream society, through providing equitable access to political decision making, social networks, economic resources and information, and can be implemented in all phases of conflict.

Table 2.1. Development, relief and rehabilitation. [Definitions adapted from (OECD/DAC 1997]

Whether the adoption of the triptych relief-rehabilitation-development as synchronous but compartmentalised approaches is adequate for shelter interventions remains to be discussed. Defining rehabilitation has the merit of making clear that there is a grey space between relief and development that needs to be tackled [Pirotte, Husson, and Grunewald 1999]. It is a space that has particular relevance for shelter and settlement practices. Rehabilitation is, in fact, often about investing in hard realisations (homes, infrastructures...) that have a role in rebuilding the social fabric. The problem is that if rehabilitation becomes just yet another label - neither solidly grounded in shared practices, nor having a clear institutional or financial space - it may weaken the integration of relief and development rather than to reinforce it. It remains to be seen if and to what extent rehabilitation is a label that can foster communication by helping to aggregate a dialogue on practices and policies and the exchange of experiences.

2.3.3 Modalities for assistance

Having discussed shelter and settlement across the relief - development divide, I will now look in more detail, based on an extensive literature review, at the modalities of assistance for refugees. Shelter and settlement for refugees is a very generic designation, enclosing a variety of situations and a multiplicity of recipients. I pointed out that there is more than one category of displaced. Similarly, there is not only one modality of displacement, and individuals might be offered an array of durable solutions as summarised in Figure 2.2. Needless to say, the context, the evolution and duration of the crisis will also change dramatically. Host countries will have different attitudes and capacities. In addition, the commitment of
55

PRECEBUILDING; RECONCILIATION; CONFLICT PREVENTION

RELIEF IDEVELOPMENT REHABILITATION

EWS

the international community to offering assistance can vary dramatically from crisis to crisis. This suggests an opportunity for a variety of tools and approaches to sheltering and settling refugees.

refugees
Displacement Asylum in western countries

IDPs RECIPIENTS OF INTL. ASSITANCE

Temporary settlements Prolonged refugee situation Resettlement in third country

Return

Self settled refugees

Integration (or de facto integration) Host communities

Figure 2.2. Modalities of assistance to refugees.

Despite this, the tendency is to adopt a very limited array of solutions, scaling them up or down according to the resources available. Assistance is prevalently linked with the control of the refugee influx. The humanitarian system is not only modelled on the desire to save lives, but also, on the effort to minimise the impact of refugees on their hosts. Refugees who self-settle independently in many cases end up doing so illegally or pay for their freedom with the loss of assistance: autonomy is not rewarded by a system that favours control and efficiency. There are differences in the way in which shelter and settlement for refugees are discussed in the west compared to other countries. This research will focus on the latter, i.e. where international assistance is prevalent. Shelter and settlement in the west tend to be a welfare activity that host governments confront with their own resources through evolving legislation, and which is more and more oriented to control [see for example: DRC 2000, Zetter et al. 2001, Zetter et al. 2003]. The point, however, is that refugees do self-settle and find alternative solutions. Acknowledging this and understanding their coping strategies is important if the relief system wants to address the needs of the many, rather than simply the minority that are sheltered in camps. This is why communication between those undertaking research on coping strategies and practitioners revising their interventions is of paramount importance (see chapter 5).

56

The prevalence of the camp

One of the most striking features of international assistance to refugees is that the majority of them do not have access to it. The majority of refugees are self-settled, but it is camps that receive the bulk of funding. In 2001, 40% (5.8 million) of all persons of concern to UNHCR were living in refugee camps with wide variations: 50% of population living in camps in Asia and Africa and only 10% in the west - 13% in urban areas and the remaining 47% either dispersed in rural areas or in unknown locations [UNHCR 2002a]. (Note that aggregated data are missing for resettlement and repatriation activities). It is worth pointing out that these figures are only an approximation of reality and over-estimate the share of camps in providing assistance to refugees. The camp is not only a physical feature (an agglomerate of tents and houses, and the infrastructure that supports them). It is the materialisation of the current refugee system. It is the end product of attitudes and priorities of hosts as well as of international actors. The camp is functional to the needs of security and protection (use of enclosed, sheltered controlled areas [Bakewell 2001, IASC 2002]), of separation and visibility.. Creating and maintaining the visibility of a crisis is essential to attract the funding to deal with it [Smillie 1998, Phillips 2003]. The iconic image of camps is certainly more likely to travel across the world and touch a cord than dispersed, low intensity settlements. Visibility of the response is important for donors, to the point that ensuring visibility is a contractual specification by many donors [Thiele 2000]. Visibility also helps host to receive a burden-sharing support that might well disappear if refugees where integrated. Camps are purported to be efficient, simplifying the logistics and management of aid [Bakewell 2001, IFRC no date, Rocky Mountain Institute 2003]. They ensure control and facilitate the registration of refugees, who need to be counted and registered to gauge the dimension of the problem [UNHCR 1994]; the efficient targeting of assistance. They ensure that, at any stage, refugees can be singled out from the population. Counting refugees is incidentally a highly political task, as statistics on refugees have much importance in determining the dimensions of the assistance [on the politics of numbers see: Harrell-Bond, Voutira, and Leopold 1992 Telford 1997, Crisp 1999]. As a total institution, camps are functional to the idea of dependency: they encourage a perception of the refugees as resourceless. Camps are meant to provide security, yet it is difficult to guarantee security in large, overcrowded areas, which incubate tension and conflict, often forcing members to flee [Human Rights Watch 2002, Waters 2003]. Negative effects of the camp also include the creation of conditions of dependency [Bowles 1998] and environmental damage [UNHCR no date, see also 2.5.3]. Side effects are significant, and research has demonstrated how, for social, economic, environmental and health reasons, the consequences of placing refugees in camps are often negative, not only for the refugees themselves but also frequently for the national populations and governments of receiving states [Black 1998b: 4].

57

The camp is functional to a response that gives predominance to the criteria of separation and visibility, often the political preconditions for interventions imposed by governments. It is hard to tell to what extent these criteria are negotiable, and to what extent the vast research accumulated on the negative effects of those criteria might be able to persuade policy makers differently. Despite the recognition of the shortcomings of the camps and the recognition that refugee camps should normally be considered as a last resort [UNHCR 1999a: 134] they are still widely used. This may be the only option because of decisions by the host country or simply because of a lack of alternatives [UNHCR 1999a: 136]. In addition, there is some degree of inertia within the relief system in devising alternative forms of intervention, and alternative approaches are conspicuous by their absence [for a discussion of possible options see Zetter 1995a]. The realistic approach to camp planning acknowledges that camps are an option that can be appropriate under specific circumstances. Whether they are considered a last resort or not, this is argument enough for trying to optimise temporary settlements. Despite being in fashion for many years, clear guidelines that help to structure camps efficiently have been missing [Corsellis 2001], and have only started appearing recently (see for example the work of ShelterProject in Cambridge or the guidelines of Trondheim University). A contrasting view is that accumulation of expertise and research on how to improve camps may further contribute to eroding the space for alternative options and room for innovation [Black 1998b]. It is, all in all, just another brick in the wall. In the absence of critical thinking, a vicious circle will continue. The lack of confidence, expertise and know-how regarding alternative approaches, prevent them from being tested in the heat of the crisis, as the risk of failure for innovation is high. The perceived safety of conventional solutions could hence limit the possibility to learn. Advocacy of more responsive approaches, and openness to learning, could do a great deal to move practices and thinking forward.

From camps to self-settlement: multiple possibilities vs. narrow responses

Freedom of movement Mode of assistance/economics

(possibility for refugees to engage in subsistence farming or other economic activities)

Integration, non-camps

Segregation, closed camps

Mode of governance
(mechanisms of decision-making within or over the refugee community)

Designation as temporary Population size and/or density

Table 2.2. Parameters describing settlements. [Adapted from Schmidt 2003]

As reviewed by Schmidt [Schmidt 2003] several authors have attempted to systematise elusive patterns of settlement in a continuum from integration/non-camps to segregation/closed camps. Five parameters might
58

be used to describe the settlements. Camps tend to limit freedom, emphasize temporariness and therefore can accept harsher conditions (for example in terms of population size and density) than other settlements. Of course, the distinction between camps and other organised settlements is blurred. For a start, there is not merely one type of camp. They vary considerably in terms of location (e.g. proximity to the border, proximity to natural and economical resources), size, socio-economic structure and political character [Crisp and Jacobsen 1998, Black 1998a, UNHCR 2002a]. Some resemble a village, larger camps are comparable to towns [Mawdsley et al. 2002; Perouse de Montclos and Kagwanja 1997]. They can also offer very different degrees of security and protection, and variable degrees of autonomy and interaction with the local population [Andrews 2003]. Camps are sometimes purpose planned by assistance providers but can also be the more accidental product of congregations of refugees in large groups, forming settlements which eventually become institutionalised [UNHCR 1996a].

2500
Half of the camps host less than 2500 people

10000
1 in 4 camps have a population 10000+ people

25000
Half of the population lives in camps with more then 25000 people

50000
.and one quarter lives in camps with a population of over 50.000 people

Figure 2.3. Camp dimensions and population. [Data from UNHCR 2002a]

Other organised settlements, of the refugee village type, aim to promote higher degrees of self-reliance from other refugee camps. These may be, for example, provided with agricultural land [see for example USCR 2001 for a discussion of refugee villages in Pakistan and Stein 1985, Misbah Yousif 1998 for an analysis of local settlements in Africa]. However, they are still built on the assumption that refugees are to be kept separate and treated separately from the host population, so some authors dismiss them as often nothing but an operational myth [ as w]hatever they are called, camps and organised settlements maintain distinctions between refugees and citizens and, in terms of power relations, are hierarchical with external administrative control [Harrell-Bond 2002: 5]. The distinction between camps and self-settled refugees can also be fuzzy. Families may choose to leave the more vulnerable relatives in the camp - where they can benefit from aid - whilst the most self-sufficient members pursue independent strategies [Sommers 2001]. Refugees may register in a camp in order to be eligible for goods that are distributed, but still manage to live outside it [Crisp 1999]. The refugee label is a bureaucratic one and does not necessarily coincide with peoples self-description. It is therefore open to subversion. In as far as it is associated with access to resources there may be a strong motivation for people to present themselves as refugees. In as far as it is associated with removal to a camp refugees may make

59

great efforts to avoid it. The fact that the majority of refugees in Africa stay beyond the reach of international aid suggests the latter situation may apply to more people [Bakewell 2001: 6].

Definition

Camps Enclosed areas, restricted to refugees and those assisting them

Other assisted settlements Accommodations alternative to camps, that take various forms (e.g. collective buildings, etc)

Organized Settlements Planned, segregated agricultural enclaves or villages created specifically for refugees

Self-settlement Refugees settle amongst the local community without direct official (government or international) assistance

Legal Status of Refugees Location

Defined as prima facie; not full refugee status (UNHCR recognizes all as full refugees) In more urban setting, refugees are housed in mass shelters adapted from public buildings Public building or community facilities such as schools, hotels, barracks, etc. that are expected to be returned to host community Administered by UNHCR and the host government; NGOs provide refugees with relief and assistance As camps (and may evolve from camps which have become permanent fixtures) Sometimes more permanent construction; land is available for farming

Usually close to the border (but should be min. 50km away) and in rural areas Housing Intended to be temporary (tents or Structures and access to land huts); no official access to land Administration

No legal status, often defined as illegal migrants (but recognized by UNHCR) Refugees choose where to live: often in villages close to borders or in urban areas As in local housing; land negotiated from local population

Economic activity

Protection

Initially administered by UNHCR and/or host government, then handed over to host government Some income-generating programs based in camp Refugees usually permitted to farm, or conduct limited activity in local markets Host government is technically responsible for security and safety of refugees, but increasingly UNHCR is assuming this role Refugees are expected to become self-sufficient pending their repatriation Repatriation

Not administered

Self sufficiency

Not usually self-supporting Assistance is provided until it is safe to return Repatriation or third country resettlement

Refugees often active in the local economy (but not legally permitted) No formal protection; UNHCR sometimes provides coverage Refugees do not receive assistance Repatriation or local integration

Long-term solutions

Table 2.3. Options for settlements. [Adapted from Jacobsen 2001, UNHCR 2000]. The table details the characteristics of different shelter and settlement options for refugees as they recur in the practice, and identifies organised settlements that might be offered as an alternative to camps.

The motivations and coping strategies of self-settled refugees that do not have any contact with camps and international assistance remain to be assessed. Is theirs a conscious choice? I.e. a choice to be conscientious objectors to the wishes of host government and international humanitarian institutions as they flee from the organised settlement camps functional to the delivery of aid, camps that keep refugees separate from local population? [Sommers 2001: 368] Or is self-settlement due to the fact that many refugees are simply forgotten, and fall out of the assistance net? Despite the refusal of legal integration (as granted by the host state), there are many examples of de-facto integration. Jacobsen talks about de facto integration when self-settled refugees are accepted by the community, and have attained self-sufficiency. Although host governments do not often support it, informal
60

integration is widespread [Jacobsen 2001]. Refugees can live amongst local residents, and, on the basis of clan and family ties, be indistinguishable from them [Crisp 1999]. Whether in rural or urban areas refugees may manage to establish themselves prior to the arrival of international assistance that could actually end up uprooting them from the local level where they are relatively integrated. In these situations it is often hard to understand whether international assistance is about serving coercive objectives or whether it responds to the needs of the refugees (on the debate see for example [Harrell-Bond 1993, Crisp and Jacobsen 1998, HarrellBond 2002]). Of course, integration does not always occur smoothly, and self-settled refugees can experience extreme situations of exclusion [unfortunately, only limited studies are available, see for example the study on urban refugees in Africa by Human Rights Watch 2002]. This forces us to ask whether refugees falling out of the international assistance net are doing so willingly or unwillingly, and to try to understand how their protection needs are to be addressed. The Albanian experience is a case in point regarding the inadequacy of the humanitarian system to work outside the camps. The importance of host families, and their role in containing the problem, was widely recognised. However, there was insufficient information about the relations between host families and refugees and their needs: the system simply could not deal with registration, assisted delivery and protection standards with regard to the non-camp population. It is argued that only the short duration of the crisis (which meant that refugees still had resources to pay for accommodation and food, and that the hosts were still keen to provide hospitality) avoided a major meltdown of assistance [Apthorpe 2000, Groupe URD no date, Suhrke et al. 2000]. If most refugees did not go to camps, the bulk of international resources nonetheless did: an estimated 85% of the aid budget was spent on the estimated 40% of the population housed in camps. The refugees living with host families or in private accommodation (60%), received very little assistance, 15% of the total. As Porter sees it, the major constraint in Albania was not resources, but the fact that the delivery systems of most humanitarian agencies are collectively more adept when working with populations in camps [Porter 2002a: 35]. Two points are worth noting: the incapacity of the system to tackle the needs of dispersed populations and as I found out from an extensive review of the literature - the incapacity of the system to learn from occurrences when dispersed settlement patterns were observable. The assistance provided by host families, mostly outside the planned interventions, is recognised only in passing by project-based evaluations and studies of crisis. As a result, little knowledge has been accumulated on this topic. Similarly, the information that has been used so far to sketch issues relating to self settled refugees has been taken mainly from anthropological literature or from advocacy-based NGOs, which as will be pointed out in chapter 5 have limited impact on practice.

61

Self-settled refugees fall out not only of the humanitarian assistance net, but also of the practical competency luggage of aid workers. Coping-strategies and support mechanisms for self-settling refugees are an area that has been overlooked by operational agencies. There is a need to build knowledge and practice to make interventions responsive to the needs of self-settling refugees. This requires improving information and knowledge exchange in many areas, and critically, demands that agencies increase their capacity for looking outside their established operational range and begin to engage in debate with other stakeholders. Actions needed to tackle this issue range from more effective data collection and research about settlement patterns to the observation of coping strategies in practice in order to learn how to (and if to) effectively respond to them. Relief assistance is not only about meeting the needs of those leaving their homes. It also extends to the achievement of permanent solutions. The theme of return deserves particular attention. In some cases (e.g. Bosnia) it is has been dealt with as an emergency in reverse, i.e. by the same professionals and agencies that deal with the influx of refugees. The result might not be camps, but interventions at least in an initial phase that continue to be oriented towards delivery rather than adopting enabling approaches. The need for a continuum of approaches, with a long time frame - fit the reintegration process - is evident in this context. The return issue calls for an exchange of practices from both ends of the relief-development spectrum. Relief relies heavily on the logistics of serving concentrated populations and is ill served when the challenge is to provide individual assistance to scattered population: e.g. to returnees or self-settled refugees. Cross fertilisation amongst humanitarian shelter programmes (e.g. the ones for returnees for which experience is being accumulated and for scattered displaced persons) could also be a way forward.

2.3.4 Communication challenges: an overview, so far

Could communication improve practices? So far we have observed that: 1) There is a vast literature about settlement for refugees, but little consolidated into materials that look at directly fostering better practices. The consolidation of existing modus operandi in guidelines for intervention has been so far very limited. Even for the most iconic form of assistance, the camp, only few manuals and guidelines exist. In general, the gathering and exchange of experiences is very poor. Better gathering and dissemination of knowledge is key. 2) The division created by the broad frameworks for assistance, and in particular, the relief and development divide, limit the exchange of practices and cross-fertilization. Better circulation of knowledge, across different actors and realms of intervention, is key.

62

3) A vast anthropological critique of the modalities of intervention highly critical of the camp approach seems to have had only a limited impact on practice. More varied modalities of interventions on shelter and settlement are needed; however there is little capacity and political will to make them happen. Communication (in the form of circulation of innovative approaches and advocacy for new modalities of intervention) is key. All these challenges require communication, but in different brands. Before discussing in more detail what modalities of communication can be needed to improve the shelter and settlement sector its practices and its policies - I need to highlight a further challenge: the need to question the nature and the remit of the shelter and settlement sector as a whole.

63

2.4

(RE)DEFINING THE SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT SECTOR

Shelter and settlement is a far less established sector (in terms of resources, organizational settings and consolidated practices) than many of the other sectors in humanitarian aid, and this limits the room for manoeuvre around this issue. The weakness of the sector is also a limitation in the establishment of an arena for communication amongst the community of practitioners that would help to build shared paradigms for intervention and practice. However, in recent years, shelter and settlement is acquiring visibility. Communication across communities of interest, organisations and professionals has resulted in the production of guidelines and common standards [Sphere Project. 2003, ShelterProject.org 2003b] and in the shaping and lobbying for a more visible shelter sector. Of course, in the compartmentalised arena of humanitarian relief, the consolidation of a sector may actually be a mixed blessing. It should allow increased access to resources and ensure that the sector is on the agenda for strategic planning. However, shelter and settlement may have too many conceptual implications to be constrained by a sectoral approach, especially if the sector is reduced to the technicalities of shelter reconstruction or limited to physical planning. Shelter and settlement should be part of a holistic approach recognising the value of housing in rebuilding lives and communities. As Zetter puts it, despite considerable advancements, the role of housing in post--war reconstruction [and in refugee assistance in general] - as a symbolic, social and physical commodity - remains a major challenge to practitioners, policy makers and donors alike. [Zetter 1995a introduction to the eversion, 2003]. Hence, the need to operate on shelter and settlement with a holistic, inter-sectoral approaches on habitat, and to identify not only techniques and tools, but also wider general principles to guide interventions (e.g. right based approaches).

2.4.1 The need to (re)define the shelter and settlement sector

Housing is one of the most powerful iconic images employed to portray the condition of refugees: extensive camp settlements, temporary shelter of plastic sheeting, houses damaged by bullets and mortars. However, in the reports and budgets of refugee assistance projects, shelter and settlement are far less visible. If the relevance of a sector can be measured according to the allocation of funds spent on it, it is then clear that humanitarian relief is still, by and large, about the delivery of food and nutrition programmes. It is not possible to provide exact data to quantify the exact amount that goes into each sector, as money comes from many different sources and is accounted with different criteria. The obvious starting point is the CAPs (Consolidate Appeal Processes), coordinating the financial requirements of the UN agencies for each crisis. Here food items have the lions share, accounting for, on average, at least half of the total. Family shelter and non-food items, in 2002, accounted for 3% of total expenditure [Babister et al. 2002].

64

The CAP can only give a vague picture of expenditures, as it represents only a part of overall spending on humanitarian assistance. Its importance has been gradually eroded by the fact that increasingly assistance is delivered through bilateral arrangements [Cohen 2001] and aid is increasingly channelled directly from the donors to NGOs, bypassing the UN system [Porter 2002a]. Also, CAP often goes underfunded and "in particular, non-food sectors are consistently under-funded, reflecting the perception of many donors that such sectors are of a lesser priority [Forman and Parhad 2000: 3]. The assessment of the allocations to shelter is complicated by the fact that there are no consistent ways to categorise sectors. In the CAP itself shelter had been accounted under a variety of headings. In recent years, shelter started to appear consistently under family shelter and non food items (see Figure 2.4 for recent examples). Those definitions imply a narrow conception of shelter, as a relief good. They do not acknowledge the dimension of shelter/housing as a more complex process.

OCHA - Financial Tracking - Contributions by sector ($)

Water and sanitation Protection / human rights Multi-sector Mine action Health Food Family shelter and non food items Education Economic recovery and infrastructure Coordination and support services Agriculture
Coordination Economic and support recovery and services infrastructure 2464009 4013447 2325906 56512388 10959009 2754993 Family shelter and non food 5588508 18619044 7068748

Agriculture 24038971 7005993 7385474

Education 8446964 3080968 3482858

Food 1541692 77013073 72063132

Health 4373379 13081320 70962494

Mine action 130519542 4399008 14084351

Multi-sector 76143354 236688907 195645205

Protection / human rights 76143354 9779805 6457878

Water and sanitation 2 3695490 121137

Afghanistan 2003 Southeastern Europe 2001 Southeastern Europe 2000

Figure 2.4. Financial tracking of humanitarian assistance in selected crisis. Contributions by sector in Afghanistan 2003 and South Eastern Europe (2000 and 2001). [Data from ReliefWeb 2003b]

Studies such as that of Development Initiatives for OCHA pointed out that shelter is one of the sectors that experienced a sharp decline in funding. With few exceptions: "Shelter and other basic infrastructural materials, transport and logistics have virtually disappeared from the allocation of resources shown in the Consolidated Appeals. however the Kosovo crisis has demanded increased spending on shelter" [Development Initiatives: no page]. Incidentally, this quote confirms the exceptionality of the Kosovo crisis, as far as the importance accorded to shelter reconstruction was concerned. When it comes to NGO budgets, comparisons are even more complicated, as there is no common method of categorising shelter and settlement expenditure. Shelter can be part of multi-purpose programmes, and its
65

share may therefore be difficult to disaggregate. Or, alternatively, when there is a specific budget line for shelter, this may not include other components that are integral to shelter and settlement programmes in a broader sense, beyond plastic sheeting. Amongst NGOs the importance accorded to shelter obviously varies according to their individual areas of specialisation. According to a preliminary study by ShelterProject, Oxfam spent 8% of its humanitarian budget on shelter in 1999, 6% in 2000, and 4% in 2001. GOAL spent 27% of its budget on shelter related projects in 1999 and 31% in 2000 [Babister et al. 2002]. The problems in quantifying the spending for shelter are a reflection of the fact that shelter is an ill-defined sector. Spend on the need for transitional settlement is often hidden in budget lines. Part of the transitional settlement sectors failure to establish itself is because its importance is not easily or immediately visible this despite the fact that need measured by spend is frequently as sizeable as others, much more welldeveloped sectors and is even, in some cases, larger [ShelterProject.org 2003a: xi]. Shelter and settlement lack a defined institutional space. It appears to be the realm of freelance specialists rather than a consolidated and recognised area of expertise for organisations: a recent review by Shelter Project pointed out that UN, donors and the larger NGOs (Oxfam, Care, MSF) do not have specialist shelter and settlement departments/units, and that those organisations - with the exception of UNHCR consider shelter and settlement as a relatively low priority task [ShelterProject.org 2003a]. Shelter and settlement can be more important in smaller sized organisations focusing on technical assistance. This, of course, has a negative impact in creating a space for communication.

2.4.2 The recognition of shelter by Sphere Standards

The Sphere Project is very significant for this research. It is an initiative that makes extensive use of consultation and communication amongst professionals and stakeholders to provide shared standard for the shelter sector. It also re-opened the debate on shelter. The Sphere Projects, minimum standards for disaster response, was an attempt to react to the shortcomings of relief assistance identified in the course of the major emergencies of the 90s and to technical 'amateurism' [Stockton 1999] by defining common standards and creating a mechanism for accountability. It started as a joint initiative of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response and Inter-Action. The process grew to involve national and international NGOs, UN agencies, and academic institutions. Thousands of individuals from over 300 organisations representing 60 countries have participated in various aspects of the Sphere Project, from developing the handbook through to piloting and training. The Sphere process has endeavoured to be inclusive, transparent, and globally representative [Sphere Project no date: web page]
66

Shelter was identified by the Sphere Project as one of the 5 key components of humanitarian assistance for which to develop standards (water and sanitation, nutrition, food aid, health, shelter and site planning) [Sphere Project. 2003]. Throughout Sphere, shelter acquired more visibility as a sector, becoming one essential component of emergency interventions. This provided recognition to the sector and the arena for a dialogue amongst specialists. The on-going debate around the Sphere Standards is therefore an important opportunity to redefine the shelter and settlement sector, involving expert and practitioners. Shelter and settlement, in terms of standards, are still essentially portrayed as physical realisations (i.e. the tent, the house, the camp). This is a general reflection on the state of the practice that is still very much about putting in place technical projects.

Sphere as a communication initiative

Sphere has an impressive record as a consultation process: it provoked possibly the most extensive debate amongst emergency shelter practitioners and experts on the issue, involving hundreds of people. It demonstrated the willingness of the sector to communicate and its capacity to do it effectively. The value of Sphere is not simply in the final product (i.e., the handbook) but also largely in the communication process that it put in place. In providing the space to discuss very practical issues of project implementation, it represented a formidable leap forward in knowledge exchange for humanitarian aid. However, there are still areas for improvement, including dissemination of the standards to fieldworkers, in order to fully capitalise on the debate. Despite availability of the handbook on line, training and extensive promotion, standards may not be disseminated as widely as they should and are therefore not implemented [Callamard 2001: 7]. Standards appear to float at the HQ level, and there is little knowledge and no explicit implementation at the field level [DANIDA 2000]. Leader also noticed lack of organisational depth of principles and standards in organisations, consequently generating little impact on internal organisational factors (e.g. assessment procedures, implementation, M&E) [Leader 2000]. This begs the question as to whether this is a communication problem or rather an issue of the relevance of the standards to field level practice. Sphere talks to many different people, about a range of issues. Its strength is the willingness to be universal and practical at the same time, to address the people in the HQ as well as the fieldworkers, the donors /governments as well as the implementers. The point is that they all have different information needs. Rather than a monolithic approach, a more flexible communication strategy is needed to tackle the different needs of different users, and to capture their attention. For advocacy purposes, a solid standard and few very broad indicators can suffice as a platform for discussion and help to define a shelter sector. But at the field level the priorities might be different.

67

Standards are implemented by aid-workers with specialisations ranging from logistics to engineering. In this environment, the establishment of a common language and framework through the standards must proceed in parallel with the construction of a shared repertoire of practices. A standard alone does not say much; guidelines on practices are few and scattered. Sphere is a stick (the need for compliance) without a carrot (knowledge and practices to improve performance). Can Sphere help provide the carrot? In the case of shelter and settlement, the bibliography of Sphere provides pointers to key texts, but these do not suggest holistic and alternative approaches to shelter and settlement. The lack of a mechanism to capture and make visible the inputs that shaped the standards despite the possibilities offered for example by the Internet - is probably the major loss of the project. The focus of Sphere was to distil standards rather than capture knowledge, and one has sometimes the sensation that the whole process was, after all, a mountain that delivered a mouse. All the very valuable (and needed!) know-how and the inter-disciplinary expertise of hundreds of people all around the world was squeezed into a few, generic standards, in indicators whose adaptation to local situations is contested, and sketchy guidelines. The standards have been disconnected from the process and the wealth of experience that generated it. This is unfortunate, as it is precisely the accumulated experience, rather than the standard, that has the potential of informing better humanitarian practices at the field level. It has been pointed out that the value of Sphere resides in the process. What mattered was to have a space for debating practical issues and a compelling reason to do so, not so much the result per se. As a tool to provoke discussion and reflection they are useful; it is in the continual process of adapting theoretical principles to operational practices that the benefit of these tools lie in. But once they are written down as rules, they are no longer a tool for reflection, they become ends to uphold in themselves. Putting the respect of principles above all stifles the search for innovative ways with which to best access people in need [Terry 2000: 20].

SPHERE

Universality (rights) (compliance)

Advocacy (standards)

Performance (indicators)

Quality (guidelines)

Responsiveness (context) (capacity building)

Figure 2.5. Intermingling goals of Sphere.

One of the problems of Sphere is that universal standards and practical implementation guidelines are too strictly intermingled in the same framework. Sphere is trying to do many different and possible conflicting things at the same time. As illustrated in the diagram, the components of the Sphere standards (standards, indicators and guidelines) in reality serve different functions.
68

On one extreme there is the advocacy role, which is about establishing a principle and ensuring its respect. On the other there is a push to increase quality and performance across a range of settings which require very context specific responses. Those two extremes are hard to reconcile in the current framework. Some pilot agencies questioned whether Sphere should be considered as standards to aim at in all disaster response, or guidelines to be followed where appropriate. The most important difference between these two positions is that some agencies believe that standards are a useful trigger to advocacy while others argue that guidelines are less imperative and consequently easier to use [Sphere Project Team and Management Committee 2002: web page]. Sphere now puts together, on the same page, universal principles requiring compliance alongside practical suggestions, briefly pointing to methods of improving implementation. However, this current package poses problems, as it entangles standards and guidelines in the same format making them indistinguishable. Whilst standards and guidelines appear to evolve at the same pace, in fact guidelines and indicators should develop faster and have a broader and more practical scope. It may be advisable to disconnect the function relating to advocacy (the creation of the standard), from the one relating to quality and performance (creation of contextual indicators and guidelines). Devising different communication strategies for them could make them more responsive to the evolving debate in the shelter and settlement sector.

69

2.5

THE NEED FOR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

The previous section discussed recent developments in redefining and reconceptualising the shelter and settlement sector, and the benefit of a sector to facilitate communication inside and around it. This section highlights challenges that can only be tackled if, paradoxically, there is a minimal sectoralisation of shelter and settlement, which would stiffen communication and dialogue. This section advocates the importance of shelter and settlement as a process bridging the relief-development gap (2.3.2). It also points out the holistic character of interventions on habitat, the need for connectedness, and hence of communication, in terms of operation and practice. Finally, it suggests that the acceptance of human rights as a paradigm for intervention can create a common language and introduce a framework to facilitate dialogue between those concerned with relief and development. According to this model shelter and settlement might become more than a sector: they might become the pivotal issue pulling together initiatives currently scattered and fragmented, the centre of gravity congealing a range of projects that fulfil the right to housing for displaced peoples. Rather than being limited to physical deliverables, shelter and settlement could grow to be a key consideration guiding communication and coordination amongst the stakeholders active in relief. All in all, these sections expand on some visions of the future of shelter and settlement interventions. They discuss concepts that are beginning to surface in the literature and in new interventions. These broader views should make evident that communication for the improvement of shelter and settlement is not only about disseminating new practices. Its value also resides in disseminating new paradigms (e.g.: shelter as a process, the multiple dimensions of shelter). The value of communication is not only about archiving tested models, but also about advocating new approaches. And, crucially, these new approaches require a critical perspective and informed view on the current ways of delivering aid.

2.5.1 Shelter vs. housing. Not only a semantic problem (the importance of a process)
Although achieving some impact, shelter and in particular housing was the least successful sectoral intervention. Problems included uncoordinated planning, leading to a large number of different and often inappropriate designs; ineffective approaches to construction; poor coverage due to the uniquely lumpy nature of the resource; and poor resettlement planning, frequently leading to re-housing far from work or from amenities such as water. Agencies mainly concerned with humanitarian action should review support to housing as an emergency intervention. Direct support to housing may be better left to rehabilitation and development agencies [ALNAP 2002a: 95]. Unfortunately rehabilitation is a grey area, hence not yet properly funded and managed (see 2.3.2). Shelter and settlement delivery and, in particular, the issue of durability are challenging. Shelter is the relief item with the longest lifespan. It is a sign of permanence,
70

clashing with the obligation of temporariness. Relief actors seem to have a hard time dealing with this strange area - sitting on the fence between development and relief. Housing, a word that is widespread in development discourse, is hardly used in refugee assistance. On the contrary shelter is the term of choice in the humanitarian field. The implication of this goes beyond semantics. Shelter is simply an item. An essential one, but still a thing, it is about delivery. Housing, as pointed out by Turner, is a verb [Turner 1972]. It describes a process that is an essential for households and communities to get established, to settle and develop. As such, housing has the power to redefine the sector in a way that cannot be achieved by shelter. Although the idea of house might not be acceptable in relief terms, it would be important to move at least a step up, to a dimension of sheltering [Davies 2003]. The issue of shelter had to be considered beyond the physical connotations of the word shelter, which invoked images of a mere physical structure, and suggested that the loss of a dwelling place could be dealt with in terms of plastic sheeting and metres and centimetres. It further suggested that the central purpose of a house was simply to provide cover from the elements. The effectiveness of humanitarian work, however, would be optimised if humanitarian organizations understood that to the victims of displacement, a home was much more than a mere physical structure [Kingsley 1998: web page]. The concept of housing as a verb has been in use in the development world for more than thirty years, and brought about a radical transformation in the way assistance was delivered. The key issues are no longer linked to technical provision, but are more of a political nature (land issues, regulation, micro-finance, community involvement, empowerment) that accepts growth and promotes the involvement of beneficiaries. It can be argued, of course, that the needs and the context are very different in emergency and development projects. But I have also highlighted (see 2.3.1) that the living conditions of migrants may not be too different from those of many refugees, and their needs equally urgent. In this light, the difference in the solutions and in the assistance proposed by relief and development is striking. One might really wonder if the gap between the developmental and the relief approach to shelter has any reason to exist. Unfortunately, the perception of refugees as a burden, as outsiders, has a strong weight in differentiating the approaches. It is not the number of new arrivals that matters (many cities in the developing world experience a daily growth that equals the trickle of refugees in other parts of the world). It is the otherness of refugees. It is the refusal to accept the refugee as a part of the social fabric that closes many of the opportunities that the vision of housing as a verb could entail for the guests, for the host countries and the international community.

71

Even more striking is the fact that relief-type projects might also be applied in situations of return. Housing departments might be established [IMG no date, UNMIK 2000a], but the lack of developmental focus might still hamper the return to normality. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia is an example of this: delivery of hard items can slow the rebuilding of the local markets and the creation of employment, a substitution strategy might sideline state institutions rather than reinforce them [Pugh 1998].

2.5.2 Standardised approaches?

I have already pointed out the importance of Sphere in helping to define the shelter sector and promoting communication amongst the professionals involved. However, the idea of standard needs to be subjected to further scrutiny, to understand the approaches to which it responds and to which it can lead. In the nineties standards and codes of conduct proliferated. Some (e.g. Code of Conduct [ICRC 1996], Interaction PVO standards [InterAction 2001]) committed organisations to ways of operating based on ethical values. Others referred to management issues (e.g. People in Aid Code for human management [People in Aid 1996]. Specific standards and common procedures have also been agreed regionally, in the context of specific crisis - e.g. the Principles and Protocols of Humanitarian Operation in Liberia - or sector-wide - e.g. the IMAS standards for Mine Action. Ad-hoc national sector regulations have been used to harmonise and monitor attainments by international agencies, such as the IMG building standards in Bosnia [IMG 2001, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe 2001]. Standards are certainly of interest for this research and have important communication aspects. The development of standards has been central in creating forums for communication, in fostering new approaches to relief, in opening debates that ultimately have an impact direct or indirect, on the way shelter and settlement are delivered. Hence the need to discuss standards in the context of a changing humanitarian world. Issues that take up the forefront of humanitarian assistance (e.g. accountability, quality) are increasingly shaping modalities of interventions, and are deeply linked to the debate on standards. Standards are often the result of interagency dialogue oriented towards the establishment of common principles and coordination measures for better practice in the humanitarian sector as a whole. They aim at improving accountability [HAP no date], quality [Raynard 2000, ECHO 2001, Stockton 2001, Bugnion 2002], and performance. The creation of standards is an opportunity to draw together humanitarian actors to communicate on common issues. Black, for example, noticed how the drafting of the PPHO in Liberia was more valuable as a process than as a policy, enabling greater coordination in aid delivery and reflective learning [Black 2003: 104].

72

Codes and standards also become a way to disseminate principles across the community of aid-workers, in an effort to create a new ethos and spread better practice [Lancaster 1998]. The fact that devising codes and standards is a common undertaking of so many organisations and individuals makes them an important advocacy tool. They are used to demand the right to assistance for everyone [ICRC 1996] and to equitable resource allocation at the international level [Darcy 2003]. They are a tool that international organisations use to lobby governments and to negotiate better responses to humanitarian crises [Brown and Neves 2000]. Standards are an example of how interagency communication might push the humanitarian sector to espouse new ways of working. However: to what extent does the setting of standards promote (rather than stifle) further innovation? To what extent does it promote the involvement of marginalized stakeholders who have not the chance of participating in their formulation? The critique of Sphere is of particular interest in this regard. Sphere spurred a broad debate on the improvement of quality in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and this was sometimes very confrontational, as the stakes were very high [Van Brabant 2000]. It was about defining what is quality aid, in a context where the definition might have an impact on the way assistance is delivered and practices are judged. It was also about deciding who writes the rules of the game, and deciding whether rules can be written at all. It was about defining who belongs to the club of competent agencies in the competitive relief arena. Are standards a way of to crystallize the advantage to the most skilled - and richest agencies (that can achieve them)? Are they a tool to foster the improvement of lower capacity agencies (that can have difficulties in practice to work up to standards)? [O'Donnell, Bacos, and Bennish 2002]. In the absence of criteria shared by the whole humanitarian community, it has so far been difficult to reach an agreement on what the dominant discourse of aid delivery should be. This does not imply failure: a practical reflection on quality and innovation in the relief sector was very much needed, and the debate on standards is serving the purpose well.

Standards: issues of inclusion and substitution

Whilst the recent debate around shelter is in large part oriented to the identification of common standards, in the developmental realm the use of relatively inflexible tools such as standards is discouraged. The reason for the different approaches lies in the view of the beneficiaries. In the developmental context, beneficiaries are active actors. They help themselves and build their own houses. The non-compliance to artificially high standards means that their efforts might be hampered by the lack of official recognition. Standards become a burden, hence the need to lower the ladder so that people can see that their efforts are recognised and have access to legality [Payne 2000]. In contrast, in the context of relief, beneficiaries are recipients; hence the need to guarantee that they receive appropriate assistance through standards and that such assistance is equitable, balanced across beneficiaries and with that provided to the local population. Evaluations of the Kosovo crisis pointed out, for example, how the extreme variability of realisations (some
73

camps below standard, others providing facilities of relative luxury) was prone to create more and more tensions amongst refugees and between refugees and the (poorer) local population in Albania [Suhrke et al. 2000]. Standards, such as those set by the international community, are therefore functional to standardised approach (e.g. through camps), and, more generally, to the delivery of assistance that substitutes for the local systems, where other standards and regulations are already in place. Critically (as it will be discussed in section 2.5.4), standards can actually erode guarantees and rights that the displaced would otherwise be able to claim. It is then necessary to question the framework for intervention that standards propose. Even if every single standard is sufficiently neutral, their combination builds up a list of priorities for intervention that, as a whole, may not correspond to the articulation of the needs of the population. After all Sphere only deals with five sectors and through a very limited number of standards, and many issues that might be vital for relief do not find a place there. Some important concerns are likely to be invisible, and more easily forgotten. For example, the issue of protection, that is central for the safety and well being of the refugees, is only marginally addressed in Sphere. Hence, standard-compliant projects might deliver good outputs, but the outcomes might fail to satisfy the needs of the beneficiaries: the formula of assistance that is presupposed by the standards is not universal. And as far as shelter is concerned, some refugees might prefer to fully enjoy their right to freedom of movement and choice (not expressly safeguarded by Sphere) rather than to see their minimum right to housing realised in a camp. This is simply to indicate that the identification of the minimum needs of a population, or the evaluation of an intervention, cannot be modelled on the prescription of standards only, but needs to leave space to engage with primary stakeholders in defining what assistance suits their needs and capacities. The imposition of alien standards does not necessarily guarantee downward accountability. The risk is to privilege the attainments of objectives fixed by international organisations and donors. It is important to ensure that the performance dimension of accountability does not overcome the relational one with the beneficiaries, that accountability remains a process and not a measure, and that it includes communication with the primary stakeholders. However, not only have beneficiaries been marginally involved in the process of devising standards [Davidson 1997] so that social learning about affected populations continues to fall short of the codes of conduct to which agencies are signatories [Apthorpe 2000: 13], but, as discussed in section 2.3.2 (dependency / self-reliance), beneficiaries have only limited involvement in the planning of projects and in the adaptation of standards. The universality of standards has also been questioned, and the way forward may bypass communication and debate. Processes to adapt standards are advocated, as certainly standards have been used for a long time
74

by NGOs [ but t]hey have ensured that the validity of these standards depended on the nature of the situations. [] there is no standard, even minimum, which is applicable in all circumstances and at all times. [Groupe URD 1999]. Inclusive communication - involving primary stakeholders and local actors in the adaptation of standards - is needed in order to prevent standards to pave the way to standardised approaches. They would otherwise perpetrate the exclusion of the people they are supposed to serve.

Standards and standardised approaches: the issue of compliance

All humanitarian organisations that have joined the Sphere programme will apply the same procedures and minimum standards in their assistance programme, without requiring a strict and controlling mode of cooperation [DANIDA 1999: web page]. In the context of research that looks at the space for innovation in shelter and settlement assistance and fosters communication around practices, this affirmation can be quite problematic. The underlying vision is of standards as a way to level and control, potentially reducing the space for articulating innovative responses in the field. Despite the fact that the standards on shelter and settlement are not prescriptive and leave ample room for manoeuvre, those opposed to Sphere do not see any reason for self-imposing standards. If funding bodies adopt their standards as decision-making criteria, agencies will increasingly be compelled to demonstrate success in ways that do not reflect the totality of humanitarian action, which has important aspects that are not open to measurement in any formal sense [Grunewald, Pirotte, and Geoffroy 2001]. The trend to juridiciarisation is also rejected on the ground that NGOs operating in turbulent, dangerous and charged environments cannot be held responsible for their results: too many factors are mingling in the operations and prevent even the best resourced and most professionally designed operation to succeed [Geoffroy and Grnewald 2002: web page]. Stronger mechanisms for forcing compliance, such as the project for an Ombudsman for Humanitarian Assistance [Christoplos 1999, Mitchell and Doane 1999, Ombudsman Project 1999] have hence been resisted. Alternative mechanisms for enforcing compliance and increasing accountability are now being developed by networks of NGOs, e.g. HAP International [HAP international 2003]. According to these mechanisms observance is based on self-discipline, on peer pressure [Buchanan-Smith 2002], or, on the pressures exerted by supportive donors. Issues such as quality, accountability or performance are certainly difficult to reconcile [see for example Hilhorst 2001, Groupe URD 1999, Larose and Adams 2002], and clearly depend on the formulation, purpose and utilisation of the standards. The Quality Project [Groupe URD no date, Quality Project 2002], is a reaction to Sphere which stirred much debate around the issue of standards. It tackles issues of quality employing what Hilhorst termed as a contingency approach. The idea is that quality of humanitarian assistance is contingent upon the complexities of the situation in which it is given and the network of other actors involved [Hilhorst 2001: 23]. The Quality Project summed up how it differed from the Shelter Project by highlighting two ways to create quality: [Quality Project 2002]:

75

Through improved standard responses (type of approach used by SPHERE) Through questioning processes (the approach used by the quality project, built around the project cycle and employing participatory tools for diagnosis, M&E and dissemination) The real challenge for the humanitarian sector is to reconcile both approaches, as they are both needed and both are fertile. The complementarities of those two approaches (standardising and streamlining vs. questioning) will become evident in the discussion of knowledge management processes in chapter 4. The first approach is more likely to consolidate existing sectoral expertise, the second to help put in place necessary mechanisms to question action and adapt to changing situations and environments. The dialogue on both aspects is essential. A variety of communication initiatives between humanitarian workers to support this dialogue are strongly needed.

2.5.3 Multiple dimensions of shelter

Interventions in an emergency context tend to be fragmented amongst a plethora of actors, mostly working within specialised sectors (e.g. water and sanitation, food security, health). Fragmentation can reduce effectiveness of intervention, as isolated interventions fail to capitalise on the added value from creating synergy. Interventions on shelter and settlement have a clear potential to link to many different sectors. Shelter and Settlement planning, in crisis (as in normal circumstances) is not simply about drawing a layout. It is about creating the space (physical, social, economic, political) that protects peoples lives and livelihoods and favours development. This might entail directly building shelters and camps, but could also involve different activities, leveraging local capacity. There is a need for more innovative approaches to housing, other than the delivery of shelter kits, that creatively intertwine activities belonging to different arenas e.g. loan programmes, production of local building materials, participatory approaches, housing policies [COHRE 2000].

Macro

Micro
Roofs Houses Settlements (Re)integration Peace

Action

Strategy

Figure 2.6. Multiple dimensions of shelter and settlement.

76

One way to make connections is through the concept of livelihoods. This has been explored in the context of relief [Zetter 1993, Lautze 1997, Sanderson 2002, Schafer 2002]. Some organisations have started to create frameworks and to apply them in practice [CARE 2003]. However, taking the case of Afghanistan, for example, it has been observed that there is little direct evidence for consistent livelihood understanding and analysis-informing humanitarian practice []. The dynamics of the chronic conflict [] has been poorly understood, not least in terms of its effects on livelihoods. [] Short-term humanitarian based programming [] has emphasised delivery and paid little attention to learning. The result has been a monotonous landscape of interventions [Pain 2002: vi]. Figure 2.6 is an attempt to show how multiple dimensions interconnect around housing, and need to be considered at different levels. The parables spreading out from the centre at the top of the graph represent some of the dimensions of housing (housing as an economic, environmental, social, political issue). They overlap and intersect. The dotted circles exemplify the need to move across different levels: micro / macro, punctual action / global strategy, from roofs to peace. Moving across the circles illustrates moving across different, interconnected levels and processes. From the micro level of the individual shelter, to the neighbourhood, to the settlement, to the regional context, for example. But also from:

Roofs

Local

Project

Action

Logistic / technical intervention

Relief

Peace

National

Policy

Concepts

Strategy

Development

Figure 2.7. Multiple levels of shelter

A progression that deserves particular attention is the progression from roofs to peace. It was conceptualised in the context of reintegration of returnees [Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002], however it is assumed here that it can provide a useful framework also in a context of exodus. Peace building is not only about reconstructing war-torn societies, but also about creating the conditions for better integration and for reducing the potential conflicts amongst the host and the refugee community. At the core of the idea of the progression, roofs peace, is housing as a strategic opportunity to rebuild livelihoods and peace when conceived in terms of an assets-based approach rebuilding social and capital assets, as well as material and political assets [Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002].

77

Multiple organisations will collaborate along the spectrum, and should strive to operate in a coordinated fashion and through complementing strategies if the full potential of housing is to be realised. In addition, each organisation should be aware of the possible repercussions of its actions along the spectrum. Projects that are apparently tackling only the roof level - providing housing repairs, for example - can impact on the macro economy of a country: the use of imported building materials, for example, might undermine local economies. The very existence of such programmes might impede the establishment of local enterprises. Hence, the need of appreciating the interconnection of different levels and arenas for action when operating choices. To focus attention at the micro level only is a myopic view that fails to understand the necessity for a connection of different decisional and operational spheres. interventions take place at different levels (from national to local); with different processes (e.g. national to local capacity building and enablement), through different agencies (government, NGOs) and with different outputs (e.g. pluralistic representative structures to physical products) It is the linkage and integration between the levels that is essential to effective programme delivery and design [Zetter 2000: 15].

Roofs Houses Settlements (Re)integration Peace

An intervention level based on a comparatively simple physical level e.g. provision of emergency basic protection, intervention on damaged housing where partial reconstruction of components is required. Time horizons are short. Logistic rather than management expertise is required. The model is still mainly of a physical nature, however the intervention is more complex as it is based not only on the basic components of the house, but on reconstructing the whole entity or new property. Time and expertise required as above. Housing programmes and projects set within a wider physical and spatial planning framework. Social and community dimensions come into play e.g.: social infrastructure, public utilities, spatial factors etc Housing is still the lead element of a program, but it is set within a wider framework of social and political aspects (e.g. job opportunities, access to resources, decision making processes). Time horizons are long term. More complex collaboration and coordination with other stakeholders, and higher order management expertise required. The level where the entire landscape of the social, economic and political situation has to be assessed in order to design a suitable housing intervention.

Table 2.4. Levels of interventions: from roofs to peace. [Adapted from Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002].

Arenas for action

Shelter and settlements have multiple dimensions. Coordination and complementarity between different arenas for action are necessary for integrated, responsive and sound shelter and settlement programmes. Even at the micro level housing has multiple dimensions: an economic one (e.g. the cost of it), an environmental one (e.g. its location, the materials used to build it), a social one (e.g. the household), a legal one (e.g. tenure arrangements). Each of those dimensions can then be expanded to the macro level. Macroeconomy, social structure, national politics, resources and environment are influenced by intervention choices for shelter and settlement. This is exemplified as follows. The interplay of different arenas and levels calls for approaches that take into consideration the wider picture, even when intervening at a punctual level, to increase connectedness and coordination. It calls for better communication amongst the different actors in charge with them. The following are examples of an articulation of shelter and settlement dimensions.
78

Environmental aspects
Extensive research has been directed towards investigating the environmental impact of refugee settlements [see for example Black 1994, ECHO 1995, Shepherd 1995, Jacobsen 1997, CASA Consulting 2001]. Practical guidelines, operational principles and lessons learned have been issued [UNHCR 1996b, UNHCR 1998, Kelly 2001, UNHCR 2001]. The aggregated result of many lodgings soon requires that the scale of environmental analysis be extended to the entire receiving region, not just the settlements where refugees are concentrated [Jacobsen 1997]. Different modalities of settlement are likely to impact differently on the environment. Smaller camps close to existing villages seem to prevent great environmental damage [UNEP 2000]. Camps tend to have wider ecological footprints, and - in areas prone to depletion this might lead to deforestation and increased pollution. It is to be noticed that the aggravation of the situation has sometimes been overstated, and the meaning and perceptions of degradation varies a great deal between different actors, from international agencies to local communities [Jacobsen 1997]. One of the reasons for the marked interest manifested in environmental issues derives from the fact that environmental degradation may, if not addressed, undermine the effectiveness of programmes and jeopardises refugee livelihood. Degradation can translate, for example, in a reduction of security for vulnerable groups, the classical example being women that need to walk longer distances in insecure areas to gather firewood [CASA Consulting 2001]. Degradation can also affect the host population, fostering tension over resources, and, critically, influencing the future decision of governments to offer asylum to refugees [UNHCR 1998].

Society
Shelter reconstruction is recognised as the first step in restoring the social fabric of affected groups [Setchell 2001]. Tackling the society arena implies moving conceptually from the household to community level (from considering local neighbourhoods, to ethnic and national groups). Critically assessing tensions, connections and room for manoeuvre along this spectrum is important to avoid that housing might reproduce the logic of conflict (e.g. in terms of segregation / ghettoization). This is the challenge, for example, of minority return programmes where the return of individual households can be hampered by the opposition of dominant ethnic groups in an area [Phoung 1997, ICG - International Crisis Group 1998, ICG - International Crisis Group 1999, Fischel De Andrade and Delaney 2001]. Housing projects can achieve little if they do not act on the social dimension as a whole. Working on communities implies disaggregating them to understand the needs and potential of different groups. Stakeholder and gender analysis are essential in the process. These processes can build on a variety of participatory tools that have been devised to enhance an understanding of the community potential and promote its involvement in emergency context [Anderson, Howarth, and Overholt 1992, IFRC 1999].

79

Economy
The housing sector is an important economic multiplier: not only does it create solid wealth (houses), but it has a snowball effect on the local industry and socio-economic development: through direct effects (e.g. generation of employment in the building industry), backward linkages (in terms of inputs from other sectors of the economy - e.g. production and transport of material, services) and forward linkages (maintenance of the home, production of the fittings and furnishings). Furthermore forward linkages are generated when the house is used for other productive processes e.g. as a shop, a home-based enterprise. The multiplier effect of housing means that every unit of income earned in construction work, generates additional units of income in the local economy through spending of various kinds, and low-cost housing is particularly effective as a multiplier [Tipple no date]. According to an analysis by Setchell, in the case of housing constructed in depressed economies, including post-disaster economies, the multiplying effects are particularly relevant [Setchell 2001]. If housing is only seen as a line of expenditure in the budget of projects to provide physical shelter - and its economic role is forgotten - it is likely that its multiplying effect will be lost. A relief or reconstruction program is essentially an economic system superimposed on a community that has been affected by a disaster... Housing, reconstruction, agricultural recovery, the restoration of jobs, small businesses are questions of economic revival. Programs that do not help restore the existing economic systems within a community are, in hard reality, a waste of time and effort [Cuny 1983: 97-98]. However, in the current refugee regime, housing intervention is discouraged: refugees are a temporary problem and are not to be integrated. Most refugee situations, instead of being perceived as a developmental opportunity [Zetter 1995a], are seen as a welfare problem. The downside of this approach is that it fails to capitalise on refugees, to build and support and revitalise local markets. In the situation of returnees, where international aid invests conspicuously in the reconstruction of housing, multiplying effects could still be lost. The spin-off on markets is lessened by modes of action that deliver commodities to refugees and create a parallel economy. Equally, it is also evident that housing programmes might have no effect if a parallel progress on the local economy does not materialise. In the case of returnees, for example, housing programmes did not find beneficiaries, as lack of job opportunities discouraged resettlement, even when housing was provided [Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe 2001].

Governance and legal aspects

The pursuit of separation and assistance as substitution determines, to a vast extent, the conditions for intervention at the local level. Developmental approaches to housing and shelter - focused on the adoption of policies to sustain the involvement of the households and the local-investors in the housing sector, with the support and guidance of the local administration, rather than direct intervention are simply not applicable in this context. Governance, in this context, is denied: Camps are thus notably distinguished from selfsettlements by the parameters of control: the restrictions on socio-economic, political, and cultural freedoms placed on their inhabitants over and above those existing for local populations [Schmidt 2003: 5]. Working for
80

the realisation of the right to housing of refugees the topic of the next section - will provoke reflection on the issue of governance. In the case of returnees, it is already clear that issues of governance and rights make a difference. The experience of Bosnia, for example, shows the importance of enforcing the right of housing to create the conditions for return. However, it is not merely the existence of rights and legislation that matters, but their implementation: hence the importance of increasing the sensibility, capacity and professionalism of the housing operators, as an important soft component of housing programmes [Fischel De Andrade and Delaney 2001] and in conflict situations - to win over resistance from local administrators to integration policies [Phoung 1997]. The existence of many training programmes for local administrations illustrates that this is also a communication issue - fostering the adoption of inclusive practices vis--vis the technical training necessary to rebuild local bodies.

2.5.4 From protection to rights

Based on her analysis of shelter and settlement in the Former Yugoslavia, Ellis argued: in order to be effective, aid needs to address the root causes of problems and not merely deal with the physical manifestations of the disasters themselves [Ellis, 1996 in ShelterProject.org 2003b]. Realising this implies focusing on rights rather than needs. The rights-based approach is an emerging paradigm for intervention in the development field, representing a substantial shift from the old need-oriented interventions [see for example Offenheiser and Holcombe 2001, ODI 1999]. The rights-based approach is built around issues of empowerment giving voice to people - and accountability of individuals, states and the international community for the realisation of such rights. The applicability of a rights-based approach to relief has provoked mixed reactions - some warn against the risk of politicising humanitarianism and therefore reducing its independence [Bouchet-Saulnier 2001]. However a rights-based approach simply cannot be discarded when the international community advocates the right to a life with dignity [Sphere Project 2000].

HUMANITARIAN LAW

In recent years many efforts focused on the need to reconcile humanitarian assistance and human rights

HUMAN RIGHTS

Humanitarian organisations are creating frames of Human rights are the universal reference, but are not reference, voluntarily, for intervention legally binding. They are enforced through conventions

Humanitarian principles (e.g. code of conduct) Interagency standards

International Conventions National Legislation

Figure 2.8. Human rights and humanitarian law Standards and legislation cascading from human rights and humanitarian law are very different in nature. The conventions and legislations that are linked to human rights are strong law, whilst the humanitarian principles and standards are soft. Hence, the challenge, in a context that is increasingly attempting to reconcile the humanitarian law with human rights.

81

Increasingly, human rights and humanitarian law are not seen as disjointed. Many authors are pushing for more integration of human rights into relief practice [Frohardt, Paul, and Minear 1999, Slim 2000, Darcy 2003]. The cross fertilisation amongst rights-based and humanitarian approaches has very practical implications. It is a contentious area but full of potential. It forces, for a start, reflection on the problem caused by double standards for the host and refugee population. It calls for integration amongst legal instruments stemming from rights and the principles and standards developed for relief. As humanitarian principles and standards are largely volunteer endeavours of NGOs, their unintended effect could be to replace a hard law (as proclaimed in national and international legislation) with a weaker one, undermining rather then strengthening accountability. That would not only be a methodological mistake; it would also be a strategic political mistake because it gives the impression that (international) NGO products are more important than state-developed legal standards [Van Brabant 2003: 45]. In the case of repatriation projects, for example, if reconstruction is intended to consolidate the local and national administration, all efforts should be directed at using relevant national legislation where applicable rather than weakening it by substituting it with alien standards. The linkages of Sphere with the right to housing, for example, are still quite weak. There has been progress in explicitly linking the standards on shelter with a rights-based approach, and recognition on the fact that the Minimum Standards [] are not a full expression of the Right to Housing. However, the Sphere standards reflect the core content of the right to housing and contribute to the full realisation of this right around the world [Sphere Project. 2003: 208]. One wonders if the introduction of the minimum standards is not an erosion of the rights that people would normally be entitled to. Shelter, as defined in the minimum standards, is less comprehensive than the entitlements to housing that refugees should have following human rights.

The evolution of the right to housing

The right to adequate housing has been expanded from a rudimentary concept to an articulated and holistic vision to be included on the agenda of governments [UN-Habitat 2003]. In consequence, housing rights become actionable, providing a lever for initiatives gauged at ensuring the fulfilment of this right for all. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to adequate housing has been also reaffirmed in a number of international legal instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The 1991 General Comment No. 4 on the CESCR was crucial in articulating this right, showing that housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with the shelter provided by merely having a roof over ones head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather the norm should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. General Comment No. 4, paragraph 7. [UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1991, UNHRP 2002]. The right to housing could be operationalised through a universally recognized definition of the set of entitlements comprising this norm [OHCHR no date] as in Table 2.5:

82

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including.... housing (Article 25. 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).
Legal security of tenure Notwithstanding the type of tenure (and herewith including emergency housing and informal settlements), all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure, which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. This entitlement effectively guarantees access to, use of and control over land, property and housing resources. Governments should consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those households currently lacking such protection, based upon effective participation, consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups. The right to adequate housing implies access to natural and common resources essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. Those include clean drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, food storage facilities, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services. Personal or household costs associated with housing should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. Housing subsidies should be available for those unable to obtain affordable housing, and tenants should be protected from unreasonable rent levels or rent increases. In societies where natural materials constitute the chief sources of building materials for housing, steps should be taken by states to ensure the availability of such materials. Habitability means providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protection from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must also be guaranteed. Adequate housing must be accessible to those entitled to it. Disadvantaged groups must be accorded full and sustainable access to adequate housing resources. Thus, such disadvantaged groups as the elderly, children, the physically disabled, the terminally ill, HIV-positive individuals, persons with persistent medical problems, the mentally ill, victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other vulnerable groups should be ensured some degree of priority consideration in the housing sphere. Both housing law and policy should take fully into account the special housing needs of these groups. Adequate housing must be in a location that allows access to employment options, health care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities. Housing should not be built on polluted sites or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of the inhabitants. The way housing is constructed, the building materials used and the policies underlying these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity.

Availability of services, materials and infrastructure Affordability

Habitability

Accessibility

Location

Cultural adequacy

Table 2.5: Articulating the right to housing: the entitlement. [Based on: UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1991, Habitat International Coalition no date, COHRE no date]

In addition to the entitlements articulated in the General Comment, the international legislation supports many other features relating to the enjoyment of this right. Of particular interest for this research is the entitlement to Resettlement, restitution, compensation, non-refoulement and return. As articulated by the HIC resettlement may be essential to survival in the case of natural or human-made disaster. Therefore, the congruent right to freedom of movement can be essential to the fulfilment of all other rights. Any resettlement arrangement, whatever the cause, must be consensual, fair and adequate to meet individual and collective needs. It must provide sufficient access to the sources of livelihood, productive land, infrastructure, social services and civic amenities. Moreover, there must also be fair and adequate restitution and/or compensation for losses, particularly when human-caused [Habitat International Coalition, no date: web page]. The bottom line is that housing rights are not only linked to the physical manifestation of the home, but must equally embrace the procedural, non-material aspects of housing rights [Dias and Leckie 1996: web page]. This represents a long distance to travel for the relief sector, which has not adopted the concept of housing yet - not even in a reductive form! - and still prefers dealing only with shelter.

83

The responsibility of states in providing housing to displaced people was recognised by an expert group meeting jointly convened in 1996 by UN-HABITAT and OHCHR. Significantly the responsibility to recognize, respect, protect and fulfil this right is extended to the international community as a whole, which is legally obligated to ensure protection of this right through a number of measures, such as: Providing financial or other assistance to States affected by natural, ecological or other disasters, resulting in, inter alia, the destruction of homes and settlements; and Ensuring the provision of shelter and/or housing to displaced persons and international refugees fleeing persecution, civil strife, armed conflict, droughts, famine, etc.; [OHCHR no date: web page].

Rights in the context of exile: from protection to rights

The increased focus on protection is possibly paving the way for rights based approaches in the context of relief. Protection is about obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of relevant bodies of law (human rights, humanitarian and refugee law) [ICRC 1999: web page]. Protection is refocusing from being an exclusive legal concept (i.e. conferring refugee status and consequently ensuring protection) to practical protection. It is recognised that protection is composed of three types of activities that overlap and do not exclude or a priori contradict one another: Responsive action, preventing the recurrence of an abuse, putting a stop to it or alleviating its immediate effect) Remedial action: restoring peoples dignity and ensuring living conditions subsequent to a pattern of abuse (through rehabilitation, restitution, compensation or reparation) Environment building action: creating/consolidating an environment political, social, cultural, institutional, economic and legal conductive to the full respect of individual rights [IASC 2002]. According to this view protection can help the move from relief to rights, incrementally and according to the possibilities offered by the context. UN agencies are increasingly integrating the idea of protection in their mandates [UNHCR 1999b]. Implementing relief agencies are pushed to think protection and integrate it more consciously into their programmes for action. Incidentally, shelter epitomises protection. The UNCHR logo, for example, consists of two hands forming a house. However, the shelter that is provided in emergency often only consists of plastic sheeting. The ideas of protection and rights needs to be included in shelter and settlement interventions, and therefore they need to be communicated, debated and operationalised by the range of professionals working in this area. There are now examples of projects where protection has become a planning criterion in designing settlements for refugees [see for example: IASC 2002, Martin and Moller 2002]. Ensuring protection can mean, in practice, to choose a settlement site taking into account security issues (e.g. distance from the border) or constructing camps and dwellings in such a way as to ensure privacy and protection from sexual assaults [UNHCR 2003b]. But many camps, far from providing protection,

84

themselves create conditions for vulnerability and extremism [see for example: Waters 2003, Human Rights Watch 2002]. In practice, there is still much resistance to the applicability of protection by relief agencies. Some reject protection because they see it only as a legalistic concept. Other are wary of political protection activities hindering their humanitarian role [Captier 2003]. This is because protection, in practice, is not a straightforward issue: it is about finding if, how, and to what extent, to witness, denounce, oppose, readdress violation of rights, but without jeopardizing access to those in need, the lives of agency staff, or ongoing programmes. These are all key concerns for humanitarian actors. Protection also has implications for coordination and interagency complementarities. Several authors point out that tackling protection means pursuing conscious and effective interaction among the various humanitarian players (e.g. human rights organisations, relief agencies, etc) based on their respective modes of action [see: Bonard 1999b, Minear 1999, Frohardt, Paul, and Minear 1999]. Effective protection rests on communication and coordination.

Rights in the context of return

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, reaffirmed the universal applicability of the right to adequate housing [] and the particular importance of these rights for returning refugees and internally displaced persons wishing to return to their homes and places of habitual residence [UNHCHR 1998: web page, see also Thiele 2000]. The facet of housing rights that possibly received most attention in recent years is the question of property restitution in the context of return, and many countries have adopted ad hoc legislation and measures [COHRE 2001]. In the Balkans, new institutions backed by the international community (such as the Commission on Real Property Claims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Housing and Property Directorate in Kosovo) have been established, together with cadastral systems, and the issue of restitution was tackled vigorously. Many factors contributed to this emphasis on restitution in the Balkan context. Property and shelter issues and repossession of property proved to be the stumbling block in the process of return [Economic and Social Council 2002, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic 2003], and needed to be promptly removed. The resolution of conflicts over property was also a sexy market-friendly solution, impacting on future social and economic structures [Fitzpatrick 2002, UNMIK 2000b]. The Balkan context also demonstrated that restitution of property is a necessary but not sufficient condition to guarantee return: security, housing in its wider sense, the economy, access to public services, and acceptance by the majority community, are also necessary factors to reinstate the full right of housing [UNHCR 1999c, Leckie 2000, Phoung 2000, ICG 2002, IDPproject 2002b].

85

The implication of right-based approaches on the debate and on the practice

Far from being only a declaration of intent, rights-based approaches have implications in the way assistance is provided. The following points specifically illustrate how the rights-based approach could transform action on shelter and settlements, reinforcing points already made in this chapter: A holistic approach to (re)build the housing sector. The right to housing implies moving from a vision of shelter and settlements merely as physical manufacts towards interconnected entitlements; hence, it could bring about a much-needed reformulation of the sector. Leckie points out that all policies relating to housing (including restitution, resolving land and property disputes, emergency shelter, housing construction and respect and protect housing rights) should be coordinated and developed within a single consolidated policy and not as separate issues (if they are considered at all) [Leckie 2002]. This arrangement would not only strengthen the housing sector, but could also provide a template for more holistic approaches to overcome the fragmented approach to relief by small projects in sectoral isolation. There are implicit issues of communication here, e.g. in terms of ensuring connectedness.

Espousing the idea of progression. One of the obvious objections to the demand for housing rights for refugees is that conditions might be too challenging and resources lacking. However, The CESCR demands progressive realization of the right to housing [UNHRP 2002]. This means recognising that pursuing housing rights is not a matter of wanting it all, now. But it also means that the provision of shelter is only a step towards the progressive realisation of the full right to housing. Shelter and settlement cannot be delivered without a strategic view on how to progressively ensure the right to adequate housing, how to progress from delivery to empowerment, but also from relief to development. From needs to rights: supporting a vision of refugees as a resource. As pointed out by Schafer, the response to humanitarian needs assumes a deficit model. Even in situations where this seems appropriate e.g. lack of shelter it tends to produce simplistic responses based on the mechanical delivery of needed goods, and beneficiary consultation is not always a feature of such approaches. [Schafer 2002: 7]. The shift, from a needs-approach to a rights-based one, clearly implies moving from simplistic, top-down, commodity-based interventions to consultation and empowerment mechanisms. This matches well the vision, often advocated, of refugees as a resource. A rights-based approach can therefore force the inclusion of beneficiaries in relief actions and communication, and move from a delivery model to an inclusive, negotiated, enabling one. In short: there is more to housing than the life-saving shelter, and housing rights is the concept that best articulates this. It is important to shift from a perception of relief as being limited to the provision of quick-fix protection measures (especially when the emergencies span protracted periods of time or when dealing with
86

return situations) an understanding of housing as a right. The right to housing is not suspended for refugees; on the contrary international legislation reiterates that refugees are not to be discriminated. "Humanitarian action is more than providing food aid, shelter, and medical care. Human rights, humanitarian principles, and protection are equally, or perhaps even more important. Strangely, these priorities are often overlooked. Todays emergency response is still about hardware []. Only after the dust settles, or so it seems, does one start to think about what else people need in terms of rights and protection, instead of incorporating these from the beginning of a humanitarian operation" [van Mierop 2002: web page]. The convergence of both developmentalism and humanitarianism around the centrality of human rights is becoming evident. Slim observed how the schema of human rights, which development has found so late and humanitarianism lost so early but has now rediscovered, is the common practical framework for evaluating values which underpin both humanitarian action and development work [Slim 2000: 494]. As such, human rights are the basis from which to fill in the relief-development gap. Reflecting on rights-based approaches in relief is an opportunity to create a common language and consequently a bridge for communication knowledge exchange - amongst those active to ensure the right to housing and those fighting to guarantee the very same right in emergency conditions.

87

2.6

The importance of communication

This chapter discussed practice in the shelter and settlement sector in order to understand how, and to what extent, improved communication could benefit the sector. Gaps, disconnections and fragmentation have emerged in the discussion so far. This indicates the need for more effective communication. To begin with, there is a problem of coordination of the many people active in relief, and of connectedness with the range of the short-term, sectoral projects that constitute humanitarian response. There is then a problem of knowledge and experience being scattered and not consolidated into revised modalities and frameworks for assistance. There is also a gap between what is conceptualised and what is realised. The space for innovation, as a consequence, is eroded. Shelter and settlement interventions, as this research indicates, seem to require political conditions for action that do not necessarily correspond with the realities offered by the current refugee regime. What is the role of communication? Communication needs to happen at different levels, ranging from communication in the field, for coordination purposes, to communication around policies. There certainly is a need for advocacy an important communication task - to show the viability of alternative frameworks and modalities. Of course, such modalities need to be built. They can be imported and adapted wherever possible (for example by establishing knowledge exchanges with the development sector), or be purpose-built by enhancing learning in the relief sector. There is also an issue of realizing, to the extent possible in the current regime, better connectedness and coordination of the interventions, when intervening on the habitat of displaced peoples. This final section will discuss in more detail 1) issues of fragmentation and 2) the learning problem in the shelter and settlement sector. The research will then argue that communication is needed for bridging such disconnections; favouring holistic approaches; consolidating practices; driving innovation and change; and supporting advocacy that results from the interplay of two different types of information: information for operations and information from learning. They will be briefly introduced here, and then presented fully in the following two chapters.

2.6.1 Communication to reconnect fragmented interventions

Whilst the thesis has advocated the need for considering multiple dimensions of housing, the reality in the field is of short term, patchy projects that fail to address housing needs as a whole. This is determined by the nature of funding and interventions in the humanitarian realm. Fragmentation has many facets:

88

Assistance is fragmented across organisations. Crises in the spotlight tend to be overcrowded, with hundreds of organisations working concurrently. For example: more than 200 overall in Albania [HIC Albania 1999]; over 40 working specifically in the shelter sector in Afghanistan [AIMS 2003]. A range of donors, with diverse priorities and requirements, finance these projects. This clearly poses important challenges in terms of project management and coordination that could be better tackled through more effective communication. Coordination between agencies operating in the same sector - and synergies with agencies operating in other sectors - is currently left very much to the willingness and initiative of individual actors working in the field rather than deriving from an overall planning of response. Challenges of communication and coordination will be discussed in chapter 3 together with the practical responses to promote it in practice (e.g. the Humanitarian Information Centres). Assistance is fragmented across time. Most interventions are self-contained technical projects, planned, executed and evaluated in a few months. They can be reiterated without significant changes in different stages of the crisis. This is why the response to the shelter needs of a protracted refugee situation can often be to provide plastic sheets replacements year after year. This narrows the scope for sustainability, exit strategies, long-term planning, and a planned/staged approach. Approaches tend to be replicated rather than incrementally connected. This is a particularly annoying feature especially in the context of return and rehabilitation, and calls for better integration of relief and developmental approaches. The assumption that projects should be - as driven by crisis - short -term in nature is often disproved in reality. Yet this remains the prevailing paradigm in the delivery of relief (see 2.3.2). Assistance is fragmented across sectors. Relief is delivered by sectors (food and nutrition, health, shelter, water and sanitation), often through specialised agencies. As discussed in section 2.5.3 (the multiple dimensions of shelter) the full potential of shelter and settlement interventions can only be reached in a context that acknowledge the synergy of shelter with the social, economic, environmental, political... sphere. Practical tools for fostering connected approaches have been proposed. The Groupe URD, for example, offers an interesting evaluation framework for humanitarian intervention which globally assesses the achievements across multiple sectors (health, shelter, food...) and transverse issues (protection, participation, relief-development link, co-ordination) [Groupe URD 2002c]. Assistance is fragmented across stakeholders. Inclusive communication might further enlarge the range of actors that contribute to planning and realising policies and interventions, giving a social dimension to connectedness. In this context, ensuring the visibility and giving a voice to refugees (and in particular selfsettled refugees) is particularly important. Whilst the active role of beneficiaries is currently generally advocated, it is often only given lip service when projects are written hurriedly, in the heat of a crisis, in order to get funding from donors. The best bet is to adapt successful blueprints and standard practices. Whilst camps and reconstruction are the most common forms of assistance, refugees actually cope with
89

more holistic livelihood strategies. These need to be investigated to understand how intervention can support rather than undermine them. Both coordination and connectedness have been highlighted as key areas for improving current humanitarian practices, and they obviously have important communication aspects. Coordination is about establishing operational links across agencies and projects, to exchange information needed to act in a harmonised manner. The need for coordination emerged as a key recommendation from the Joint Evaluation of the Rwanda Crisis [Steering Committee 1996], and since then has reappeared as a thorny issue during crisis after crisis. Connectedness - ensuring that activities of a short-term emergency nature are carried out in a context which takes longer term and interconnected problems into account [Minear 1994a: web page] - is also centre stage as one of the emerging criteria for evaluating humanitarian assistance [OECD/DAC 1999]. Lack of connectedness has manifested itself in ineffective links amongst humanitarian and developmental operations [ALNAP 2002a], restrictive timeframes [ALNAP 2003] and also, as this research argues, in the fragmentation of humanitarian action across narrowly defined sectors of interventions. As the analysis of shelter and settlement seems to indicate, communication might increase the overall coordination, connectedness and responsiveness of interventions by connecting stakeholders, organisations, projects, and sectors that now operate in isolation.

2.6.2 Communication to reframe and cross-fertilize practices

Information about past realisations is dispersed, as is much research on coping strategies of refugees. There is a need to create the conditions to reconnect this wealth of information and to tackle vigorously the learning problem that seems to affect the humanitarian sector [Van Brabant 1997]. The establishment of shared repositories, pointers and arenas for exchange and dialogue would favour this, but they need to be supported by the interest and the political will to reflect on the sector. Raising interest for a redefinition of the shelter and settlement sector and of its standards (see Shelter Project and Sphere Project) could be constructive in this process. However, in this chapter I have also observed that shelter and settlement require more than a sector designation. The recognition of shelter as a process, the research for innovative and not standardised approaches, the engagement with a rights perspective to help bridge the gap between relief and development are all pursuits that require a holistic approach to habitat. The compartmentalised and project oriented nature of the humanitarian sector is often to blame for the resistance offered to alternative interventions. To what extent could better communication and information exchange alter this?

90

The need to bridge the gap between relief and development is an exemplar of this problem. The issue is widely discussed and recognised, by both academics and practitioners. However, there are disconnections between the on-going debate and the realisations in practice. The response to a crisis is by and large modelled by the operational and institutional structure of the relief system rather than the situation on the ground. There is an intrinsic rigidity to the distinction between relief and development as they are associated, in reality, with different ways of delivering aid, different organisations, different skills, history, culture and values - as well as - different channels of financial support. The relief contingent is generally ready to intervene when a crisis strikes. Another party is busy doing development. Each stage has its turf and there is limited mingling. Communication is very limited between actors working in relief as opposed to development, and practices are rarely disseminated between the two sectors, as there is little incentive for individual actors to do so. Practitioners tend to specialise either in relief or in development. Even informal communication channels can be limited, as relief and development workers, tend to work in different areas at different times, hence reducing the chances of meeting and exchanging ideas over a beer. Such polarisations are very entrenched and within them resides the raison dtre of the compartmentalised relief and development approaches. The opportunity of maintaining a gap amongst relief and development is disputed by much research. However, ideas that are now common currency in academic circles (refugees as a resource, the positive impact of refugees and the negative one of segregation) have so far failed to materialise in practice. There is an issue of communication here: as we will see in more detail in chapter 5, alternative approaches elaborated in the research circles, often fail to influence practices. I contend that rather than abstract ideas of relief and development, we should be looking at a bag of relief and developmental tools/capacities, and pick and choose the right mix suitable to each situation. Implementing agencies delivering shelter, for example, should not only be good at distributing plastic sheeting and rebuilding houses, even if this might be the most frequent form of assistance. They should be aware of a vast array of approaches, including developmental approaches (self-help, credit, capacity building, participatory planning) and be able to choose which combination to apply in a given situation, rather than using a prefabricated relief response. If this does not happen, relief actors risk creating a vicious circle where only relief practices are used and tested and no expertise in alternative approaches is gained. For example, an operational environment can be threatening and unsafe, and - yet despite this - it can still be possible to work in partnership with the local authorities. On the other hand, there are situations which are comparatively stable, but where cooperation with local authorities is precluded. Generically labelling a situation as relief or development tout-court does not help. It is the right combination, of tools that need to be envisaged, in a complex environment that defies these categorizations. Especially when it comes to lasting interventions, as shelter and settlement often are.

91

2.6.3 Information from learning, information for operations

It emerges that communication for improving the interventions linked to shelter and settlement sector needs to respond to different sets of challenges: conceptual (reflecting on and revising interventions and frameworks for assistance) and operational (coordinate and connect interventions in the field). In this research, they have been articulated in a broad framework as: information for humanitarian operations. This is about gathering and spreading the contextual information necessary to operate in a coordinated way in a crisis environment. It is oriented at improving the efficiency and efficacy of response in crisis contexts, including enhanced coordination. It is mainly about who, what, where. Information for operation is provided, for example, by meaningfully aggregating data in a significant what so that they can be shared amongst the actors that are implementing projects. information from learning. This is about questioning the processes and the actions that have been undertaken. The goal is to capture the results of the interventions and, consequently, be accountable and learn from them. It is the information about the how, why. There are different levels of learning. One is linked to the reflection on existing practices, to perfect them and avoid reinventing the wheel in every intervention. The other is about questioning interventions and looking at how to advocate innovative practices (e.g. participatory interventions, rights based approaches). Examining in detail such modalities of communication will be the theme for chapter 3 and 4. Knowledge: A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert inside that provides a framework for incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and applies in the mind of knowers. In organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents and repositories but also in organisational routines, processes, practices and norms. Information: A message, usually in the form of a document or an audible or visible communication that is meant to change the way the receiver perceives something. It must inform: it is data that makes a difference. Data: Discrete, objective facts about events

double loop INFORMATION FROM LEARNING single loop

INFORMATION FOR OPERATIONS

Figure 2.9. Information for operations, information from learning. Information exchanges that are needed to improve shelter and settlement interventions involve the aggregation of operational data as well as the distribution of the knowledge available in the sectors.. [Definitions adapted from Davenport and Prusak 1998 :3-6].

92

INFORMATION FOR OPERATIONS

This chapter and the following one articulate the modalities of information exchange that emerged as suitable options for communication for the shelter and settlement practices for refugees. Together they provide an understanding and a discussion of the sub-hypothesis Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities. They, in fact, consolidate scattered communication patterns into two main categories, information for operation and information from learning. The thesis will make use of this distinction to better analyse challenges and possibilities for communication in the shelter and settlement sector (and, more broadly, in the humanitarian sector as a whole). In looking at modalities for communication, care had always been taken to search for examples of communication directly applied to shelter and settlement interventions. However, the paucity of examples, forced to resort to a much broader outlook. In some cases, and this will be especially true for chapter 4, the research could not gauge the validity of communication patterns based on an appraisal of existing practices in the shelter and settlement sector as they were simply non existent. By looking at examples of communication across the humanitarian sector as a whole, and, in some cases, also at comparable sectors, I compiled a framework displaying modalities of communication that appeared to have potential for improving the shelter and settlement sector, with reference to the broad challenges highlighted in chapter 2. Wherever possible, I quote examples from shelter and settlement interventions. When these were not available, I discuss the relevance of borrowed modalities for the shelter and settlement sector. The value of these two chapters is to offer for the first time - a systematic overview of communication practices, and demonstrate that it is the combined effect of such practices and, ultimately, the advent of a communication strategy, as advocated in the conclusions of the thesis - that can really move the sector forward. Capturing information about on going programmes, in order to 1) improve coordination or 2) better gauge their impacts and gain information for evaluation and learning process (that will be discussed in the next chapter); is obviously key to improve practices. Information for operations refers to information on relief situations and on progress of on-going programmes, looking at the who, where, what. Having identified fragmentation as a problem area, this chapter focuses attention in particular on processes for sharing information for relief operations across agencies and projects. The conclusion of the previous chapter pointed out how, in the rapidly changing context of relief, organisations with narrow mandates and/or little resources needed to collaborate in order to

93

improve their understanding of the situation and the efficacy of their response. Sharing information is one of the most powerful steps in this direction. The fragmentation of humanitarian interventions means that even understanding who is doing what where, far from being trivial, would be a quantum leap forward for the actors engaged in relief. In addition to this, capturing information - diachronically across programmes - allows the relay of information. This also can counteract fragmentation, and create continuity across different projects. So, at a basic level, information for operations reduces chances for different actors to step on toes, and ensures that areas and targets overlooked are highlighted. But it also helps in ensuring that the gap between relief and development projects is bridged, and creates the possibility of a multisectorial approach in a context of piecemeal interventions. As seen in Chapter 2, in the grand scheme of things, this enhances the possibility to improve the impact of shelter and settlement interventions by operating in a synergistic way. Much progress in the management of information for operations is due to the advent of new hardware and software that allow the capture and processing of vast amounts of data (GPS, GIS, databases, remote imagery). The practices presented in the following pages could not have existed a few years ago. Most initiatives for information sharing across agencies make intensive use of information technology (IT) and are often based on the assumption that humanitarian workers have the necessary hardware with them to access and process resources on the Internet. The impact of the advent of the Internet and the attitudes of its users need to be analysed in more detail, and this will happen in chapter 6. However, despite the obvious importance of the technological aspect, information exchange is not simply a technical challenge. Technology allows for certain procedures to be automated and brought into routine usage, and this requires investment in information processing skills and tools. But, there is no model for information exchange that is valid and adaptable to every condition. Information needs to be continuously renegotiated according to the priorities that are strategically relevant in a given humanitarian crisis; these include politics, needs, concerns, attitudes, and capacity of the actors. Issues of power and control over information need equal consideration. This and not simply the standardisation of (mostly quantitative) data or the building of a platform to process it is the real challenge for exchanging information for operations in humanitarian initiatives. This chapter starts by investigating issues of coordination amongst agencies and actors operating in relief contexts (3.2). It then discusses, with examples, how the interplay between an increased emphasis on coordination and the advent of new technologies brought about collaborative forms of information exchange (3.3).

94

3.1

SITUATING THIS CHAPTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THESIS

Chapter 3 looks at the modalities through which information for operations is delivered. It collects and systematises practical examples of operational communication as found out in the course of the research. The idea of information for operation as complementary to the information from learning is a conceptualisation originated from this thesis. As pointed out in the introductory section, the reflection on the role of communication in improving policies and practices for shelter and settlement did not depart from the analysis of any communication theory. Such theory, in fact, is still absent in the humanitarian sector. The thesis, therefore, needed to build a framework for communication. The conceptualisation of modalities of communication offered in chapter 3 and 4 is an integral component of such framework. In accordance with the tenets of the grounded theory, chapter 3 and 4 look at building a framework that can be practically applied to serve shelter and settlement policies and practices based on emerging examples. They aim at putting together and at organising systematically the varieties of options for information exchange (applicable to the shelter and settlement sectors) that emerged in the course of this research. The focus is on communication options and processes, unravelled with a field perspective. The resulting framework can therefore articulate the meaning of communication, and the modalities of information exchange. A variety of options and modalities for information exchange are presented, and, ultimately, they will be matched with challenges emerging from the analysis of the shelter and settlement sector in refugee assistance.

Shelter and settlement sector

challenges

Grounding the hypothesis

Information

Communication options

Actors

Media

95

In describing modalities for information exchange, chapter 3 and 4 are closely linked and complementary. Information for operation, despite having the lions share in todays humanitarian practices (with many resources invested to facilitate gathering and exchange of operational information) cannot alone improve practices. Information for learning, to understand the why and how of practices and policies, is equally needed. However, modalities of information exchanges (i.e. the complementary information for operations and information for learning) are only one facet of communication. They need to be looked at in connection with an analysis of the actors and the media. This chapter has obvious links with chapter 5 - actors (for example: how does the stance and the positioning of different actors influence issues of power and information control? What are their attitudes towards information exchange?) - and chapter 6 the Internet (as the advent of the Internet and IT has represented a turning point in the capacity of collecting, aggregating, analysing and disseminating information).

96

3.2

COORDINATION

Coordination can help improving practices by improving the efficiency of operations. I already discussed the challenges posed to shelter and settlement programmes by insufficient co-ordination in the conclusions of chapter 2. Key challenges are: 1) to increase coordination to reduce fragmentation across projects and organizations; 2) to use coordination as a way to achieve a multi-sectoral approach to habitat; 3) to look at how coordination can help reducing the gap across relief and development interventions. I will now discuss coordination in more detail. The emphasis is on the information exchange that coordination needs to support. In acute crises, inter-organisational relationships tend to be denser than in development work: many more actors work side by side and within a shorter time span. The co-presence of different organisations with different mandates can be detrimental, making emergency responses slow and inefficient [Martin 2000]. To further complicate the situation, agencies on the ground might have different approaches: broad mandate; sectoral concerns (water and sanitation, shelter, health; etc); and/or may be working in different phases of relief or rehabilitation, etc. Coordination thus becomes important to ensure that gaps/needs are not overlooked [Reed 1991]. Improved coordination also facilitates assistance delivery and contributes to ensuring equitable distribution. The quest for co-ordination, is - increasingly - an imperative of humanitarian assistance. Coordination mechanisms are routinely put into place in emergency settings, e.g. through the establishment of lead agencies, coordination meetings, etc. [for a discussion of practices see: Bennet 1995, Van Brabant 1999, Suhrke et al. 2000, Sommers 2000, Reindorp and Wiles 2001].
International coordinating committees

Designed lead agencies

OSOCC
Donor agencies
(On-Site Operations Coordination Center) HOC (Humanitarian Operations Center)

NGOs

CMOC
Civil Military

Military

Figure 3.1. An example of mechanisms for coordinating between IGOs, UN, NGOs and the military used in Somalia. The international actors active in a crisis coordinate through a variety of mechanisms, amongst different groups (e.g. coordination amongst NGOs or UN) and at different levels. Coordination centres are increasingly a common feature of intervention (e.g. HOC in Somalia, OSOCC in Rwanda), and their feature includes a) Developing and overseeing the overall strategy; b) Coordinating logistics support; c) Arranging military support; d) Monitoring the delivery of humanitarian assistance [Adapted from: Witzig Davidson, Daly Hayes, and Landon 1996].

97

There are in practice different views of what coordination should entail, and to what extent coordination can have elements of control. According to a recent ILO report, coordination that is hierarchical and executive (i.e. where binding decisions are taken by those with the greater authority) seems to be ill suited to respond to a context where organisations are very different and not hierarchically organised, and where they value their independence a great deal. A model of coordination based on facilitation and consensus (i.e. where conditions for interactions amongst peers are created, but decisions are not binding) is the one that does and can work in the humanitarian world [Calvi-Parisetti and Kiniger-Passigli 2003: 24]. This kind of coordination can also include the setting of interagency standards, as in the case of Sphere (see chapter 2), promoting common approaches. Information sharing is clearly a prerequisite for this kind of coordination. In recent years the desire for interagency coordination materialised in a series of projects and programmes for information exchange. Humanitarian Information Centres (HICs) are now a common feature of most emergencies, providing a place and an institutional setting for understanding who does what where. Donors are supportive of these initiatives, and might link their funding to the sharing of data: implementing partners should regularly share information with other organisations in the area, particularly in accord with established information centers [USAID/OFDA 2002: 15]. The extent to which this information exchange results in coordination is difficult to assess. The assumption is that a push to coordinate is implied in the act of exchanging information: a better knowledge of the situation and of the activities of other agencies will guide and harmonise operational choices. However, as tension in coordination meetings in the field illustrates, the practical enforcement of higher levels of coordination / control is difficult. There are important variations across sectors. Self contained and specialist fields such as mine clearance / risk education are increasingly attempting to link a shared information exchange environment (the IMSMA database) with the allocation of tasks. This is coordinated centrally, through Mine Action Centres [IMSMA 2003] and is made possible by the culture of this closely-knit sector. The sector acknowledges that clearance is to be planned according to priorities that can only become apparent through assessments that cannot be conducted by a single agency. Furthermore the technical nature of the task calls for standardised procedures. However a similar level of centralised control in defining priorities and areas for action is likely to be resisted by other sectors and might be ill-suited to different tasks [ALNAP 2003]. As far as the shelter and settlement sector is concerned, coordination in practice is still a challenge. A recent evaluation of shelter interventions in Afghanistan, discussed the common global approach agreed by donors. On the positive side, the pre-formatting of the response has tended to sensibly reduce the time taken for diagnosis and needs assessment as well as the delivery of ill-connected projects, not suited to the context. However it has diminished the prospective and innovative capacity of NGOs. Furthermore, it did not prevent the concentration of projects in strategic or easily accessible areas [Groupe URD 2002b: web page].
98

The benefits of coordination on shelter and settlement planning are not to be found in a standardised, sectoral approach. Rather, as pointed out in chapter 2, coordination can harmonise different components to attain a holistic approach to shelter and settlement and a smoother transition from relief to development. I have built a case in Chapter 2 that, while shelter and settlement intervention require an interdisciplinary approach with a long-term perspective, relief projects tend to be short-term and circumscribed. An important effect of coordination is that it can create the synergies across projects, necessary to achieve a de-facto multisectoral approach with a broader perspective. For all interventions investing in habitat, improved coordination around shelter and settlement issues could be a first necessary step to build a more responsive approach that is currently impeded by the contractual nature of many projects. Furthermore, it is not only the quality of the individual projects that matters, but also the fairness of the overall level of assistance. Even the best projects, if realised in isolation, could have negative effects (creation of inequalities and jealousies) that could be detrimental to the overall object of shelter and settlement interventions: rebuilding communities and building peace.

Challenges of coordination
Coordination is more easily said than done. There is more to coordination than simply information collection and sharing: issues of access, control, and power can only be addressed through trust and mutual respect.

Who belongs to the club?

In the context of relief, NGOs, international bodies, and local actors need to act together, but are constrained by weak linkages [Watkins 2001]. A few actors (key donors, UN, largest NGOs) are likely to have stronger relationships, as they find themselves operating together in different crises. The problem is the existence of a large number of NGOs and new actors that are seen to undermine co-ordination. The humanitarian establishment frowns upon humanitarian tourism (i.e. the proliferation of humanitarian organizations with little or no expertise or experience which descend in their numbers on a given hot spot, and the danger they pose to the population and their colleagues in crisis situations) [Callamard 2001: 7]. Calls for the rationalisation of the number of NGOs allowed to operate in an area has been made [Sommers 2000], as well as for accreditation and monitoring mechanisms [Callamard 2001]. This trend is of course fraught with dangers, as it could end up in reinforcing the power of the most established organisations and reduce the space for the participation of new actors. On one hand it is certainly important to build accountability in the system. Organization must appreciate the importance of coordinating effectively (and consequently, to act in such a way as not to undermine the work of the humanitarian system as a whole). On the other there are dangers in using the need for coordination as a pretext for excluding actors: the balance is hard to find, but it is certainly one of the challenges ahead for improving the efficiency of the humanitarian system.

99

Coordination as control?
Coordination can be seen in diametrically different ways (as control or as facilitation) and, as a consequence agencies, especially NGOs, remain cautious about it. As the organisations belonging to the SCHR put it, The UN has explicitly determined, [] that humanitarian action should be integrated under a more complex political and social agenda. In our experience this means that coordinated action is all too often a tool for the co-option of humanitarian action in pursuit of political interests [MSF 2001: web page]. As a result, organisations seem to draw a line between supplying information to coordinate initiatives, and, using this information as a basis for suggesting that agencies work in particular areas or sectors [ALNAP 2003]. NGOs are likelier to espouse the concern raised by participants during a seminar on humanitarian coordination: It was unlikely, perhaps undesirable, for all parties the humanitarian, the diplomat, the national authority to share the same objectives. The need was for an alignment of interests rather than a consensus on narrow objectives [DANIDA 1999: web page].

Fear to relinquish control and secrecy

Those working in projects for information exchange have been confronted with resistance to put information in the public domain: Many organisations have difficulty sharing information because they feel that by sharing, they give up the control over how that information is used [Currion 2001a: web page]. Legitimate concerns, such as the risk to jeopardise operational security by putting information in the public domain, can be aggravated by a culture of secrecy, as discovered by Watkins: public-information culture is marked by secrecy, manipulation of humanitarian information and deficient accountability [Watkins 2001: 47]. Those concerns are even more relevant in the emerging sphere of civil-military coordination (see chapter 5).

Information as a competitive advantage

The fact that humanitarian organisations compete over funding, media exposure and even beneficiaries has been repeatedly discussed [Hilhorst 2001]. This constant competition may hinder coordination and networking among humanitarian agencies [Forman and Parhad 2000,Watkins 2001]. Organisations may resist sharing information, in particular when security issues are involved or funding is at stake. Some NGOs, under pressure from donors and their constituents, have been reluctant to share information, seeing themselves as competitors for large amounts of donor funds available. Another manifestation of this has been the competition for beneficiaries. There are accounts of some beneficiaries being courted by these NGOs on the basis that some offer 'better deals' than others. In the worst instances this has lead to falsely raising the expectations of local communities to a point that can not be realised as the INGO has been far too optimistic about its capacity to provide [Scott-Flynn 1999: web page].

100

3.3

MODALITIES OF INFORMATION EXCHANGE FOR OPERATIONS

The increased importance of coordination - and the recognition of the central role of information circulation in increasing it - spurred considerable efforts oriented at improving information exchange across agencies. As illustrated below in Figure 3.2, they operate at different scales, across sectors, and with different goals. Some might focus on data related to specific sectors or of interest to a few organisations (e.g. databases set-up by donors to monitor the programmes they finance in a specific sector). HICs provide the country level support and the expertise necessary to collate, process and disseminate data from the agencies in the field at the country level. Initiatives such as ReliefWeb have an even broader scope, providing a continuous news-stream from partner agencies working in crisis areas around the world. Local/ sectoral
Sectoral monitoring Systems Humanitarian information Centres

broad scope
Humanitarian information Portals

Programme / sector databases HICs have been set in all the recent Wider portal, oriented at organising news E.g.: municipal housing database in large-scale humanitarian operation, for from a variety of sources and crisis and Bosnia and Kosovo example in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq linking to key pointers for information have been active for several years. ReliefWeb is possibly the most famous.

Figure 3.2. Modalities of information exchange for operations. To maximise their impact, systems should be seen as complementary. Information from an organisation internal information management system should feed into monitoring systems run by donors or by consortia of organisations, and, from these, to humanitarian information systems at the country level. Portals might help retrieving such information, also across crisis. This of course calls for broad agreements on the format of data and information. As a corollary to this, organisations should ponder how better to adapt their own individual processes to collective ones, to maximise the value and the relevance of their information when exchanging it across agencies.

The usefulness of these initiatives has been acknowledged, and they are now common features of crisis responses. The average fieldworker might encounter many of them in their daily routine. S/he might look at ReliefWeb for news about the country where s/he is working, or get crisis updates in the mailbox; attend coordination meetings hosted by the HIC and get some useful contact lists and maps from there (possibly noticing that the projects of his/her organisation are not yet shown, well, I should remember to send an e-mail to those guys); and later in the day, complain about having to fill in a reporting form and having to find the data that donors want. Information initiatives serve a variety of purposes and work differently. Incentives need to be put in place to ensure that these resources are used. Some might be based on directives and control (e.g. database for donors); others cunningly leverage on the needs of aid-workers (the HIC providing maps); others build on the quality and coverage of their information to attract the reader, or on their ability to be a valued showcase to drive in information (e.g. ReliefWeb). The different focus and level of coercion that are applicable to those databases impose different approaches to their design, maintenance and user support. And they correspond to fundamentally different strategies of information sharing and use.
101

Of course there is a lot to be done to improve the attitude of workers towards information. The support of senior managers to the creation of a culture of information sharing that promotes free flow of data, information and ideas, facilitates informed decision-making and builds trust and commitment among stakeholders has been recognised as an essential process that requires strong leadership, vision and investment [UN-OCHA 2002: 32].

Sectoral information monitoring systems

Specific databases have been set up to collect information related to programmes. In Kosovo and Bosnia, for example, the EU gathered information on reconstruction activities (including project proposals submitted and approved in the shelter sector). The data collected included information on building works, their location and progress, as well as information on beneficiaries. These databases have the merit of centralising and aggregating data that can then be used by high-level decision makers as well as by specialists and NGOs in the process of establishing their priorities [IMG International Management Group 1999]. However, some of these databases end up being quite bureaucratic in their approach to information. They might fail to give feedback to the data-providers, and give little thought to the opportunity cost of information. In the specific case of the EU database, for example, it has been observed that the information contained could be augmented in value if shared centrally - with appropriate authorisation - across different organisations maintaining similar datasets. However, no provisions for this have been put in place: the database was mainly oriented to the need of the donors to get information at the municipal and central level [Talmon-l'Armee 2001, Department for reconstruction 2000]. In the absence of an adequate stimulus, bureaucratised information does not travel much, and concerns about ownerships might constrain its use. When information systems are not built in a way to offer clear benefits to all users, they assume an extractive nature and can only work through coercion (e.g. in situations of unequal power sharing such as Donor / NGO, HQ / field). The ownership and payback for data providers might be very limited. They rarely get any feedback, and this lessens the value of such systems as an operational tool as well as a learning mechanism for implementing agencies. The challenge for these kinds of information systems (as for those internal to organisations) is to think out of the box and find opportunities to increase the value and the relevance of the information collected. Unfortunately, the fate of many information systems is that they might be given much attention in the initial phase when they are designed, investing considerable resources, but the less glamorous (but in fact vital!) routine of updating and maintenance is often overlooked. Even worse, limited efforts are made to ensure that results are actually used and disseminated [Davies 1996].

Humanitarian Information Centres

HICs are now routinely set as part of crisis responses to support the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance through the provision of information products and services. A HIC supports the decision-making process at headquarters and field level by contributing to the creation of a common framework for information
102

management within the humanitarian community [OCHA no date: web page]. The relevance of HICs for shelter and settlement interventions is evident. They provide contextual information. They allow to understand who is doing what. They have the potential to provide the information required to integrate programmes impacting on the habitat of the refugees. The pioneering HICs established in recent crises proved to be an effective and needed support for relief assistance, and demonstrated the added value of better information exchange to support coordination initiatives at the country level [Watkins 2001, Suhrke et al. 2000]. HICs are initiatives of particular interest for this research: they are now a common feature in crises, with a presence at field level. They give visibility to information and provide a setting for information exchange. They have a solid Internet interface in order to disseminate the information processed. Table 3.1 lists modes of information management that have been supported by HICs in recent crises. Different centres had different focuses, and supported a different mix of the information-based activities. The Albania HIC, for example, was oriented towards providing a focal point for meetings/ coordination and did not develop Internet interfaces. Prior attempts, as the AzerWeb, instead, invested considerably on the creation of web maps to display geo-referenced data and information. HICs have been running under different settings, and lead agencies (often UN agencies or interagency consortia). Increasingly OCHA has taken the lead, as the obvious reference point for humanitarian coordination. HICs are nowadays a common feature of crisis response. They are increasingly standardised on the basis of previous experiences: they are pre-packaged, ready for deployment as soon as a crisis strikes.
Mode Public Information Publications Public Information Resources Data Co-ordination Operational Support Liaison Services Electronic Dissemination Information Gathering/Analysis Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Communication Capacity Building Advocacy Examples Contact lists, Situation Reports, meeting schedules E-mail/Internet access, meeting space, photocopy, mailboxes Data standards, database support, advocacy Logistics tracking, security briefings Field Liaison, CIMIC, government, NGO CD-ROMs, E-mailing lists, website Primary data collection, policy work Data standards, analysis/planning Intranet, file management, bulletin boards Training, facilitation of local NGO contacts Information co-ordination groups

Table 3.1. Modes of information management that have been supported by HICs in recent crises [Source: Currion 2001b]

The vast range of modes of action for the HICs derives from the fact that they offer to the humanitarian community both a physical place to meet and a powerful infrastructure to process data. Both options are quite attractive when accessible and if offered by an entity that can be perceived as a neutral honest broker [Currion 2001b: web page]. The capacity to engage people in information exchange is crucial for the success of those initiatives, as no one organisation can collect all the data and information needed during a relief operation [UN-OCHA 2002: 15]. The role of HICs is therefore twofold: to advocate a culture of information-

103

sharing in the humanitarian community and to generate awareness of good practice; to make it possible for agencies to develop common standards and practices in the field [OCHA no date].

The importance of partnership in data exchange

Running a HIC is about attracting people as well as using technology, a point that I will further explore in chapter 6. The following considerations should demonstrate the need to focus on and respect user needs and perceptions. They apply to HICs and similar projects. The points are listed in a progression moving from the need to educate stakeholders to the importance of using data, to the factual facilitation of this task, to the creation of a culture of information sharing. Last but not least, a shared information system needs to tackle issues of use, ownership and control of information honestly. It is important to help users, to understand the value of information needs for improving their practices, as well as to recognise their information needs: many organizations do not realize how weak their information base is, nor how they can build upon it [Currion 2001b: web page]. Information needs to be made accessible. This is not simply a technological issue (i.e. producing information on formats that are inter-operable on different systems) but also a question of userfriendliness and relevance. Data overload or data incorrectly packaged might result in information not being used. Information exchanges must also be designed to respond to emerging demands. They must serve operational and strategic needs and seek feedback from users to ensure that products and services meet the needs of customers, and adapt those outputs accordingly [OCHA no date: web page]. Investing in information should provide a return. People might be persuaded of the value of sharing data, for example, when they pictorially see the results in dynamic maps or other tools that might be relevant for their needs. The idea of data diplomacy - put forward by some authors - refers to this when pointing out that data acquisition is often the most challenging task. The creation of give and take incentives is important: practical opportunities can facilitate data exchange and create a culture of sharing by making visible the benefits of data pooling [Benini et al. 2001]. Encouraging partnership is critical to both the short-term success and long-term sustainability of fieldbased information systems. Partnerships encourage trust and commitment among stakeholders and allow information systems to remain objective, accountable and focused on common rather than narrow interest [UN-OCHA 2002: 15]. The management of joined information system should guarantee neutrality and transparency in the treatment of information. In settings where issues of information ownership and control are critical, the conditions for data sharing need to be honestly negotiated. In all occasions those in charge with HICs should guarantee that information is treated according to ethical principles [UN-OCHA 2002]. When supporting partnerships on data exchange, HICs are also confronted with a range of technical challenges. The most demanding and crucial one is perhaps the establishment of standards. The harmonisation of datasets and the achievement of acceptable standards in the quality of data so that they can
104

be pooled, analysed, compared, validated, reconciled and mapped require a common frame of reference to be established, leading to more coordinated decision making, such as which areas to prioritise, who is responsible for what, what kind of assistance is warranted [GIST - Geographic Information Support Team 2000: 1]. SHARE (Structured Humanitarian Assistance Reporting) is an approach that has been evolving in recent emergencies to respond to these challenges [see also: King and Dilley 2001]. In addition to this, wider Operational Principles for Humanitarian Information Management and Exchange have also been recently agreed in an OCHA lead symposium [UN-OCHA 2002].

Products of partnership on data (as seen from the Internet)

In order to promote the openness of the information exchange, the HICs should be, first of all, places open to all aid-workers. The availability of the Internet is not to be automatically assumed, and static products (maps, manuals, CD-ROM encyclopaedias) that can be used in the absence of an Internet connection should be routinely produced. However, many products of the HICs are increasingly available on the Internet. Web sites for humanitarian information exchange have evolved a great deal in recent years. In the following pages I describe the look and feel of some HICs by focusing on their Internet interfaces. In particular, I show how information relating to the shelter and settlement sector had been displayed. Early information centres tended to establish their Internet presence from scratch. A certain number of elements were common, but the navigation interface and the underlying technology could differ a great deal. Some would provide only a few pages of information, to merely announce their existence. Others invested considerably in the latest technologies at their disposal. Amongst the first centres to make use of GIS on the Internet now a core feature of the HICs - was AzerWeb. It was conceived in 1995, and displayed project and documentation linked to regional maps (Figure 3.3)

Figure 3.3. A screenshot of AzerWeb. This screenshot (captured in 2000) shows the use of maps to display project locations and link documentation and reports [http:// www.azerweb.com]

105

Figure 3.4. Screenshots of HICs The North Caucasus HIC is on line at http://www.ocha.ru/ and the occupied Palestinian one at http://www.hic-opt.org/

An important task for HICs is to share documentation, situation and coordination reports about a crisis. Some HIC websites give much space to on-line archives of locally produced documents, and to documents mirrored from other portals (e.g. ReliefWeb). Standardised maps and GIS are also an important ingredient, at the core of many HICs. They might be produced mainly by means of remote imagery, especially at the outset of a crisis when access is an issue (Figure 3.5). However the maps that better reflect the benefits of partnership for information exchange are those produced by pooling information from various organisations. The situation assessment exercises taking place in recent crises are a good example of this. Figure 3.6 is an extract from the standard form that was used in Kosovo. An accurate survey of housing reconstruction needs was a primary concern, and the survey form included a set of sketches illustrating the five-level categorization of housing damage to help count and classify houses in each category. Information on water supply, electrical power, school and health care facilities, presence of displaced persons and relief agencies was also collected [Smith 2001]. The survey was rapidly completed, but updating it proved to be more challenging, showing the difficulties of maintaining momentum in information exchange.

106

Figure 3.5. Assessment of damaged building in Kosovo. This map is an example of the use of GIS and remote imagery, and was prepared prior to the withdrawal of the Serbian forces. The Rapid Village Assessment could successively provide a more detailed estimation of damages based on field visits [source: Smith 2001]

Figure 3.6. Rapid Village Assessment (RVA) housing damages. An extract of the standard survey form for RVA developed by HCIC and NGOs in Kosovo. It was used as a common template by a variety of actors, including KFOR. [UNHCR 1999d]

Figure 3.7. Shelter interventions in Afghanistan. An example of who does what where map produced by the HIC in Afghanistan [Shelter and housing 2003] and the database interface for the generation of customised reports.
107

Data on on-going intervention are now increasingly captured in who does what where databases (Figure 3.7), which are a common feature of the newest HICs. Information is disaggregated by sectors and combined with relevant documentation on sectoral interventions. Needless to say, those services require considerable effort to be maintained and the collaboration of various actors, but can prove essential in facilitating coordination. Some sectors invested heavily in data management to create shared information systems. The IMSMA database for mine action is an interesting example of how a shared system of information management became globally used and informed the decision making process [IMSMA 2003]. The sector is relatively selfcontained and is characterised by centralised coordination through Mine Action Centres. They put emphasis on the collection and elaboration of information for priority setting and for coordination and monitoring of agencies active in different fields (mine clearance, mine risk education, victim assistance).

Humanitarian information portals

Humanitarian information portals are becoming increasingly popular points of reference for humanitarian workers. They are an entry point to access a wealth of information and news produced by different agencies and concerning different crisis areas. The importance of non-partisan information in situations of conflict cannot be overstressed. Lack of reliable information sources and the use of propaganda, are a root cause and a common feature of many recent conflicts, hence the importance to establish services to readdress this [Owen-Davies 2000]. IRIN (http://www.irinnews.org), a service run by OCHA, was set up in 1995 in the aftermath of the Rwanda crisis to provide a free, open, reliable, strategic and timely source of news to and from an array of actors (e.g.: governments, aid workers, civil societies, disaster specialists etc). Reports from IRIN balance analysis with the provision of contextual information and offer analytical reports, daily summaries of events, chronologies, interviews, and weekly digests [IRIN/OCHA 2002]. Efforts to improve communication on humanitarian crisis were also undertaken outside the UN system. AlterNet (http://www.alertnet.org), a spin-off of Reuters, was founded in 1997 to provide online news and communication services to international disaster relief organisations [Alertnet 2003]. The press-agency matrix is very evident in this service, as well as in a number of similar projects which also puts journalism at the service of humanitarian actors (for example, the Institute of War and Peace reporting [IWPR 2003]). They all make extensive use of the Internet, by displaying news on the web as well as providing direct and free e-mail delivery to subscribers. Whilst those projects are not directly related to shelter and settlement, it is nevertheless important to mention them in the context of this research. They are a meaningful example of effective information partnerships between humanitarian and media workers. They make available contextual information that is necessary to gain a better understanding of the crisis situation.

108

ReliefWeb (http://www.reliefweb.int/) is probably the most well known resource amongst humanitarian workers. Founded in 1996, it also provides news and reports, but with a difference from the models presented so far: information is not edited centrally, but it is directly published as provided from partner organisations (mostly UN and NGOs agencies). This requires a great deal of trust from all sides, and, based on interviews with the founders of the service, the biggest challenge in setting the service was precisely the creation of this trust. This planted the seeds for pulling information together, to create a body of knowledge that is greater than the sum of the parts. The value of this service is to organise and make easily accessible a wealth of information coming from different sources, and this is done by relatively low-tech settings. When it comes to its Internet strategy, it is a high concept, low tech system: ReliefWebs strength lies in the depth and breadth of its content and its ability to package it in a clear and systematic way. Technology, therefore, was never the point, but the vehicle that allowed it to reach a broad audience living in places with limited Internet access and slow connectivity. From the outset, the sites developers have avoided graphics and animations that required high bandwidth in favour of speed and reliability, and have worked to simplify and streamline its design and document classification [Haggarty and Duncan 2001: web page]. Additional services to news-stream on crisis areas are provided (job listings, library of reference manuals, map archive, links to external resources including HICs). All of them require a great deal of collaboration across agencies. The success of this project and its growing partnerships with other enterprises sheds a positive light on the possibilities for humanitarian organisation to exchange information effectively.

3.3.1 Models of information exchange: integrated systems vs. independent services

The analysis of different systems for the delivery of information for operation showed how their purpose and underlying assumptions could differ. Schofield identified two antagonistic models for humanitarian information exchange: integrated systems and independent services [Schofield 2002]. Their characteristics are illustrated in Figure 3.8. The idea of integrated systems is favoured by donors, the military and, in general, by those actors who are better geared for and would gain from a centrally controlled approach to humanitarian interventions. NGOs, on the contrary, are more likely to contribute and use independent service models (e.g. ReliefWeb) and can be wary of information systems that have a strong orientation towards coordination for control. This demonstrates that information management is far from neutral. Modalities matter. The attitudes of different actors towards information exchange as well as their capacities to collect and share data need to be critically appraised prior to setting a system. The friction between an integrated system and an independent service model, for example, is particularly evident in the case of the HICs; the tension about the need for information and the problematic of its management can be palpable.

109

One important point to make is the fact that the adoption of a common data format, rather than being an imposition on agencies, could actually increase their independence and facilitate the creation of alternative information hubs. Organisations can be wary of systems aimed at improving the efficiency of data collection in a centralised location, feeling that they can end up eroding their independence and the neutrality of NGOs. However, formats such as those advocated by SHARE [GIST - Geographic Information Support Team 2000] can ensure more flexibility by allowing the exchange of data across a variety of systems. Hummerlink noticed that in the context of humanitarian aid, therefore, the services model, with its multiple information sources and 'market-driven' character, would be best suited to effectively improve the humanitarian response system. To promote developments in this direction, operational agencies should try to temper the enthusiasm of information professionals and the donor community for greater systems integration. Simultaneously, they would have to commit more resources to their own efforts to develop information systems, in order to avoid dependency on one centrally delivered vision [Hummerlink 2002: 8].

SYSTEM

AGENCY

AGENCY

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

POLICY

AGENCY

SERVICE

AGENCIES

AGENCY

FIELD OPERATIONS

AGENCY

Integrated system model

Highly structured, bureaucratic nature Strong cooperation amongst agencies to achieve effective humanitarian response Hierarchical pyramid structure: information gathered at the base, passed on to the top (i.e. field to HQ, local to international, implementing agencies to donors) Direct coordination, resource allocation modelled by system Actors contained within the system (i.e. they have to subscribe to the system rules)

Independent service model

Loosely coupled arrangement Information service providers are competing to fill particular niches High degrees of operational independence Indirect facilitation and coordination Agencies choose whether and how to use these services: they are not forced within the system

Figure 3.8. Integrated system model vs. independent service model [Adapted from Schofield 2002]

110

3.4

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter reviewed current practices for information for operations. Information for operation is a category defined by this research. It articulates scattered modalities for communication on the who, where, what of a relief effort. In conjunction with the next chapter information for learning, this chapter illustrates and argues the case for the sub-hypothesis Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities, with reference to the shelter and settlement sector but also, more broadly, to the humanitarian sector as a whole. In looking at modalities for collecting information for operations, it emerged that the humanitarian sector is eagerly capitalising on the opportunities offered by IT (e.g. GIS and Internet) to put in place communication initiatives that connect organisations and individuals (these issues will be further discussed in chapter 6, which further discusses the sub-hypothesis improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media). The resulting blossoming of initiatives has been, indubitably, a step ahead to support coordination and ensure connectedness. Information for operations, as seen from the examples in this chapter, has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the shelter and settlement interventions. It can reduce overlapping, duplication of efforts and imbalances in the provision of relief to beneficiaries served by different agencies. Furthermore, it has the potential for creating synergies across organisations that are de facto responding to wider habitat needs (e.g. linking provision of shelter with water and sanitation interventions). It can help ensure continuity despite the short life span of projects. Examples of this have been discussed in the course of the chapter. In other words, information for operations has the potential to create the conditions for a more holistic and strategic approach to shelter and settlement, as advocated in chapter 2, and to help bridging the gap across intervention based on a relief matrix with a more developmental one. It needs to be observed that coordination and connectedness depend on the political will to share and use information and are linked to issues of power. Sharing information is still a problem, curtailed by ambivalent attitudes to data collection and exchange. There is also an issue of trust and control. The discussion on integrated system vs. independent service models pointed out the potential implications of control of centralised information systems, and the resistances of organisations. Information for operations, far from being neutral, requires acknowledgement of the political importance of information. This is a key issue. It demonstrates how the space for innovation and synergies opened by new communication initiatives could be restricted again if the modalities of such communication do not respond to the priorities and concerns of organisations. These issues will be discussed again - focusing on the actors of information exchange - in chapter 5. It will become clear that modalities of communication are not neutral, but, as argued in one of the sub-hypothesis of the research, effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors.

111

INFORMATION FROM LEARNING

This chapter, together with the previous one (information for operations), articulates modalities of communication for shelter and settlement programmes. In doing so, it unfolds and supports the subhypothesis Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities. Whilst the chapter on information on operations could review a wide range of communication undertakings, there is far less evidence of learning endeavours in shelter and settlement programmes. This chapter will therefore be largely aspirational. It will build the case for improving learning in the shelter and settlement sector. It will consolidate and systematise an array of methods and tools that can be employed to this purpose. This chapter touches on many different concepts that are drawn from the emerging theories of knowledge management. The difficulties of this endeavour derive from the large number of interlinked concepts and theories in this discipline. The copious literature and research on the subject oscillates widely between the epistemological complexity and abstraction of multi-disciplinary studies tackling the problem of knowledge, and the nearly magic read-and-go recipes promised by some of the business oriented literature [for an overview of broad concepts and theories see for example Davies 1998, Roper and Pettit 2002, Dierkes et al. 2001]. Out of this vast literature, I selectively pick and choose those ideas that seem to carry more potential for sprouting a fertile discussion around the use of the Internet to improve practices in the humanitarian shelter and settlement sector, or that can better resonate with the perspective of development and humanitarian organisations. The generation of information from learning is about distilling the knowledge gained implementing projects and adapting it for future use. This can happen at different times (before, during, after a project), and at different levels. For example, it is possible to look at the efficiency of a single project, or to question more radically the relevance and effectiveness of the modalities chosen for the overall response. Learning is also about fostering, capturing and sharing experience and expertise of the individuals as well as institutional knowledge. The Internet and IT can have an important role in supporting such processes, by enhancing opportunities for communication amongst people and by creating repositories and archives of knowledge or of knowledgeable

112

people. In other words, they can support some information exchanges that are functional to knowledge generation, management and use. Learning is a key pursuit for humanitarian organisations and is a genuine concern for those aid-workers and organisations wanting to improve. There is a growing pressure to promote learning, also because learning can result in a competitive advantage. Competition for funds demands new responses such as increased specialization and more efficient and effective delivery systems [Forman and Parhad 2000]. Hence, the interest of having effective learning processes in place. Knowledge is increasingly perceived as an asset, a vision that pushes reflection and investments on the modes of production of knowledge and its validation, circulation and retention. The ALNAP Annual Review 2002 noticed that there is already quite widespread use of mechanisms intended to facilitate learning from experience, with many humanitarian organisations consciously attempting to enhance their activity to learn at the individual, team and organisational level [ALNAP 2002a: 59]. The most consolidated mechanisms for learning are monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities. However, despite providing a solid base to reflect on experience, M&E does not suffice to satisfy the learning needs of organisations, individuals, and of the shelter and settlement sector as a whole. The need for diverse and wider learning mechanisms is becoming increasingly apparent. Organisations are experimenting with alternative approaches to create learning organisations [O'Malley and O'Donoghue 2000]. The importance of dialogue and dissemination is becoming more and more evident also in the inter-organisational context (as shown in chapter 5). This chapter starts by outlining challenges for learning in relief (4.2). It then discusses two broad types of learning: learning from projects and learning from people (4.3). The former is mostly achieved by monitoring and evaluation processes (4.4). The latter, still undervalued, requires building a learning culture in organisations, valuing individual improvements and contributions. A learning organisation needs to be equipped to communicate effectively. Consequently, the chapter reviews modalities of knowledge exchange,as applied for shelter and settlement intervention (4.5). The attention is then directed to change, investigating how, and to what extent, knowledge is translated into practice (4.6). The last section discusses the importance of advocacy in creating the conditions for change (4.6.4).

113

4.1

SITUATING THIS CHAPTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THESIS

Chapter 4 looks at the modalities through which information from learning is gained. Information from learning according to the conceptualisation originated from this research - is complementary to information for operations. This chapter builds a framework to organise and collect practical models of communication for learning and change as found in the course of the research. Many examples derive from research outside the shelter and settlement sector. The research revealed that information from learning was poorly addressed by the sector (this has already been discussed in chapter 2 and will again be underlined in chapter 6, when looking at the availability of Internet resources on M&E). As a result, this is the most aspirational chapter of this research, especially in its section learning from people. It suggests possibilities to be implemented rather than presenting existing models, as I was able to do in the previous chapter. At the same time it suggests that modalities for communication can be used and cross-fertilised across sectors. This is an important step in rethinking communication for the humanitarian sector as a whole. This chapter links to issues concerning the actors of communication and the possibilities offered by the new media, as presented in chapter 5 and 6. Do the stance and the positioning of different actors influence learning? What are the barriers to a culture of learning? How can the Internet be used to foster knowledge management rather than simply to support information management?

Shelter and settlement sector

challenges

Grounding the hypothesis

Information

Communication options

Actors

Media

114

4.2

CHALLENGES IN LEARNING

A dictionary definition would define learning as: The action of receiving instruction of acquiring knowledge; a process which leads to the modification of behaviour or the acquisition of new abilities or responses, and which is additional to natural development by growth or maturation [Oxford English Dictionary: web page]. But there is much more to learning: processes of reflection, links to action. Learning has also been defined as disciplining the mind to search for relevant data to support particular actions in particular contexts [ALNAP 2002: 24]. A further exploration of learning in the humanitarian context is the subject of this chapter. Learning can help improving practice by transforming behaviour. One acquires new capacities and tools based on a reflection on the course of actions and results of previous experiences. The following section spells out some of the challenges that are encountered when promoting learning in the relief system.

4.2.1 Cultural impediments to learning

The capacity to learn is increasingly recognised as a key function of organisations, but barriers to learning still remain. Minear identified four cultural impediments to learning for humanitarian interventions: the tendency to approach every crisis as unique: implying that little value is given to institutional memory and learning despite the fact that there are broad recurring problems; the action oriented nature of the humanitarian ethos: the pace of intervention leaves little time to pause and reflect, the priority is to move from one crisis to another; defensiveness against criticism (now mitigated by the emergence of a more self-critical breed of humanitarianism); a prevailing lack of accountability: the learning process is undercut by a culture of impunity, and actors are not held responsible for their actions [Minear 1998].

4.2.2 Asymmetries in the learning process. Whose knowledge matters?

Much research critically looked at the asymmetries in the production and exchange of knowledge amongst actors in the North and in the South, and, more in general, amongst partners with unequal knowledge assets and power. Understanding who produces and distributes the knowledge is key. Knowledge is increasingly intended as a resource and an asset that can be extracted, banked and then diffused, also as a form of Aid. This accumulation process might become self-reliant and introverted, centrally driven by those who are in a better position to accumulate the information (i.e.: by Northern agencies and HQs), and, hence, mostly oriented at realising an efficient storage and access to knowledge and information resources. Centrally
115

accumulated knowledge risks to create asymmetries and imbalances in the circulation of information, and, paradoxically, may limit innovation. As pointed out by King [King 2000], organisations relying on intranets and in-house archives might be satisfied with their own accumulated expertise, and reduce the space for knowledge building processes rooted in the field and for discussion amongst different stakeholders. In this case the accumulation of knowledge can reinforce the beliefs centrally held by an organisation rather than question them. This is certainly a danger for a sector, like the shelter and settlement one which as observed in chapter 2 is in need of alternative practices and dialogue, rather than of preserving the status quo. North-South asymmetries are built on dichotomies such as donor/ recipient, developed/ non-developed, knowledge/ ignorance (or wisdom), teach/ learn, think/ act, recommend/ follow, design/ implement [Torres 2001: 4]. Field / HQ exchanges, as well as the exchanges amongst international NGOs and local partners, could be a good example of such an unequal relationship. Torres also points out that, in this asymmetrical knowledge exchange: The North views itself essentially as a knowledge provider, and views the South as a knowledge consumer. The North thinks, knows, disseminates, diagnoses, plans strategies, does and validates research (including that done in, or referred to, the South), provides advice, models, lessons learned, and even lists of desired profiles (i.e. effective schools, effective teachers); the South does not know, learns, receives, applies, implements. The North produces, synthesizes and disseminates knowledge; the South produces data and information [Torres 2001: 4]. Insufficient capacity to disseminate and divulge their own knowledge impedes actors in the periphery (south / field) to participate to the process of knowledge building. The consequent lack of ownership reduces the interest in accessing and using the results. Separating and differentiating the roles of those who think and recommend, and those who implement and try to follow recommendations, remains the key formula for nonownership (or for fake ownership) [ibidem]. This is an important facet of knowledge as power, where the power to decide what is to be known and what is to be done interact [Galperin 2002, see also Mawdsley et al. 2002, Drew 2002]. The result of this is a knowledge gap widening rather than reducing the distance amongst the centre and the periphery. This is a knowledge gap that is very much visible in the shelter sector, where only little experience accumulated in the field makes it to the centre and influences future interventions.

4.2.3 Knowledge is power. Hoarding or sharing it?

If knowledge is power and an asset, the question is: when learning happens, and information and knowledge are produced, are they likely to be shared? Abundant literature invalidates the assumption that information will be automatically placed in the public realm. In fact one can assume that actors will not be prepared to reveal the knowledge from which they
116

derive their power; whether this power is the ability to exercise control over large resources, or simply to maintain a margin of survival. Furthermore, the literature suggests that this trend is likely to continue as information generation and exchange become increasingly important components of development projects [Baumann 1999: 47]. The political significance of information (together with the related issues of control and access) is therefore an issue. Relief is a competitive environment and the perception of knowledge as power can ensure an advantage to the actors who posses it. Experts have a power that after all derives from the existence of a (perceived) knowledge differential. However, advocates of the knowledge economy offer a different take. As knowledge is not a material possession, one can give it away and still have it. In a world where knowledge is rapidly expanding and can soon be obsolete, the key to power and competitive advantage is not possessing knowledge, but the capacity to renew it. Renewal includes more than creating new knowledge, it also means letting go of old knowledge. It requires continuous inquiry and self reflection on knowledge and learning process itself [Allee 1997: 75]. In this light, power derives from the capacity of circulating knowledge and of being seen as capable to circulate it, rather than simply hoarding it. Dissemination becomes crucial. This debate is again very relevant for humanitarian interventions and for the shelter and settlement sector. Interventions are still driven by experts and expats to a large extent, rather than based on the diffusion of knowledge across a wider array of users. Hence the need to promote a more active culture of sharing and learning.

117

4.3

LEARNING FROM PROJECTS, LEARNING FROM PEOPLE

The valued model of learning the one that is pursued and realised in practice by the organisations when learning from past experiences - tends to be technical and managerial in nature, and project and programme based. The emphasis is on standard M&E procedures, checking for compliance and mainly looking at the result of a project vis--vis the original expectations. Result based management, a management strategy focusing on performance and achievement of outputs, outcomes and impacts [OECD/Working Party on Aid Evaluation 2001: 34] is the paradigm underlying this approach. Drew [Drew 2002] explored alternative models of learning in a research on North-South partnerships. Much of the findings - as summarised in Table 4.1 - are certainly also applicable to the humanitarian context (for example when questioning to what extent the knowledge accumulated by the fieldworkers is capitalized by an organisation), and to the shelter and settlement sector in particular. He pointed out the importance to promote approaches to learning that capitalise on individual experiences. Learning is not only achievable by questioning the result of single projects. It is about gaining an intimate knowledge of the context where action is taking place. It is generated by a complex mix of observations, relationships, experiences that cannot be simply circumscribed by the project framework. This is certainly a more imponderable and messy type of learning. However it is increasingly recognised as a valuable one.

Technical/managerial learning, (linear, project based) Imperative for learning Level of learning Focus
Learning as a means to an end: to improve programmes, increase organizational efficiency, reduce the repetition of costly and time-consuming mistakes Project learning /organisational learning: focus on the routines and processes to acquire and manage knowledge inside the organisation Project oriented: Project writing, Monitoring, Reporting Valued

Organic learning (chaotic, experiential).

Learning to the heart of practice: relatively unstructured, chaotic and non-linear approach to learning Learning organisation: focus on a culture of learning valuing individual improvements and contributions Context oriented: Contextual experience, local perspectives Undervalued Alternative: e.g., focus on transformation and establishment of meaningful relationships Mutual or bottom up (adaptation of practices) Promotion of diversity Learning from people and context

Status in organisations Conventional: e.g. how to training Type of capacity building Direction of learning Top down Goal

(adoption of practices) Promotion of uniformity, compliance Learning from projects

Table 4.1. Types of learning. [Adapted from Drew 2002]

I will now discuss more in detail those diverging ways of learning and capturing information. The next section (4.4) will look at project based learning, focusing mainly on modalities for M&E in crisis contexts. The following section (4.5) will explore how organisations capitalise on soft forms of knowledge, deriving from the individual experiences and from the expertises of their employees.

118

4.4

LEARNING FROM PROJECTS

At the inception of this research, when I was looking for mechanisms through which to collect good practices for shelter and settlement interventions, the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) exercises through which organisations reflect on their projects seemed to be the obvious candidates. What emerged is that only little use is made of M&E to this respect. M&E is oriented at demonstrating results rather than pinpointing critical areas. Only a limited experience is stored and captured, and, when it is, it has only limited circulation. As a result, current mechanisms fall short of ensuring that M&E produce the type and the amount of information that is necessary to stimulate a debate on current practices, and, even more critically, to stimulate change. However, there are positive signs of change. Humanitarian agencies are under increasing pressure to enforce accountability. As the disbursements for humanitarian assistance grew, it became increasingly important to control the efficiency of aid, hence the push to accountability by donors. A consequence of this is that the role of evaluation raised when compared with the unsatisfactory situation in the 70s and 80s, when the same mistakes were repeated over and over again and the importance of evaluating the results of relief programmes was not fully appreciated [Crisp 2000b]. Organisation networks are actively promoting M&E as a tool for both accountability and learning [OECD /DAC 2001, ALNAP 2002a, ALNAP 2003]. Much attention has also been devoted to specific challenges for M&E in relief contexts, through theoretical studies as well as practical guidelines [Hallam 1998b, OECD/DAC 1999, Frerks and Hilhorst 1999, Van Brabant 1999, Wageningen Disaster Studies 1999, Wood, Apthorpe, and Borton 2001, UNICEF 2003, and the extensive work of ALNAP]. Ad hoc criteria for the evaluation of humanitarian aid (coverage, co-ordination, protection, coherence) have been established to complement the traditional ones - efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, relevance [OECD/DAC 1999]. The quality of evaluations has been monitored methodically system-wide [Mitchell 2003]. The need to ensure appropriate M&E of projects and programmes to guarantee quality and performance of humanitarian assistance is recognised explicitly by the emerging sets of standards [Sphere Project. 2003, Groupe URD 2000]. From this debate the research extrapolated some critical issues in capturing outcomes and impacts on shelter and settlement projects, to translate them into lessons learned to be circulated across the system. The challenge is to learn from projects, but still to be able to look outside the project box, and to adapt what is essentially a bureaucratic step in the project management cycle to the wider learning needs of the shelter and settlement sector. This involves: looking critically at projects in a context where demonstrating results can conflict with the need to appraise errors (accountability or learning?).

119

involving a wider range of stakeholders in the M&E exercises, and, critically, the beneficiaries. M&E should understand the impact of project on primary stakeholders and on the community where they live, rather than merely appraise operational, physical achievements. lowering defensive routines, both when performing M&E and when applying findings. Defensive routines might stiffen learning and promote safe course of action, hence stifling innovation. A culture of blame is still ingrained in many organizations, making them reluctant to face risk and failure [O'Malley and O'Donoghue 2000]. Defensive reasoning and blame lead to withhold information critical to correct errors and improve performance [ALNAP 2002a]. applying sound and more critical methodologies, increasing the scope for investigating wider issues. Overviews of current evaluations noticed that current methodologies are quite conventional and do not challenge standard approaches. They are rarely designed in such a way to give attention to right based issues and involvement of primary stakeholders [Mitchell 2003]. The lessons needed in order to improve programmes, are simply not sought and, hence, not learned. widening the time horizon in which projects are evaluated. As pointed out in chapter 2 the impact of shelter and settlement programmes only becomes apparent on a time scale that is much ampler than the short life-span of projects and can hardly be captured by an end-project evaluation. increasing the capacity to disclose and circulate results, inside and between organisations.

4.4.1 Looking beyond the results

As projects are often externally financed by donors, there is a pressure on organisations to demonstrate results. The dominant model for management - results based management (RBM) - poses a great emphasis on accountability and on the realisation of a chain of programme objectives: outputs, outcomes, impact. The approach has strong critics. As observed by Wallace, projects are portrayed as linear, rational, managed processes rather than as engagement, struggle, facilitation, enablement of people [Wallace 2000: web page]. The analysis of such projects risks becoming a process where the dominant perspective is that of the delivering agency and the logic is merely managerial: more technical accountability mechanisms may mean less relationship [Slim 2002: web page]. This of course, means less meaningful communication and dialogue across stakeholders, less shared learning. RBM is seen also as reducing the space for learning: when donors and their recipients try to be accountable for achieving impact, they are severely limiting their potential for understanding how and why impact occurs [Smutylo 2001: 6]. Narrowing down M&E to checking the compliance to a blueprint means that important considerations might simply not come into the picture. RBM tools - such as the logical framework - might be too slow and rigid to work well in crises. They are time consuming to develop, and once completed tend to become frozen in time, and to lessen their practicality and value in a fast evolving planning environment [Broughton 2001]. They may be used in an over-restrictive, potentially inflexible way and while useful for looking at inputs and outputs, they
120

have proved less useful in looking at overall policy goals, social ideals and higher principles. [OECD/DAC 1999]. The focus on anticipated results can distract from an assessment on the wider effects, the missed opportunities or the alternatives for a programme. This can certainly restrict the scope for learning: evaluations of shelter and settlement programmes can end up focusing on the realisation rather than on the opportunity cost of the choice of a mode of intervention. As pointed out in chapter 2, the problem of the current approach in the shelter and settlement sector, does not consist on the fact that projects fail to achieve expected outcomes (e.g. the realisation of a camp functioning reasonably well). It is the wider impact that such realisation might have that matters. That is why current forms of evaluations can be less apt than wider research exercises to point out the shortcomings of assistance. The risk is to look at interventions with eye-blinkers and with a narrow horizon. Many interesting things happen at the periphery of projects. Synergies (or clashes) with other actors and sectors of interventions that are not explicitly covered by the project brief might not be captured. This is certainly a limitation for shelter and settlement programmes, as they are potentially at the core as seen in chapter 2 of a wider idea of habitat. In addition to this, M&E exercises tend to focus on the lower steps of the chain of results of a programme: i.e. they appreciate immediate outputs and outcomes, but often fail to appreciate impact. Impact assessment is notoriously a challenge for which organisations are not yet well equipped [Roche 1999]. There are objective challenges in assessing impact in the humanitarian context: the complexity and the fluidity of the context for intervention; the difficulties to prove cause-effect relationships [Macrae et al. 2002]; the co-presence - in spotlight crises of many agencies with overlapping (conflicting or reinforcing) mandates and programmes. It is precisely at this impact scale, where intended and unintended effects become manifest - and different actors interplay - that shelter and settlement realisations need to be questioned to understand their effects on the habitat and on the livelihood of people. As impact is often the product of a confluence of events for which no single agency or group of agencies can realistically claim full credit [Earl, Carden, and Smutylo 2001: webpage], conventional M&E exercises can be ill suited to grasp it. Recurring to wider forms of research is an option, but this would require reinforcing the communication channels amongst academic/researchers and practitioners (that, as shown in chapter 5 are quite problematic). Increased emphasis on joined evaluation exercises and on communication around M&E results could also be a way forward. Such culture of exchange and communication is starting to emerge. Methodologies and results might be shared, in organisation intranets or publicly: across networks (e.g. ALNAP Database) or on the Internet [e.g., ECHO 2003, UNHCR 2003a]. Evaluation exercises can also have a collaborative dimension, as in the case of multi-agency programmes (e.g. DEC) or broad review of large interventions (e.g. Rwanda). There is also a problem of timescale: the attempt to prove impact could be unrealistic in the time frame of a project [Macrae et al. 2002]. The effects of a settlement choice go well beyond the short time in which projects
121

are actually realised, and they might become invisible if M&E exercises are limited to the timeframe of the project. Why is this state of things so problematic? M&E activities are the reason why the bulk of information generated by a project is produced, but they fail to capture the wider evidence that would be necessary to critically appraise the results and the impact of the projects in the big picture. And as they are so demanding in terms of time and resources, they are likely to undermine the possibility to engage in other forms of information generation [ALNAP 2003] that would provide food for thought to improve the modus operandi in the shelter and settlement sector. And still, despite the fact that project learning in organisations is mainly addressed through M&E activities, such activities do not appear to have high priority. Humanitarian personnel have often limited time and contrasting pressures. Basic, routine documentation of humanitarian action is often missing. Monitoring tasks appear frequently in the job descriptions of agency staff, but they are easily left aside. The Joint Evaluation of the response to the Rwanda crisis (1996) highlighted how sometimes even the most basic information on agency undertaking was not available [Van Brabant 1997].

4.4.2 Accountability vs. learning

The relationship between accountability and learning is, in general, quite problematic. Accountability is about proving to do well. Learning is also about recognising errors. How to reconcile them? Those engaged in monitoring and evaluation of aid often point out how those objectives can be conflicting [OECD /DAC 2001; Rye Olsen, Carstensen, and Hyen 2002]. The competition for profile and funds in the humanitarian industry increased pressure to show results. This may increase the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of a performance [Van Brabant 1997] and can undermine the objectivity of reporting as a result of the emphasis on the positive aspects of their programmes and of the playing down of the negative [Steering Committee 1996]. Errors and mistakes have an enormous importance for learning; hence forms of accountability that do not discourage an open discussion on mistakes would help improving practices. But to what extent should organizations put their mistakes in the open? There are different takes on this dilemma. An organisations reputation might gain from being seen to be honest. Agencies who open themselves to external scrutiny, which acknowledge the difficulties they have encountered and which demonstrate an ability to learn from past experience may have a distinct advantage over their competitors [Crisp 2000b: 6]. But, still, adverse publicity caused by misuse of information out of a context could significantly reduce public support for its work and thereby limit its activities [Raynard 2000: 17].

122

The way forward? Lavergne points out that Accountability for results should not be equated to demonstrating results: what needs to be demonstrated is the soundness and implementation of the strategy [Lavergne 2002: 5]. So, accountability and learning can conflict only if they are intended in a restrictive and oversimplistic way. It is possible and important to create a space where a better sense of ones organization performance and results can actually act as a stimulus for learning [Morgan and Qualman 1996]. Hence the need to recognise that accountability and learning are not always a dichotomy, especially not at the frontline of humanitarian practice [HAP 2003a: no page]. It is particularly important to ensure that accountability does not limit the potential for innovation, especially in a field, like the shelter and settlement sector, that needs to test new models of intervention considerably different from the beaten track. As Rondinelli puts it, policy designers and especially donors need to be convinced that it should be acceptable to incrementally experiment with programmes knowing that they might fail [Rondinelli in Walkup 1997: 43]. A fully effective accountability framework ought to act as an enabler, recognising and communicating effective innovation. Another point to make is that upward accountability (i.e. towards donors) is not the only one that should be pursued. Implementing agencies will typically be confronted with multiple and possibly contrasting accountabilities, requiring different responses. Amongst them downward accountability (i.e. to the beneficiaries) is clearly a key one. It is an area that is still overlooked, despite the fact that broader forms of accountability would have the potential to capture, report and revise objectively and efficiently the reasons and the results of interventions by / to a variety of stakeholders and engage in truly participatory consultations on assistance delivery with beneficiaries [Callamard 2001]. The findings of the Rwanda Evaluation which originated much of the current debate on accountability - are still valid. While accountability to donors is important, it should not be forgotten that relief agencies should also be accountable to the populations they are seeking to assist. The Team was struck by the very limited attempts by agencies to obtain the views of beneficiaries on the assistance they were provided with [Steering Committee 1996: web page]. Humanitarian assistance is essentially a top down process [Hallam 1998a]. Despite the emphasis on participation in guidelines and humanitarian small talk (demonstrated for example in Kaiser 2002) there is little evidence that primary stakeholders are engaged meaningfully. Standards meant to increase participation seem to be set rather than pursued [Davidson 2002]. Objective limitations in emergencies limit the extent to which participation of the primary stakeholders is feasible. For example, in acute emergencies, there is rarely the opportunity to involve primary stakeholders in the initial planning phases of the project, and consultation with beneficiaries is likely to be felt as an additional burden [Groupe URD 2002a]. However, once a blueprint has been devised, implementation can be de facto straight jacketed, and the emphasis on adherence to the blueprint could further erode the space for the involvement of beneficiaries. Kaiser points out that agencies operate on the grounds that emergencies have to be managed in a top down manner in order to save lives in the critical early stages. [] However, in practice, a large
123

portion of their work is carried out after this first stage, and there is a significant need to incorporate beneficiaries in all stages from the initial identification of problems to evaluation processes [Kaiser 2002: 15]. Increased attention to downward accountability would clearly have an impact on learning for improved practices: it would force a reflection on the responsiveness of projects towards their primary stakeholders. This is urgently needed in the shelter and settlement sector.

4.4.3 Who owns M&E processes?

The issue of ownership is key when discussing M&E processes: who controls them and who are they for? This is an important question to understand what kind of learning can derive from M&E processes and who can apply it. What has been discussed so far shows that M&E processes serve the need of the organisation implementing the project and its donors, rather than primary stakeholders. So, the learning from projects in the humanitarian sphere does not yet cash in the added value of empowering primary stakeholders. This is a concern especially in the context of a protracted crisis: the move from refugees as victims to refugees as resources that could be favoured by joined learning from projects (i.e. involving primary stakeholders) - could foster the more sustainable, inclusive approaches that have been advocated in chapter 2. The prevalent models of information and knowledge gathering from projects privilege, by far, externally lead modes of evaluation. The emphasis is due to the fact that this option appeals to those who look at the action from a distance (e.g. donors and HQ), who are also holding the purse strings and able to dictate priorities. The influence of the donors is predominant. It translates into producing proposals, plans for action, reports, budgets, etc. following closely the specifications of the donors (in term of content, format, reporting deadlines) rather than those of a wider group of stakeholders. In general, the orthodox approach to M&E shows a tendency to managerialism, as it is managers or HQ that normally commission evaluation studies or demand monitoring data [Frerks and Hilhorst 2002]. Suzuki noticed that there is a certain tendency of ensuring consistency of the processes and outcomes [Suzuki 1998]. However, a set of procedures and bureaucratic setting often clashes with the reality in the field and the different needs of different stakeholders. Incidentally it should be noticed that a restricted vision of M&E as dominated by bureaucratic requirements for upward accountability can also have a negative impact on institution building of local organisation, important actors in ensuring the sustainability of shelter and settlement programmes in the long term. As Zetter found out in the case of Malawi [Zetter 1995b], they might be sucked into modelling their action on the blueprint and emphasizing M&E as compliance as a way to better compete for funding. The negative impact of this is a bureaucratisation of their structure and a stiffening of their capacity to delegate and involve the grass roots. It is becoming increasingly evident that humanitarian evaluations, as isolated exercises performed by external consultants, or as designed exclusively in HQ, fail to engage with and deliver to the fieldworkers implementing
124

projects. In the context of a hierarchical relation where one side controls the resources and sets the framework - a frank discussion on results, alternatives, innovation and changes can be constrained. The unfortunate result of this state of things is that M&E can fail to uncover critical areas. All too often, evaluation is seen as a means of control, and thus something to be suspicious of, before being considered as an activity enabling progress [Groupe URD 2002c :4]

Centre

Centre
M&E as an operational and learning tool

Evaluation, monitoring as control

Field

Field

Figure 4.1. Changing approaches towards M&E, from control to enablement.

There has been a push to get evaluation closer to the field, by increasing its frequency and delegating responsibilities to initiate evaluation to operational managers; and by increasing the involvement of internal staff [IDPproject 2002a]. It has been recognised, in fact, that hierarchical, centralized, control-oriented structures are inimical to learning. Managerial and departmental barriers reinforce a tendency to guard information jealously rather than to exchange it freely [Dias and Leckie 1996]. Hence the importance of a culture of M&E and information exchange oriented towards empowerment rather than control.

analysis

Conventional Evaluation Real time evaluations (performed along the project by external staff After action review and periodic appraisal (mostly performed by internal staff) Monitoring as continuous tracking of a project, and trigger for a more in-depth analysis through evaluative mechanisms

time

Figure 4.2. Emergent M&E activities. The emergence of alternative forms of M&E such as After Action Review type of activities [US Army 1993, Collison and Parcell 2001, Sexton and McConnan 2003, ALNAP 2002a] and real time evaluations [Freih 2000, Sphere Project Team and Management Committee 2002] allow for more learning options during the lifetime of a project. They also help building a stronger base for reflections at the end of a project, having engaged, along it, with a larger number of stakeholders

125

A process of hybridisation of monitoring and evaluation functions might widen the options for learning from projects. Engaging with practitioners and making M&E processes responsive would require the adoption of a variety of approaches (see Figure 4.3) reducing reaction time and engaging with those who implement the programmes [OHCHR no date]. It is also important to diversify the end products of such exercises. They should become relevant not only for the policy makers, but also for the doers engaged in the programme. On the contrary, the state of the art is that project evaluations tend to extract (and to feed back) very little information in terms of practical and actionable knowledge, or in terms of lessons learned that could be usefully transmitted amongst practitioners. This is possibly a contributing factor to the noticeable lack of good practices and examples - despite the number of shelter and settlement programmes - that could feed into guidelines, standards, and manuals.

Externally led evaluation might ensure higher degrees of autonomy and a more detached attitude towards the accepted organisational assumptions, principles and institutions [Walkup 1997]. However, they might fail to capture information and knowledge owned by insiders and to stimulate internal learning and analysis processes, or reflections on the practices in use. Hence the need for engaging a variety of stakeholders in learning from projects. It is important to create a culture of learning by doing, rather than a vision of M&E as a mere bureaucratic requirement demanded from above.

4.4.4 Dissemination of M&E findings

M&E activities do not suffice to foster learning. They need to be linked to effective communication mechanisms. Figure 4.3 illustrates the prevalence of a vertical and mono-direction communication of M&E findings.

The prevalent direction of the communication set by M&E initiatives is upward. This is in line with the prevailing function of accountability and control of M&E.

donors
Feedback to M&E results back to the same project is limited (also because in many cases M&E might happen when it is too late). Feedback is still regulated mainly by compliance. Blame might be attached to negative outcomes.

HQ Project A

Transfer of M&E into other projects is limited: Non-availability of evaluation results Need for learning from previous experience not built into planning Orientation towards accountability rather than learning Insufficient processing for adapting to different blueprints, contexts and situations

Project B

Figure 4.3. Inefficiencies in the communication of M&E results.

126

This responds to a vision of M&E as a form of centralised control. The problem of this state of things is that the prevalent extractive character of the information flux and lack of feedback limit the space for adaptive management and local learning. It might also undermine the internal M&E processes that we previously identified as an important opportunity for learning from projects. Operational staff will be less likely to spend time and effort collecting and reporting data if they do not understand the value of the work they are doing, and are not confident that the data will be used and valued [Raynard 2000]. While exploring NGOs, I came across different mechanisms for managing evaluation. Figure 4.4 provides a very schematic illustration of two models. The smallest organisations might lack central units that specifically process M&E. In this case M&E information is linked to the project to which it belongs - mainly as reporting and it is materially kept in the same file with project documentation. The largest organisations developed the capacity to learn across projects and to gather more effectively this type of learning by establishing M&E units. However, such units might still be disconnected from other units that could play an important role in helping to disseminate results. The space for learning is at the intersection of those, and it is a space that is increasingly explored by organisations.

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3 Training

Library/ archives Policy

M&E

M&E

M&E

M&E

LEARNING

IT support

Research/ publications Knowledge Management

Desk support

Figure 4.4. Institutional settings for M&E. Smallest organisations (at the left of the graph) might not have M&E units. M&E is then streamlined along the programme, and there is little space for comparing solutions. When organisations evolve to have specialised units for M&E, they could still fail to capitalise the full potential of M&E for learning as such units might not be linked to others that have the potential to support learning in an integrated way. Increasingly organisations are experimenting with different models to actually ensure that learning happens in a coordinated way.

Learning is a process, not a product. Hence the need to reflect on communication flows, on the motivation behind the process, and on the complementary roles of the many actors and units that can support and benefit from learning. M&E units should not be limited to be archives of reports. They should be the nerve centre of the organisation, that could respond to stimuli, learn lessons, process information and react by providing the required information. Information and knowledge management, research & dissemination, M&E and training functions need to be short-circuited and put to work together. Evaluation departments should be seen as critical in determining the future, and the future success, of the organisations undertaking humanitarian assistance. As units generating the ideas and approaches for the future of these organisations,
127

we would suggest that evaluation activities be relocated and integrated more closely into the learning and operations structure of an organisation, rather than being out on an accountability limb as so many of them appear to be [Wood, Apthorpe, and Borton 2001: 64]. The feedback processes should not simply consist in the circulation of raw information across organisation, but in the capacity to critically analyse it and to feed back digested information when necessary. In the matter of what information really needs to be collected and synthesised comprehensively, the fact that something massive can now be done relatively easily is no guidance to whether it is worth doing. Thus, if evaluation reports were little read in the old days of limited dissemination of paper reports, the fact that all evaluation reports ever completed in an agency are potentially available on line does not itself alter the audience for such reports [King 2000: 8]. Figure 4.5 illustrates the benefits of linking M&E practices with information and knowledge management systems. To enable such fluxes, M&E activities should not be limited to the conventional top-down consultant led approaches, but include effective monitoring at the local level, including primary stakeholder perspectives and forms of rapid internal evaluation. Knowledge management will help to avoid loosing the knowledge gained by local actors (an important concern, as in emergencies teams are rapidly dismantled, and the knowledge accumulated might be lost). M&E driven communication between project and HQ needs to be rethought to cut down the bureaucracy of repetitive, standardised and uninformative reporting (why writing reports of pages and pages to basically say: we are doing what was planned?) to actually focus attention on key issues. Trust is fundamental in this process, to ensure an open communication that neither hides problems, nor responds to them in a judgemental way. There is then the problem of redundancy identified by King: there is not much use for many of the same reports. Hence the importance of central locations where information can be rationalised and processed, to extract valuable insights and capture key differences and innovations (or challenges) achieved in different situations. These are places where generalisation of knowledge can happen, as well as dissemination of products that can be re-conceptualised locally. I will discuss in section 4.5 the importance of establishing local ownership of knowledge distilled from experience, in order to better transfer it across teams. In this view, the experience gained from a team running a shelter and settlement programme in country A could be strengthened by local processes of M&E and then transferred horizontally to teams performing similar tasks in other situations. Section 4.5 will also discuss how a learning organisation can use a variety of tools and modalities for transfer of information to circulate the knowledge they gain from experience. Equally important is that M&E can also happen on shared basis across organisations, and there are examples of this (e.g. DEC evaluations). Further cycles of information circulation should join together organisations working as coalitions or networks. Many projects could benefit from the centralised processing of information
128

distilled from the practical experience gained by organisation in projects [see for example Dabelstein 2000]. The Sphere standards are a typical example of a structure that could be enriched with case studies and experience distilled from M&E in the field.

UPWARD STAKEHOLDERS

M&E driven communication between field / HQ

Elaboration of information from M&E, to generate and adapt knowledge

HQ

Internal, continuous M&E processes

PROJECT
Engagement of primary stakeholders in M&E

PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS

Figure 4.5. Fluxes of effective M&E driven communication.

The fundamental problem lies in what could be termed as the return of the evaluation investment, which, at the moment, does not seem to be adequate. This is not the fault of the evaluations themselves, most of which are becoming increasingly apt at identifying problems and suggesting solutions to them. The concern is that information is not being disseminated to the right audience; one that can then act, in an effective manner, on the information provided. In one respect this is an information management issue [ALNAP 2001b: 23].

129

4.5

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND THE LEARNING ORGANISATION

The learning-by-doing (i.e. by project) approach is not fully satisfactory: It is evidently not cost-effective and is precisely often the cause for the reinvention of the wheel! The point [] is precisely that aid work cannot rely only on experiential approaches [Van Brabant 1997: 12]. Organisations will always be confronted with changing situations, or situations they did not encounter before. Hence, it is not always possible to respond through standard solutions. Good practices as learned in a context might be ill suited to another. Knowledge need to be adapted and locally reinvented. Quick transplant methods, as those sometimes tried by development institution, fail to appreciate the subtleties of local knowledge and the need for adaptations [Stiglitz 1999: no page].

External stakeholders & resources Organisation staff

Knowledge
Conceptualisation use capture

Adaptation, change

learning

action

Leveraging individual experience

Learning by doing, organisational memory

Figure 4.6. Learning in organisations. The complementarity of learning from action and leveraging individual experiences

As Figure 4.6 shows, there is more to learning than the cycle action / reflection on action (the inner circle in the graph). An organisation can leverage the vast social capital at its disposal - in terms of expertise and experience of its members [Cohen and Prusak 2001] to broaden its own potential. The outwardness of an

130

organisation (the openness of the organisation to the external environment, their permeability to external influences, and capacity to influence the environment [Correia and Wilson 2002: web page]) is also a powerful mechanism through which organisations can gain significant knowledge. In other words, an organisation can learn not only from its experience in past projects (when outcomes are adequately captured, stored and disseminated). It should also make use of the knowledge of people active in the organisation - and, more in general, of the knowledge of the stakeholders active in its operational ambit - to inform its actions. I have already discussed challenges in the processes of learning from projects (e.g. M&E). Capturing the knowledge owned by individuals and teams poses additional challenges and requires additional sets of skills that have been discussed at length in the literature relating to the learning organisation. The idea of learning organisation is now getting more fashionable across humanitarian agencies, but has had so far little deliberated application. This section will try to illustrate some emerging ideas in the debate on the learning organisation and to provide examples of how they are / can be realised in practice and applied to the shelter and settlement sector.

4.5.1 The increasing importance of knowledge management for development and relief
Organisational learning and knowledge management theories and practices emerged at the beginning of the 90s, looking prevalently at the business sector. In the dot.com age, their advocates enthusiastically affirmed that the success of companies was to be measured by their capacities to manage knowledge. The idea was that effective knowledge management generates innovation, and innovation brings competitive advantage [Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995]. The need for applying knowledge management also in the development and relief sectors become an issue in the second half of the 90s, and was discussed by a number of authors [see for example Edwards 1997, Davies 1998, Fowler 2000, O'Malley and O'Donoghue 2000]. Some [Van Brabant 1997, Carlsson and Wohlgemuth 2000 and ALNAP 2002a] specifically tackled organisational learning for humanitarian organisation. Also, networks of practitioners promoted discussion on the topic [Bellanet International Secretariat 2000, Hunt 2000]. An important caveat for knowledge management in the non-profit sector is that it should not be limited to the accumulation of knowledge to increase competitive advantage. The sharing dimension of this knowledge with other stakeholders also needs to be emphasised. For this to occur, it is necessary that NGOs do not abandon, but rely fully on the basic principles and practices which distinguish them from other organisations and especially those that have profit as their goal: those of transparency, partnership and above all of genuine participation, in all its meaning [to achieve] a kind of professionalism shaped according to their own

131

models and principles, rather than those uncritically adopted from business, for-profit organisations [Smyth 1999: no page].
Figure 4.7. The World Bank as a learning organisation. The world bank pioneered the idea of a learning organisation creating knowledge for development [LaPorte 2002] .

The World Bank pioneered knowledge initiatives in the development sector. In 1998 it dedicated its world development report to knowledge for development [World Bank 1998], whilst striving to become a knowledge bank pivotal in the exchanges of knowledge between the north and the south [Hunt 2000, LaPorte 2002, World Bank 2003]. This involved reconceptualising the bank as a learning organisation and setting up initiatives to harvest and disseminate knowledge, internally (e.g. through communities of practices) as well as externally (e.g. the Development Gateway, a portal for information exchanges on the web). The idea of Knowledge for development has been highly influential and spurred similar initiatives by other donors, e.g. DFID, JICA, SDC, CIDA, EU... [Matthews and Thornton 2000, King and McGrath 2002, SDC 2003]. Such initiatives tended to combine: a) improvement of internal knowledge sharing and harvesting modalities, and b) dissemination of knowledge with partners / external users. In other words, knowledge was not only managed to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the organisation. Knowledge was also to be capitalised on as resource, knowledge that, once repackaged, could be delivered as a form of assistance: Knowledge Aid. It is worth noticing that many of those initiatives had a strong IT component: e.g., databases for better information archival, intranets for improved and safe circulation of internal information, extranets and portals to disseminate knowledge. The predominance of an archival model is evident in the knowledge initiatives that donors have financed: vast libraries and on line clearinghouses to improve the dissemination of research and the sharing of information for development (e.g. Eldis, ID21). While highlighting the potential of such initiatives, it is also worth recalling the analysis in section 4.2 warning against knowledge-based aid as the channel for disseminating a new orthodoxy of intervention elaborated in the north.

132

It is to be noticed that the idea of knowledge as an aid deliverable is not as central in relief as it is in development circles. Relief tends still to be about delivering hard stuff: not the soft knowledge neither the capacities that are so important in development. As a result, KM initiatives are relatively rare in relief. Or they have a different focus, more oriented towards information for operations (see chapter 3) rather than towards knowledge as aid.

Figure 4.8. Knowledge Management in Tearfund. [Source: EPN and RedR 2002].

The need to become learning organisation is increasingly a concern for NGOs. One of the most influential models is the one adopted by Tearfund [Tearfund 1999], that, in turn, derives from the one developed by BP [Collison and Parcell 2001]. Its functioning is exemplified in Figure 4.8. The idea of learning before, during and after is rooted in a vision of the organisation that - rather than enforcing hierarchical ways of communicating focuses much more on connecting up and empowering those at the frontline so that they can learn from each other and also, together, learn from shared experience. This means that those on the frontline can often be the first to see changes (opportunities and threats) to the environment and can then ask their middle management to help them improve their environment. The middle management role then changes from passing messages and mandates between the frontline and the top management, to helping create the environment for the frontline to deliver while clarifying parameters set by top management [Whiffen 2001: 20]. Internal resistances to the adoption of this model need to be won in practice. KM processes were seen as something different and extra. It takes time to do it, after all. But we were able to show our employees that if they take the time to do it once, then actually it pays off the next time [ibidem]. Many organisations developed intranets for information exchange: relatively highly engineered information management initiatives are still seen as a prerequisite for knowledge management. But more pervasive and people-centred processes for KM are still lacking. According to a recent BOND survey, most organisations attempt to document lessons learned, but the interest for knowledge management does not often correspond to structures, processes, and finances to do it in a non-piecemeal way. The main issue seems to be the lack
133

of clear policy framework identifying learning as an internal function, which could in turn justify the integration of learning into organisational strategy, as well as the need for financial and other resources to enable this [BOND 2003: 2]. A few initiatives oriented towards KM have been found in the context of this research. Organisations are reorienting their M&E departments to include learning functions (e.g. Christian Aid) or have opened ad hoc knowledge management units (e.g. Oxfam, who also declared knowledge management as a core value through the staff corporate commitments [Oxfam 2000b]). Save the Children prepared a portfolio of knowledge management practices to improve learning for humanitarian interventions including yellow pages and Communities of practices. ActionAid tested in disaster contexts new models for learning from experience that downplay the role of routine reporting for upward accountability and value transparent and participatory processes open to discretion, creativity and innovation [ActionAid 2000, Groupe URD 2001]. However, specific examples of application of those processes to the shelter and settlement sector are still lacking. Hence the need to provide an overview of knowledge management processes to inspire their application to the sector.

4.5.2 The learning organisation in a nutshell

According to the seminal definition of Senge, learning organisations are organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together [Senge 1990: 47]. At the core of much discussion on the learning organisation there is a vision of organisations as complex systems. Organisations are seen as adaptive rather than rigidly and centrally controlled and bureaucratically coordinated. Internal communication is more fluid and pervasive than the hierarchies and communication lines established in organigrams. Different parts of the organisation will respond in a different way to a stimulus. A linear input i.e. the fact that a stimulus will necessarily produce the foreseen change - cannot be assumed. In this context the communication fluxes do not necessarily follow pre-determined paths or have the expected outcomes. The resulting chaos and serendipity do encourage learning, as learning seems to happen better in a system that selforganises to the edge of stability. Significantly it is at this point that a system has sufficient ability to do work while retaining considerable potential for innovation in response to internal or external change [Goldspink 1998: web page]. This model suits the dynamics of humanitarian organisations, often composed of units running independent projects. The challenge, in this relatively disconnected environment, is to dynamically capture experience and spread it across the organisation whilst building organisational memory. The availability of communication lines that do not necessarily follow managerial ones, and the existence of communication spaces that do not necessarily coincide with the divisions in departments / sectors of an organisation is an important asset for the shelter and settlement sector, which is ill served by the existing compartmentalisation.
134

The main challenges for the learning organisation are cultural: internal barriers to communication, resistance to change and the prevalence of the culture of blame. Advocates of the learning organisation point out how building a learning organisation is not about building databases, intranet archives and relatively inflexible structures, but about adapting a variety of tools and people-centered processes to serve the knowledge needs of the organisation. The focus is not on knowledge capture and storage but on its circulation, adaptation and transfer. This is why modalites of project/programme based learning confined to conventional M&E for reporting do not suffice. There is a great deal of tacit knowledge [Polanyi 1962] that resides in teams and cannot easily made explicit in reports and manuals: their gut feelings, their insight, their expertise, their practice. Much reflection around organisational learning discussed precisely how individual and team knowledge can be made explicit and absorbed in organisations.

Knowing who knows what Soft People, skills, attitudes Tacit Informal Internalised in individuals Practical (know-how) Participated
Figure 4.9. Dichotomies and dualities of knowledge.

Knowing what we learnt Hard Documents, procedures, reports Explicit Formalised Externalised, captured, stored Theoretical Reificated

In this context, knowledge is constructed rather than centrally transmitted. The body of critical knowledge owned by an organisation is not held and passed on by a few experts and emulated by others. It is the knowledge of everyone that matters and needs to be pooled to increase collective knowledge. Debate is encouraged, and participants are viewed as constructivist and active thinkers. It is also a shift from clearly labelled and identified best practices to the idea that every team does something that others in the organisation could make use of and, likewise it can use what others know. In other words, there is a shift from an expert model to a distributed model of knowledge [Dixon 1999]. To sum up, the learning organisation is not only about accumulating information, but also about identifying sources of information; devising ways to capture relevant knowledge; circulating information effectively; adapting knowledge and discussing it in an open way. All of this, focusing on people rather than projects. This requires developing a culture that value change, create capacity to innovate and adapt to local condition, and focus on processes rather than products.

135

Strategy 1 People agree that sharing knowledge is important.

Innovation

Organisation

No standard procedures. Few innovations get adopted People using a number Innovation is rewarded. of tools to learn and Good examples get share. implemented. Some strategy exists Research to find how but not linked to best to do it. business results. Awareness of organizations intellectual assets. Process for filtering ideas. Good people identified.

Learning (before/during/after) People talk about how People conscious of to share knowledge. the need to learn but little time to follow up

Knowledge capture Few contribute lessons learned. Few searches. Access to lots of knowledge but no abstracts. Knowledge collected in a common format

KM /business strategy. Clear targets/markets Framework & tools. for innovation. Creativity sessions

Resources defined for Some learning before KM. Ad hoc networking doing. Program review to help individuals. sessions. People networking. Job People can find out descriptions for what the company sharing. knows. Peers help peers. KM is everyones Learning before, responsibility. during and after Networks organized adopted. Clients participate. Clearly defined roles. Prompts for learning Networks have clear built into processes. purposes. Language/template common

Knowledge is distilled and refreshed by named individuals. Relevant knowledge is efficiently pushed to operators.

Table 4.2. Levels of knowledge management in organisations. The proficiency in knowledge management of course also matters. Different levels to which knowledge management is realized have been identified, combined with indicators such as degree of innovation, capturing knowledge, learning before and after and how well the organisation is geared to knowledge sharing [Collison and Parcell 2001].

Culture
Culture is the combination of shared history, expectations, unwritten rules and social mores that affect the behaviour of everyone [in the organisation]. Its the set of underlying beliefs that, while never exactly articulated, are always there to colour the perceptions of action and communications [O'Dell and Grayson 1998: 77]. The behavioural mechanisms of an organisation as a whole - its perceptions of authority and power, for example - affects its modes of communication, as explored by a vast literature [for an overview see: Price 1996]. However, in this thesis I chose to focus on few key issues that seem to recur in the debates around communication as applied to relief and developmental organisations. What culture is supportive of learning in an organisation? According to O'Malley and O'Donoghue, the key characteristics are [O'Malley and O'Donoghue 2000]: Acceptance of mistakes as an essential part of learning (breaking down the culture of blame); Sense of personal and mutual responsibility (striving to transparency and accountability); Participative processes (valuing dialogue, respect and exploration of different viewpoints); Building the capacity to analyse problems, identify solutions, develop responses (empowering). Organisations and individuals also need to overcome in-built resistance to learning: people tend to avoid information that may lead them to challenge basic assumptions, and are more apt at accepting information that does not challenge their knowledge structures. This is what has been defined as the it worked in Peru syndrome [Carlsson and Wohlgemuth 2000].

136

The permanence of a culture of blame is certainly one of the most powerful barriers to learning and change in the humanitarian sector [ALNAP 2002a]. Conformity is rewarded, rather than innovation, alternative views and critical reflection [Van Brabant 1997]. Defensive routines are in operation and freeze the critical information exchange about what went wrong. A critical aspect of defensive routines is that difficulties encountered at field level are watered down by the time they reach the top. Field staff, who are closest to 'reality' and most keenly aware of the 'difference' find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy, with their views and interpretations ignored or overruled. This leads to an argument in favour of decentralisation and flatter structures (cf. MSF-Holland) and/or the devolution of a greater authority to field-based staff [Van Brabant 1997: 15]. Devolving management (and the capacity to change) closer to the field is a factor favouring innovation and adaptation. Middle managers (and in the humanitarian sector, desk officers) could be key in favouring learning processes at the organisational level. Nonaka and Takeuchi talk of middle-up-down processes, i.e. changing middle managers into forces for change as they are a bridge between the visionary ideals of the top and the often chaotic realities of business confronted by front-liners [Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995: 128]. They are best placed to access to knowledge assets of the organisation (including Internets and intranets that are often not easily reachable from the field). They could support information exchanges and processes of transformation of knowledge from tacit into explicit knowledge and vice versa (articulation and internalisation) by extracting it from fieldworkers and feeding back processed knowledge to them.

Challenges and enablers of transfer

Learning organisations in the development-humanitarian sector are confronted with many challenges. The following points came repeatedly out in the research process, from conversation with professionals in the sector KM, from the literature. They are also regularly featured in the exchanges in specialised mailing list such as KM4DEV (knowledge management for development): High mobility of employees across country and project and high turnover of staff (information and knowledge is lost); Limited incentives to capture, circulate and reuse knowledge: contrasting priorities; Scarce familiarity with knowledge transfer processes and supports; Tendency to reinvent the wheel, or not invented here syndrome [Wikipedia 2003]; Resistance to asking for help, to avoid showing ignorance; Culture of blame, limiting positive criticism of mistakes; Avoidance of criticism (especially workers/consultants on short contracts might refrain from negative comments that could jeopardise their chances to have another contract); Individual and organisational resistance to change. Organisation/individuals might hesitate to move away from approaches in which they are proficient, despite evidence of past ineffectiveness [Berg 2000];

137

Sluggish horizontal information flows and clogged vertical ones [Berg 2000]; Supremacy of accountability and donors priorities. In addition to this it must be added than even if the need for change is recognised, humanitarian organisations might not be able to adopt alternative approaches as they might be blocked by external constraints (e.g. attitudes of host and donors, see chapter 2). In this context organisations not only need to learn to change, internally, but also learn to influence change, externally (on the importance of advocacy see chapter 2).
Capturing knowledge

removing internal constraints to change Putting knowledge into action

Influencing external resistance to change

Figure 4.10. The challenge of change.

4.5.3 Modalities of knowledge exchange (application to shelter & settlement programmes)

Learning organisations need to develop a culture and flexible processes that allow locating and transferring knowledge where and when it is needed. In order to do so, they must deploy tools and processes that allow benefiting from what is learned in other contexts. In her influential text, Dixon (Dixon 2000) reviewed and classified the modalities of knowledge exchange in organisations. Table 4.3 summarises her findings. A few comments on the role of IT at each stage have been added to point out that, whilst such processes are essentially about people, they can be helped a great deal by a clever and tailored use of information tools (e.g. the Internet). The challenge is, of course, to integrate different modalities of exchange to serve the communication needs of an organisation (or of a group of organisations). An example of integration of different modalities of knowledge transfer for shelter and settlement (in the commercial sector in the UK) is the one offered by the B-Hive Project (Building a High Value Construction Environment) through its Cross Organisational Learning Approach. This integrates periodic reviews with feedback mechanisms to circulate knowledge amongst partners and it is supported by information systems to collate findings [Cushman 1999, Orange, Burke, and Cushman 1999]. The interest of this approach for shelter and settlement programs in the humanitarian sector is that it shows that it is possible to improve cross-organisational learning leveraging the experience of companies working together on time-bound projects [ALNAP 2002a].

138

Receiver

Type of Knowledge

Task: Frequency

Task: Nature

What is this?

Modalities of knowledge transfer

Use of electronic communication

Different team

Serial transfer

Discussing individual views and experiences to construct a shared knowledge by the team. Regular, short, frequent and locally facilitated meetings across all participants (e.g. After action reviews). Minimal or no amount of reporting. If notes are taken, those are for the team records only and not forwarded to the rest of the organisation. Near Explicit knowledge gained by a team Transferral of improved practices and alert notices, often based transfer doing a frequent and repeated task on a specific format. Descriptions are brief, as receivers are is reused by other teams doing very likely to be familiar with the process to which the improvements similar work. Usually used to apply. Electronic dissemination of practices, that are pushed to communicate improvements of a potential users (they are notified, for example, of the existence of widespread, standardised new information by e-mail). procedure. Far transfer Tacit knowledge gained by a team Peer assist: meetings between an experienced team (a team from doing a non-routine task is that has successfully done a project in a given context) and a made available to other teams doing team that is engaging in a similar project in a different context. similar work in another context. Key issues are debated and explored. It is about exploring together what approaches and ideas can be best applied in a context, rather than predetermining precise and specific questions. In other cases, the organisation appoints resource people as the living database that can spread lessons learned. Strategic Collective knowledge of the Identification (by senior management) of key and specific transfer organisation needed to accomplish a knowledge needs for the organisations. Experts collect and distil strategic task occurring infrequently knowledge, and package it for the end user in forms of practical but critical to the whole organisation guides (that might include guidelines, links to key people, relevant documentation). Examples are knowledge assets (BP), lessons learned (US Army), learning histories (MIT). Expert Technical knowledge beyond the Formulations of specific requests for technical information are transfer expertise of a team is sought from presented in supported electronic forums. Effective for a are others in the organisation monitored to guarantee that questions are answered and responses are properly archived.

Knowledge gained by a team is utilised by the same team for the same task in different settings

Electronic communication is marginal for this process It is only employed (in the form of e-mail exchanges, videoconferences) if the team working on a task is a virtual one. Efficient information systems are key to this transfer. Best practices might be archived in databases. Efficient electronic networks need to be in place to push information.

Electronic resources in the form of yellow pages or practices databases might be used to identify projects of interest and key people to contact. However, the key interactions are likely to happen directly through meetings between people: the idea is to exchange knowledge that would be difficult to write down once for all. Knowledge banks are created and maintained by experts, where knowledge assets are shelved. Communities of practice might be in charge to update the knowledge resources contained in the banks to avoid obsolescence. Electronic forums segmented by topics facilitate the transfer of questions and replies

Table 4.3. Types of knowledge transfer [Adapted from Dixon 2000].

139

Nonroutine

Same team

Infrequent

Frequent

Routine

Explicit

Tacit

Consolidation of knowledge within teams: serial transfer

Serial transfer is the consolidation of a teams knowledge about a specific task. The objective is to apply the gained knowledge to similar tasks performed by the same team. Serial transfer might look as ill suited to the humanitarian context. As I have already observed, humanitarian organisations tend to be affected by a high turnover. It is unlikely that the same members of a team will work together again and will be able to transfer the knowledge accumulated in a project into another context or country. However it might be important to cultivate practices fostering serial transfer as a way to nourish a culture of communication. Serial transfer practices represent a first step to consolidate knowledge, enabling team members to formalise it and think it through. As a result, when a team is dismantled, the knowledge suitcase that individuals carry with them will not only be filled with their own individual knowledge, but also with knowledge that has been tested against the perceptions of others and in the process has been both corrected and enlarged [Dixon 2000: 49]. Serial transfer practices are really about building an attitude to communication within teams. This is an important asset for those teams that, in the changing context of an emergency, need to frequently touch base to check that the programme is on track and adjust it as necessary. Practices for serial transfer include activities such as informal after action reviews.

PEOPLE
Learning before

Best practices repositories (practices + experts)

Far transfer

KNOWLEDGE ASSETS

TEAM
Communities of practice
Expert transfer Serial transfer

Near transfer
Improvement of existing knowledge assets Creation of new knowledge assets

Learning during

Learning after

People who acquired knowhow and experience

Established organisational processes of M&E for learning

Figure 4.11. Knowledge transfer in action. People, knowledge assets, procedure and systems (the dotted shapes) are the key variables that need to be linked to establish effective knowledge transfer across teams. Double pointed arrows refer to tacit knowledge exchanges, where dialogue is necessary. Single pointed arrows refer to explicit knowledge exchange, where a request for precise pieces of information can be formulated (as in the expert transfer) or accumulated knowledge can be easily translated into information (as in near transfer and strategic transfer).

Strategic transfer
140

Knowledge exchange between teams

In most circumstances the challenge is not to build up skills of permanent teams, but to capture the knowledge gained by a short-lived team and transfer it to others involved in similar tasks. There are many modalities to support inter-team knowledge transfer, depending on the nature of the task (e.g. frequent/non frequent, routine/non-routine) and on the type of knowledge that is to be exchanged (e.g. tacit vs. explicit). Such modalities have already been summarised in Table 4.3. Figure 4.11 goes further and provides a graphical overview of how those transfers relate to the assets of an organisation (i.e. the people and the knowledge) and to its system and procedures (e.g. M&E systems, support for communities, databases and repositories). A few examples of these transfers at work follow.

Far transfer: peer to peer exchanges of tacit knowledge

The strategies identified in Table 4.3 were devised for individual organisations; however, they can also be applied across networks of organisations. Far transfer is a case in point. It has been applied successfully to urban shelter and settlement projects by UN-Habitat, to support a programme of exchange amongst southern agencies. Practices were mostly realised in a developmental context, however this approach would probably also suit municipalities engaged in reconstruction programmes.

HOST

PARTICIPANT

Development of innovative practices Expertise stored in best practices Best practice database

Search for solutions

Access to best practices

Exchange of information, knowledge, expertise

Field visits, surveys Consolidation of knowledge

Adaptation of knowledge and implementation

Figure 4.12. An example of far transfer: the UN-Habitat model of best south-south best practices exchange. [Adapted from CityNet, UNDP, and UNHCS 1998].

141

The process begins with matching supply with demand by documenting successful solutions that are held in a publicly available databases. Intermediaries (e.g. networks and capacity building institutions) knowledgeable about the practices will then organize an exchange amongst a host (an agency that successfully implemented a project) and a participant (the agency willing to learn from past experience) including field visits and meetings (see Figure 4.12). The goal of this exchange is to adapt the best practice to local conditions. The assumption is that without sharing, innovations and best practices will remain islands of excellence in a sea of business as usual [CityNet, UNDP, and UNHCS 1998: p 34]. Through meetings and direct visits, mindset can be broken and that exchanges can produce focused learning for both visitors and host organizations [CityNet, UNDP, and UNHCS 1998: 27]. Clearly those processes, as well as those put in place by the commercial companies (e.g. peer assists), have a high cost that might not be sustained by under-financed implementing organisations. They also imply a time frame that is not always compatible with the life span of relief project. However, adaptations of these processes are possible, and the Internet can help. At the very core of far transfer is the idea of peer-to-peer learning and of transferring of tacit knowledge. Once a good practice is found, it is important to get in touch with the people who did the project or are knowledgeable about it to discuss how to adapt it to specific contextual challenges. Dialogue amongst teams is necessary because not all the essential elements of an innovative project can be made explicit in standardised reports or best practices databases. It would not be possible to write a report explaining how to replicate a project in every possible condition! Even if face-to-face meetings are not possible, repertories of best practices, accompanied by contacts of who know what or yellow pages (as they are being increasingly built up also by relief departments) could match knowledgeable people with those seeking to implement a solution. Dialogue can then follow, face to face or mediated by phone or Internet. Dixon noticed that a fundamental step to make far transfer happen is to give a name to it, consequently sanctioning and legitimising the activity [Dixon 2000]. Hence the need to recognise a space for those forms of exchange across organisations and workers. By giving a name to the repositories connecting people and projects (e.g. yellow pages, best practices) and a name to the process for calling on expertise (e.g. peer assist), the transfer can materialise and become a real option for those in search of information.

Strategic transfer: creation of knowledge assets.

Strategic transfer requires the identification of key knowledge by senior staff. It is a time and resource consuming process that encompasses the capacity of consolidating lessons from practice (e.g. evaluation for learning), as well as technical / analytical writing skills to compose effective guidelines. The challenge is to identify what the end user does need to know about a topic. In other words, the focus is on the creation of a knowledge asset that does not simply report what has been done, but what can be applicable for future use. The pitch is different and requires a different set of analytical and dissemination skills. The capacity of distilling lessons for future use is a skill that the humanitarian sector is acquiring collectively. There are, for example,
142

attempts at distilling and packaging lessons learned from a crisis for use in successive ones [Dabelstein 2000, van den Berg and Dabelstein 2003]. Partnerships amongst organisations and academia might help identifying key knowledge to store. The process of drafting guidelines for settlement planning [ShelterProject.org 2003b] can be regarded as a facilitate forms of interagency strategic transfer of information. The knowledge assets generated by strategic transfer can be stored, but it is essential that an organisation also develops the capacity to look at them before engaging in action and keeps them up to date through near-transfer types of activities. The availability of Internet and electronic storage highly facilitate the potential for creating dynamic knowledge assets.

Expert transfer: linking communities of practice

Expert transfer is particularly suited to electronic communication. Examples of expert transfer supporting the communication of practice on shelter and settlement for humanitarian interventions are already in place. They rely on the use of mailing lists or bulletin boards. They will be illustrated more in detail in chapter 6.

143

4.6

LEARNING FOR CHANGE

The discussion so far has recognised the importance, for improving practices, of learning processes to capture valuable insights from experience and to circulate the results to bring about change. The research focused mainly on learning processes undertaken by organisations (and, to some extent, by networks). It recognised two broad categories of learning: learning from people and learning from projects. For each category it highlighted the mechanisms at play in the diffusion of knowledge. This section will now discuss to what extent the knowledge that is gathered and circulated is translated into practice. This is an essential step, as, according to Argyris [Argyris 1999], learning is about action and can only happen when a course of action is actually produced (and not only postulated). Learning is about change, and experimenting alternatives. It is the capacity to perform corrective actions when mismatches between a course of action and its end results are produced. And, as such, it involves risk and error. What evidence is available that organisations are learning for change? There are not yet analyses of the impact of organisational learning processes in organisations, not only with regard to shelter and settlements, but also on the humanitarian sector as a whole. Understandably so, since organisational learning is still a novelty. Network of M&E practitioners, for example, only recently started to address the issue of measuring the impact of learning processes in organisations (it is for example an emerging topic for REMAPP, a network of UK M&E professionals [Leckie 2000]). As far as the more conventional forms of learning from projects (e.g. M&E) are concerned, there is some evidence that they may bring about change. The Rwanda evaluation is an example of this. It was actually followed up, and its recommendations discussed and addressed [JEFF - Joint Evaluation Follow-up Monitoring and Facilitation Network no date]. Its findings forced organisations to fundamentally rethink humanitarian assistance, and paved the way for projects tackling critical issues (e.g. Sphere, Humanitarian Accountability Project). However, Minear points out that this might be the exception rather than the rule: the role played by formal evaluations in institutional changes is modest at its best. An evaluation rarely is the primary and evident cause for change, although a given study may contribute to subsequent reforms [Minear 1998]. Limitations of learning by projects to improve practices, have been pointed out by many other reviews [Giesen and Griekspoor 1999, Apthorpe 2000, ALNAP 2001a, ALNAP 2002a, ALNAP 2003]. Too often such exercises fail to generate follow-ups, and reports tend to be forgotten quite quickly [Wood, Apthorpe, and Borton 2001]. If perceived as a routine, bureaucratic task detached from action and if implementers are not sufficiently empowered to respond to the findings M&E might also fail to trigger change during the implementation phase, and to work as corrective mechanisms for improving on-going actions. In addition to

144

this, limitations in extracting and in retaining lessons after the completion of projects, limit the applicability of findings to other projects. As a result, information and knowledge are gathered, but learning is not achieved. To understand how knowledge can bring about change, this section will discuss: The integration of bottom-up and top-down models in stirring change; Different levels of learning - single and double loop learning in relation to change; The application of different knowledge management strategies (codification vs. personalisation) to promote different kinds of learning and change; The need to utilise acquired knowledge to influence change outside ones sphere of intervention: the need for advocacy.

4.6.1 Diffusion of innovation and change: top-down and bottom-up

There is a vast literature concerned with the diffusion of innovation and with the management of change in organisations [for an overview see Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a, Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002b, Sutton 1999]. It focuses on dynamics as well as factors of resistance to change at various levels: individual, group and organisational. Many factors - cultural, logistical (challenges from inadequate information systems, skills, resources), contextual (different diffusion, uptake and learning among different groups) - have been identified as key challenges for organisations willing to enact change [Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a]. I contend that insufficient linkages (and communication) between the policy and practice sphere of intervention, may inhibit or limit the likeliness of change in the shelter and settlement sector.

Theories and visions elaborated at the central level of organisation

Top-down change

Bottom-up change

Emergence of new approaches (hands-on experimentation in decentralised units)

Figure 4.13. Building change through communication. Complementarity of top-down and bottom-up approach. The figure to the right is from [Van Brabant 1997].

145

Many management theories assumed that change will begin from the top. Consequentially they also assumed a linear relationship among training, learning and work. Training was the way to achieve improved performance [Butler, Scott, and Edwards 2000]. This is a model that is functional to the philosophy of organisations built on a centralised and vertical model [Goldspink 1998]. The appreciation that organisations are complex systems and the advent of the learning organisation [Senge 1990] shed new light on learning and change: the focus moved on how to capture and disseminate change that is produced in decentralised units rather than imposing it from above. The communication models underlying those organisations discard managerial top down communication lines, and favour decentralised structures where experimentation and change can take place and can travel through the organisation. Figure 4.13 points out the complementarity of top-down and bottom-up models in bringing about change. Applying this view to the shelter and settlement sectors implies devising ways in which the contextual knowledge acquired by those operating in the field can effectively travel across the organisation and be distilled in policies. Conversely, alternative approaches conceptualised by policy makers and researchers should be concretised into actionable policies and practices, to be fed back and tested in the field. As organisations are not islands (humanitarian NGOs in particular should have an outward attitude!), another perspective is to be considered: how change is produced in response to a stimulus originated outside the organisation (e.g. emerging paradigms for humanitarian aid - rights based approaches, livelihood approaches - as conceptualised by research bodies or through the dialogue amongst like-minded organisations). Such information flows might be received, digested and acted upon through a variety of processes: snowballs (the accumulation of research impacts within policy elites); whispers (the reinterpretation of research findings in broader constituencies); limestone model (information trickles like water through porous rocks); the gadfly model (information gets through because dissemination is prioritised as much as research itself); insider model (researchers exploit links with policy-makers) [Crewe and Young 2002]. Intermediaries (opinion leaders, change agents) are also seen to play and important role in adapting and pushing messages, hence persuading to adopt change [Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002b, Buchanan and Boddy 1992]. Understanding how different types of knowledge make their way to policy makers in humanitarian organisations (and then percolate down to the field) would make communications strategies a better tool to effectively build a shelter and settlement sector, or to foster a far more effective and broader approach to habitat.

4.6.2 Learning loops

Reflecting on action allows achieving two important varieties of learning: single and double loop. As defined by Argyris [Argyris 1999], single loop learning occurs when matches between intentions and outcomes are created, and mismatches are corrected by changing actions. Double loop learning happens when the governing variables that underlay a way of acting (norms, policies and objectives) are questioned and a new course of action is chosen. The classical example is the thermostat: it checks the temperature and
146

consequently modifies the parameters of the heating system to maintain it to the set value (single loop learning). However, it is not a double loop-learner, as it does not question the choice of the temperature (i.e. why 70 and not 100?). This theory can be usefully applied to discuss learning by action in the context of shelter and settlement interventions. Single loop learning is what gets the job done. It is applicable to repetitive issues; it is about improving the performance of existing systems, perfecting practices. It is about problem solving without questioning the rules of the game. Double loop learning is about challenging practice, critical questioning, and inquisitiveness. It is about looking at wider impacts, strategy issues. It involves changing the master programme rather than correcting its details. The research has already pointed out the need for employing alternative models for refugee settlements (e.g. discussion on the need to revise the camp model, on how to bridge relief and developmental model, alternatives approaches to substitute direct reconstruction, etc): their materialisation in practice would require a fundamental revision of the current modus operandi, hence, double loop learning.

Figure 4.14 Single loop and double loop learning. [Source: Argyris 1990]

Single loop learning is little threatening, relatively easy to achieve, and many organisations have routines and procedures to put it in place (e.g.: evaluation exercises focusing on the efficiency of a programme in delivering its outcomes). The skills needed for effective single loop learning - problem solving routines to correct procedures - are often acquired by professionals / consultants in their carriers. However, whenever their single-loop learning strategies go wrong, they become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves [Argyris 1999: 128]. In short, their ability to learn fails precisely when they need it most. Double loop learning is clearly more challenging, as it requires substantial changes in the modes of action. These are often impeded by powerful behavioural models deeply ingrained in individuals and organisations: errors are taboo and failures should be hidden. Overprotective and anti-learning defensive routines prevent actors from experiencing embarrassment or threat, and do so in ways that make it difficult to deduce the causes of the embarrassment or threat [Argyris 1999: 56]. Reviews of M&E activities across organisations
147

analysed at length the negative impact of defensive reasoning and blame in withholding what might be critical to correct error and improve performance [ALNAP 2002b]. In a system characterised by short-termism and working by projects, the need to prove the success of a course of action in order to get another cycle of funding can stifle risky innovation and inhibit much needed double loop learning. Double loop level findings are also more difficult to implement. Suhrke, for example, looked at how UNHCR learned from one crisis to another. Whilst lessons regarding technical aspects that did not require major organisational changes were learned and new procedure implemented, lessons requiring structural change in the organisation were recognised in principle but not implemented [Suhrke 2000].

4.6.3 Codification vs. personalisation

When engaging in action (and, consequently, in learning processes), the challenge is to avoid espousing one of those two extreme attitudes illustrated in Figure 4.15. Neither every crisis is unique (i.e.: it is impossible to adapt past experiences into crisis), nor ready-made solutions can be devised for everything (implying that solutions can be uncritically applied from one context to the other). However, there are safe places in this spectrum for organisations to operate. Organisations might attempt to standardise some processes specialising in the provision of ready-made solutions - or can try to devise ways to flexibly adapt knowledge when necessary.

Ready made solutions

Figure 4.15. Every crisis is unique vs. ready-made solutions.
standardisation personalisation

Every crisis is unique

Current reflection on knowledge management practices showed that both codification and personalisation strategies are apparent in organisations, and require a certain degree of specialisation. Organisations trying to do both obtain poorer results than those focusing on one or the other [Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999]. This is because the strategies involved are quite different and hard to reconcile in the same organisational structure. Table 4.4 illustrates some of the characteristics of standardisation and codification processes, highlighting their differences. Both the codification and the personalisation model are apparent in relief. The codification approach is evident in manuals and guidelines, in the emphasis on technical training as teaching of tested practices. It rewards a
148

certain extent of conformity. Initiative such as Sphere (creation of standards), RedR training (provision of technical training) and the creation of on line repositories of information (e.g. MSF Holland) are functional to the codification approach. Organisations intervening in the shelter and settlement sector as builders or logisticians will typically privilege this approach. Other initiatives are more engaged in providing adaptive solutions across the humanitarian (and development) spectrum (e.g. the Learning Office, the Aid Workers Network Forum). In general, policy makers and organisations with a consultancy role for devising strategies should emphasise a personalisation approach. It is important to recognise the prevalent orientation of groups or organisations, as each of those approaches requires different organisational settings, attitudes, and a different use of information technologies [Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999]. And they are both needed to improve the shelter and settlement sector.

Codification
Provide high quality, reliable and fast informationsystems implementation by reusing codified knowledge Connect people with reusable codified knowledge Provide standardised solutions Develop an electronic document system that codifies, stores, disseminates and allows reuse of knowledge Heavy investments in IT support; (e.g. large, sophisticated electronic repository systems) Competitive strategy

Personalisation
Provide creative, analytically rigorous advice on highlevel strategic problems by channelling individual expertise Facilitate conversations amongst peers and the exchange of tacit knowledge Provide ad hoc solutions to unique challenges Develop networks for linking people so that tacit knowledge can be shared Moderate IT support (e.g. document systems that provide people with background material and point out to experts people who can provide further advice; email and electronic discussion forums) Relatively unstructured systems (e.g. discussion lists) or yellow pages allowing people to find and communicate with others Highly skilled people oriented toward problem solving and tolerating ambiguity Train people through one-to-one mentoring Reward people for directly share knowledge with others M&E on impact, to grasp the wider picture and the variables at play. Production of case studies Emphasise soft-side (learning culture rewarding sharing) Creative Problem definition History, body bound Context sensitive Distributed Parallel Implemented by evolutionary design Critical thinker

Goal Strong points KM strategy

IT

Traditional library (large cache of documents made accessible with powerful, precision search engine) Employees trained to reuse knowledge and implement tested solutions Train people in groups and through computer-based distance learning Reward people for contributing documents in the database M&E on outputs, to measure efficiency and effectiveness of the solution adopted. Production of lessons learned Technology driven (focus on storage system) Task-specific Problem solving Abstract, symbolic Universal Centralised Sequential, hierarchical Implemented by design Technical expert

System

Human resources Possible training models Incentive mechanisms M&E

Focus Visions of knowledge

Knowledge holder

Table 4.4. Codification and personalisation strategies. [Adapted from: Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999, Sestina et al. 2000, and Varela 1992 in Magalhaes 1996)]

149

4.6.4 Using knowledge to push for change: advocacy

Advocacy can help improving practices by promoting emerging perspectives, principles, values and alternative course of actions. It is about persuasion and actively sharing and disseminating the learning and the values of an actor (or of a group of actors) with others. The importance of advocacy in improving shelter and settlement practices is underestimated in practice. As it clearly emerged from the discussion in chapter 2, the interventions on shelter and settlement are constrained by the adoption of the camp as the only politically acceptable solution or, in general, by adopting delivery as a favourite relief mechanism. Extensive research demonstrated the value of alternative approaches and the shortfalls of the models currently adopted. However, change failed to materialise in the field. Advocacy, in this context, becomes key. Advocacy is a process of using information strategically to change policies that affect the lives of disadvantaged people [BOND 1999: web page]. In the case of humanitarian advocacy, it serves to contribute to alleviation of human suffering arising from conflict and natural disasters by increasing awareness of humanitarian effects, promoting adherence to humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, energizing and inspiring humanitarian action and giving a voice to victims of conflict and of disaster [OCHA 2003: 1]. Advocacy is a broad concept, and can take many different forms: Advocacy as a way of action in implementing projects. Advocacy based projects could be used as an approach to move away from the short-termism of development and emergency projects, recognising the limitations of current approaches in producing sustained improvements. Advocacy, linked to capacity building, mobilises and empowers people to express their basic needs and to negotiate them with outside actors. It is about helping people discover and secure their rights [Chapman and Wameyo 2001]. Rights based approaches, as discussed in chapter 2, are an example of this. Unfortunately the application of such approaches to humanitarian interventions is still very limited, as their duration and their political character make them gravitate on the development sphere. Advocacy as a lobbying activity to promote changes in the modus operandi of the agencies. Advocacy is about persuasion and implies using techniques such as negotiation, lobbying, and public debate to air alterative opinions. This kind of advocacy could be functional to 1) raise the profile of a forgotten emergency; 2) promote adherence to humanitarian principles and law; 3) push emerging issues (e.g. gender, IDPs, alternative approaches to camps) into mainstream policies [OCHA 2003]. The setting of humanitarian standards, the definition of humanitarian principles - for example - are steps in this direction. And even in those situations where new knowledge cannot be implemented in practice or practitioners restrain from using findings, it is possible to change their understanding of a situation, provide new ways of thinking and offer insights into the strengths and weaknesses of particular courses of action [Weiss 1998 quoted in Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a].
150

Promotion of standards, humanitarian principles, alternative approaches to relief

The legitimacy of the advocacy is to be based on the capacity to represent and give voice to the needs of the primary stakeholders

Community empowerment and mobilisation, Rights based approaches

Figure 4.16: Dimensions of advocacy.

Figure 4.16 shows how internal advocacy amongst the actors of the humanitarian sector can help promoting an environment that is more favourable to the adoption of rights-based approaches (and hence, advocacy) in the field. The important caveat is that advocates need to ground their legitimacy in meaningful engagements with the beneficiaries. Hence the need for a virtuous circle which opens communication and gives a voice to the primary stakeholders, and is capable to feed their quests back into the system. A system that will serve them and truly respond to their needs. Legitimacy is key [Slim 2002]. Self-serving advocacies, based onto the agenda of actors that are not in tune with the needs of people might be detrimental.

Challenges for advocacy

I analysed advocacy as a key to channel learning into action, influencing actors to adopt new practices or courses of action. A first set of challenges derives from the fact that advocacy might not be a consideration for those producing the learning. In this case, knowledge might fail to provoke change. Another set of challenges is to understand what influence the advocates can have on the implementers and on the policy makers.

The need for agendas for action

Advocacy is about pushing ones agenda into that of others [Whaites 2000]. The availability of an agenda is key. There are actors who produce information and knowledge that have strong potential for advocacy, but do not necessarily have a strong agenda to act on the results of their research. Academia is a clear example of that. There is therefore a clear need to create synergies amongst different actors so that valuable knowledge is put into use and information that can be conductive to new practices is channelled into the debate.

Linkages between knowledge to action, research to policy

Much research has been looking into the relation of research and knowledge with practice and policy making [Saywell and Cotton 1999, Sutton 1999, Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a, de Vibe, Hovland, and Young 2002]. Models that depicted this as a linear relation (i.e. knowledge and action at two opposite poles, with a gap to bridge in between) have been substituted by more complex visions [see examples in: Rapid / ODI 2003b]. The passage from knowing to doing presupposes the existence of complex linkages amongst
151

those who elaborate knowledge and those who use it. Efficient advocacy is about recognising and making efficient use of such linkages. Advocating for putting ideas into use is obviously easier when the issues at stake do not upset the status quo: they are non-controversial, require only limited change and can be implemented within a supportive environment [Weiss 1998 quoted in Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a]. However, things are not usually so straightforward. In order to reply to the question Why are some of the ideas that circulate in the research/policy networks picked up and acted on, while others are ignored and disappear? the ODI identified three main dimensions influencing the linkages between research and policy. Those are, as summarised in Figure 4.17: context (politics and institutions), links (influence and legitimacy) and evidence (credibility and communication) [Crewe and Young 2002, Young 2003]. This framework has been substantiated by a reflection on case studies, herewith included a study on Sphere, showing that research is more likely to contribute to evidence-based policy if: a) it fits within the political and institutional limits and pressures of policy-makers, and resonates with their ideological assumptions, or sufficient pressure is exerted to challenge those limits; b) researchers and policy makers share particular kinds of networks and develop chains of legitimacy for particular policy areas; c) outputs are based on a credible evidence and are communicated via the most appropriate communicators, channels, style, format and timing. [Buchanan-Smith 2003 as summarised in Rapid / ODI 2003a: webpage].

POLITICAL CONTEXT
(Political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, incremental vs. radical change)

Who are the policymakers? Is there demand for ideas? What is the policy process?

LINKS
Between policy and research communities: networks, relationships, power, competing discourses, trust, knowledge

EVIDENCE
Credibility, degree it challenges received wisdom, research approaches and the methodology, simplicity of the message, how it is packaged

Who are the stakeholders? What networks exist? Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?

What is the current theory? What are the narratives? How divergent is it?

Figure 4.17. Dimensions influencing the linkages between research and policy. A three-dimensional approach consisting of context, links and evidence - to assist the investigation into the impact of research on policy [based on Crewe and Young 2002, Young 2003].

152

4.7

CONCLUSIONS

The discussion so far feeds into a sub-hypothesis of this thesis: Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities. This is achieved by presenting occurrences of information for operations (chapter 3) and in discussing the potential of information for learning (this chapter). It is worth underlying again that, whilst chapter 3 could focus on discussing communication practices, chapter 4 is far more aspirational when discussing communication for learning. Based on the experience of comparable sectors, it could be argued that communication can be conductive to learning in the shelter and settlement sector. However, at the same time, it becomed evident that the humanitarian sector seems to be affected by a learning problem (Van Brabant 1997). The wheel is continuously reinvented and the modus operandi not challenged. The learning problem is, to a large extent, as the thesis argues, a communication problem. It does not derive exclusively from the lack of modalities applicable to the shelter and settlement sector, since suitable modalities exist and could be applied in the practice, as this chapter argues. Deeper issues of information behaviour, control and power are also at play (these will be discussed further in chapter 5, when substantiating the hypothesis effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors.). Learning has been sought, so far, through monitoring and evaluation practices. The limitations of such approaches reside in the fact that they are linked to projects and therefore have little potential for exploring alternative courses of action. In addition, they tend to be processes of reflection ex post rather than stimuli to change and innovation. M&E exercises happening in the course of a project would be conducive to learning if planning frameworks were flexible. This is not always the case, as Result Based Management approaches and frameworks tend to stiffen interventions. Finally, M&E have limited impact on producing change in subsequent projects because too often the storage, processing and dissemination of information for M&E are insufficient. Improved communication and institutional arrangements promoting responsiveness to the information gathered would considerably help learning from projects. It is also apparent that there are more powerful forms of learning, which can capture broader knowledge. Such forms of learning are based on the establishment of interpersonal processes, the capacity to reflect and change and, as such, could be inhibited by a hierarchical culture inimical to learning innovation and change. Also, those forms of learning impose to rethink communication priorities and lines in organisations. Communication needs to flow rather than be constrained by vertical management lines. Expertises need to be constantly challenged.

153

Learning is linked to action and change. It can be directed at perfecting existing modalities of intervention or, more fundamentally, at questioning frameworks for reference. As discussed in chapter 2, both are equally needed in order to improve intervention, and this chapter discussed knowledge management modalities to achieve single or double loop learning, codification or personalisation strategies. Crucially, policies and practices of shelter interventions need to be linked through effective communication, if the policies are to be informed by previous experience and can transform the modus operandi of future interventions. The thesis also observes that change might be constrained not only by learning inefficiencies, but also by the impossibility of trying alternative courses of action. Resistance to change is often ingrained in the humanitarian system as a whole, hence the importance to use advocacy to promote new approaches to shelter and settlement interventions. Advocacy is the capacity to influence by using knowledge. Advocacy is essentially about communication. It involves the capacity to disseminate ideas. At the same time, it needs to be sound and credible, needs to be tied into processes of learning from experience and, also, to gain legitimacy from the capacity to give voice to the needs of the primary stakeholders.

154

ACTORS AND FLUXES OF INFORMATION

This chapter examines the actors of the information exchange, and factors that facilitate or constrain communication amongst them. In doing so, it unfolds the sub-hypothesis effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors. Part of this chapter (the analysis of perspectives gained through the questionnaire) specifically focuses on shelter and settlement professionals. However, this chapter takes a broader outlook, in the light of what has been discussed in chapter 2 i.e. the need for better coordination and connectedness around activities that are looking at the habitat of refugees rather than only at shelter. It explores relationships across actors in the wider humanitarian system rather than in a narrowly conceived shelter and settlement sector. There is also a need for a wide perspective i.e. not limited to the shelter and settlement implementing professionals or agencies to make more evident broader issues of coordination, power and control of information. These issues influence information exchanges and, ultimately, shelter and settlement realisations. For example: advocacy, as discussed in the previous chapter, is the realm where the experience gathered and legitimised in the field is fed back to policy makers, as a way to influence changes in the modalities of intervention. For this to happen, a broad spectrum of actors (individuals and organizations, as well as implementers, HQs, donors) need of course to be involved in the information exchange. This chapter starts by focusing on implementing agencies, and on their relationships with other categories of actors. As seen in the previous chapter, some of the mechanisms for communication for learning are more easily realised in the organisational context, hence the interest in this angle: organisations have a central role in organising, facilitating (and also obstructing!) communication. However it is more and more evident that the organisational dimension of communication is not at all exhaustive. The continuously shifting terrain of interventions and the mobility of humanitarian actors mean that communication amongst individuals, within and across organisations, is key. This is of course a much looser dimension to tackle, but, as illustrated in chapter 4 (information from learning), it is a fertile area for improving and innovating shelter and settlement practices based on experience. There is increasing attention given to the spaces that are created by the interactions of individuals, in particular amongst those operating in the field, be it sectoral communities of practice or communities that happen to operate in the same crisis. Such communities need common spaces. Spaces for joined learning. The chapter first considers the multiple dimensions of the relationships amongst various actors (5.2). It then focuses on NGOs and on the communication inside and across them (5.3.1, 5.3.2). An analysis of the
155

interactions amongst NGOs and other actors follows, illustrating specific examples of challenges encountered when communicating - e.g. bureaucratisation of communication, distance between research and action, uneasy coordination amongst actors with conflicting mandates, insufficient involvement of local stakeholders (5.3.3). The chapter continues by pointing out how an analysis confined to communication in organisations would be limiting. In the humanitarian system it is fundamental to tackle the challenges and the opportunities posed by the high mobility of aid-workers across organisations, teams, projects (5.4). Hence the focus on the learning needs and options for the professional aid-worker operating in the shelter and settlement sector (5.4.1), and on the collective spaces for learning across organisations, sectors and crises (5.4.2).

156

5.1

SITUATING THIS CHAPTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THESIS

Chapter 5 takes into consideration the perspectives of actors in shaping communication. This is particularly important in research as this one is that is not modelled on a sender-receiver model of communication, but sees communication as a social construct (as discussed in the introduction of this research, when talking about its evolution). It is then evident that actors behaviours and perspectives are key in determining possibilities for communication and in shaping its modalities. Actors perspectives need to be woven in when looking at models of information exchange (chapter 3 and 4). Also, their familiarity and attitudes towards communication media matters when questioning the effectiveness and the inclusiveness of communication (chapter 6). Actors perspectives, as presented in this chapter, have been built through: an analysis of a vast literature; delivery of a questionnaire; interviews with key informants (mostly dealing with information and knowledge management in and across organisation); participant observation in the field and in communication initiatives.

Shelter and settlement sector

challenges

Grounding the hypothesis

Information

Communication options

Actors

Media

157

5.2

DIMENSIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST ACTORS

Humanitarian interventions happen in an environment populated by a multitude of actors with different priorities, agendas, attitudes, approaches. The complexities of this system have been extensively explored from different perspectives: organisational, political, etc. [See for example Borton 1993, Loescher 1993, Minear 1994b, Zetter 1999].

Figure 5.1. The international relief system. [Source: Macrae 2002b].

Figure 5.1 provides a useful outline of the so-called humanitarian system and of its actors, focusing on the resource flows amongst them. Of course, when looking at how different pursuits shape relationships, different sets of linkages amongst the actors will emerge. Advocacy, for example, will reverse some of the flows indicated in the graph (for example: advocacy of international NGOs, Red Cross, UN towards the donors or general public). The need for coordination will create links amongst actors that are very distant in this graph (for example the international NGOs and the defence forces). Also, other actors that do not directly take part in operations but nevertheless influence the generation of information will have to be considered (for example, academia and the media). It is not possible to summarise and conceptualise those relations once for all. They can also dramatically change from crisis to crisis, depending on the attitudes and on the agenda of the different actors (the different arrangements for coordination in different settings are a good example of this).

158

One should always remember that communication is not only about functional relationships amongst organisations. It is shaped by individual capacities and attitudes. Hence the importance of creating a pervasive widespread culture of communication and a positive attitude to knowledge, both at the organisational and at the individual level, to improve exchanges in the humanitarian system. Figure 5.1 is also a good base to discuss how power relationships amongst actors can shape communication. The vertical exchanges depicted there have a hierarchical nature. Even when a collaborative dialogue is said to be sought, one side (the one retaining resources and control) has in fact more leverage. Vertical exchanges take place across agencies (e.g. donors /NGOs), but are also replicated inside organisations (e.g. headquarters/field, expatriate/national staff). Accountability is another pursuit that has much impact in bringing about, informing and shaping communication. It comes in different varieties: upward accountability - of the implementing agency to its donor; downward accountability -of the implementing agency to its clients; informal accountability - to external informal pressures posed, for example, to NGOs by peers in confederations, policy makers, the media [Roper and Pettit 2002] and to donors by media, academics and, to a lesser extent, NGOs [Macrae et al. 2002]. However, the strength of accountability varies dramatically, and upward accountability (the one that is linked to strong, vertical power relations) is by far the predominant form. Similarly, coordination does not necessarily happen amongst equals, and the emergence of vertical relationships might push coordination towards forms control depending on the power of the lead agency (for a discussion on various dynamics of coordination see for example Sommers 2000). Learning processes can be affected by the direction of the exchange: strong vertical relationships may result in erroneously equating learning with teaching. They privilege top-down exchanges from the teacher to the learner or imply north-south models of knowledge transfer (as described in chapter 4) rather than an effective mutual exchange.
DONORS ACADEMIA

UN NGOs

FIELD

Figure 5.2. Vertical and horizontal relations.

159

The discussion so far focused mostly on vertical exchanges. However as shown in Figure 5.2 - even in the presence of strong vertical relationships, horizontal exchanges, oriented to an effective dialogue and knowledge sharing, might still happen across actors engaged in different organisations, through formal and informal networks. Amongst them communities of practice (see chapter 6) are becoming increasingly important in establishing information exchanges for the improvement of practice. Recognising the space for horizontal linkages is important, as they are an important condition for improving practises and learning. Vertical and horizontal relations are both important in shaping communication, and in connecting a variety of actors. In chapter 4 I have already pointed out the need to realise a virtuous circle amongst the communication of practices and policies. This can be achieved precisely by understanding the perspectives and complementarities of different actors.

160

5.3

NGOS AND THE INFORMATION EXCHANGE

The focus of this research (communication for improving practices) meant that the NGOs active in humanitarian relief and the people working in them were perceived as central, as "planners and doers". I will now focus on providing examples of how their stance on learning, coordination, accountability and advocacy can influence their communication and information exchange practices vis--vis other actors. An in depth discussion on the role of NGOs in humanitarian aid would go far beyond the scope of this research [on the debate see: Smillie 1995, Slim 1999, Slim 2002]. It will suffice here to point out that the scores of NGOs working together in a major crisis expose a variety of mandates, principles, politics, modes of actions, capacities (in terms of finances, human resources and skills). The term NGO might encompass the largest and longest established first generation ones (the likes of Oxfam, Care, Save the Children); relative newcomers such as Merlin or Medicins du Monde; international NGOs and local NGOs; wide-ranging one and specialised ones. Some organisations only tend to be implementers, other have a strong culture of research, dissemination, advocacy. Some focus on relief only, others on the full spectrum of development relief (even if, often, through different and disconnected units, as it will be discussed more in detail further on in this chapter). Some have a holistic approach, others focus on sectoral areas of expertise or work for particular target groups (e.g. HelpAge, Save the Children, Handicap International). The priorities and challenges for information circulation are of course very different amongst them, and the following excursus only samples some broad issues. An analysis of specific contexts and situations is likely to provide different insights: the mix of actors and the challenges might be different and individual attitudes could vary. The discussion on communication in and across NGOs is not limited specifically to communication relating to the shelter and settlement sector. I identified key issues that affect organisations as a whole (e.g. the disconnection between field and HQ, the disconnection amongst different units and departments, the communication gaps across organisation). Only a broad, system-wide view allow to see why insufficiencies in communication can result in piecemeal and insufficiently connected interventions across sectors, of which the broader habitat of the refugees is a prime victim.

5.3.1 Communication inside NGOs

NGOs are not monolithic entities. The first division that comes to ones mind is the Headquarters / field one. This is and unfortunate division: it might reduce the chance to realise a virtuous circle linking policies and practices, as advocated in section 4.6. That has obvious consequences on attitudes and modes for communication.

161

Field grumbling over HQ and viceversa is commonplace in the humanitarian world but not only. According to Argyris the very nature of information required and used contributes to broadening the gap between HQ and field: the top, who are distant from the point of action, require information that is abstract, objective, in which the logic is explicit, in which the data can be compared and tracked. The first line, or local level use data that is concrete, subjective, in which the logic is tacit, and in which the data cannot be compared or tracked. These information characteristics produce worlds with different views about what is effective and what is just. The relevant parties, using the logic inherent in the information they use, create conditions for misunderstanding and distancing from each other [Argyris 1999: 98]. Each office is further divided into departments, and communication lines and coordination amongst them can be weak [Suzuki 1998]. We have already encountered an example of this when discussing the lack of connection of M&E departments with other units (see chapter 4) which could effectively build learning. Another example is field offices operating in different countries, with little connections amongst one another. Links amongst people with a similar expertise are rarely enforced inside organisations. For example, a shelter expert in a country rarely benefits from the expertise that a colleague is accumulating in another context. The idea of communities of practice (for a discussion of CoPs see chapter 6) is having more and more appeal as a tool to encourage such discussions. It is increasingly inserted in the strategies of organisations (for example Save the Children is looking at facilitating CoPs), but is still little enforced. The rapid turnover of personnel in organisations does not help. Effective communication suffers from this. For aid-workers it is not easy nor is it a priority to gain knowledge of the organisation as a whole (i.e. not limited to the field office where they operate), and this weakens the communication links and the capacity to access information resources held by an organisation (e.g. knowledgeable people, information repositories). The fact that information management tools at the organisational level (for example Intranet) are mostly modelled on the needs of the HQ - the central unit where knowledge is processed and used - does not help either. And finally, information may also not be accessible in the field due to the lack of good connectivity or of the right software (see chapter 6). Support from HQ to field and, consequently, information exchange - can also be quite limited. Only recently organisations started to tackle the issue of practical support (through the setting-up of help desks, for example, as in the case of Oxfam). In the absence of systems for the exchange of practices, lessons learned might not be applied and adapted in successive projects. There is also a need to step from practical support to advocacy of the values of the organisation. In other words, it is important not only to communicate practices, but also policies and perspectives of the organization, as they can also influence the way in which projects and programmes are forged and implemented. Field workers short-term staff in particular - might be ill aware of the culture and the values of their organisation, despite the fact that the differences amongst organisations could be striking. For example,

162

some organisations might pursue neutrality at all costs, other demand a political analysis to determine the response [Minear and Weiss undated]. HQs constantly reformulate their stance, and elaborate buzzwords and new themes. The challenge for organisations is to disseminate innovations in their discourse so that they become part of the cultural luggage of their aid-workers. As Fowler puts it, Beliefs, vision and values are at the top of a hierarchy of organisational features which need to be in place if lower levels of organisational activity are to be done well. Without these foundations, serious inconsistencies between policies and real life practice can and do arise [Fowler 1997: 69]. Principles create an organisational culture and identity, bind members, and boost motivation. They should not hinder action, but help shaping it. Communication has an important role in transmitting and also redefining the values so that they suit the needs of the field. The relevance of principles depends on how they are translated into practice: how they are implemented in planning (or in choosing not to plan) a camp, for example. Although organisational principles are renegotiated in practice, they remain important for the organisation. They may not dictate practice, but do help to order humanitarian action in many, perhaps unexpected, ways. They serve as anchor points expressing what an organization wants to achieve and on what values its actions are based. Besides having the potential to prescribe action, they provide fieldworkers with clues about how to accord meaning to their interactions, the environment, and the events around them [Hilhorst and Schmiemann 2002: 498]. Hence the need of a downward advocacy from the HQ to the field to support the enactment of new modalities and paradigms for interventions. And, at the same time, the need to ground values in the practice so that they can be realised. Horizontal links in organisations are quite weak, as communication is normally modelled on upward accountability, with an extractive character, from field to the HQ. Furthermore, the knowledge extracted tends to be the knowledge relating to project bureaucracy. There is little room for field-workers to feed in their personal view and experiences. Initiatives in this direction such as debriefings, for example, FIELD FIELD FIELD are poorly implemented [Pyles 1999]. However, it is along horizontal lines that communities of practices are forged. Chapter 6 will expand on them, showing their potential for learning and for improving practices The challenge of capturing and circulating information for better practices is becoming evident. The largest organisations might have specialised units dealing with information. Knowledge management units have become quite fashionable in recent years, but most organisations still do not build learning in their organigramme and mostly model the information exchange on accountability-based procedures (e.g. reporting to donors and HQ). In these circumstances, a balance between accountability and learning might be hard to achieve (see chapter 4).

HQ

163

5.3.2 Communication across NGOs

NGOs interact amongst one another. In the field, the need for coordination is often the driving force (see chapter 3). However the information exchange amongst NGOs is not restricted to field-level coordination. NGOs are networking to build an information rich environment. Collaborative efforts pull together knowledge to improve practices (for example through the setting of shelter standards such as Sphere see chapter 2). There is also a strong willingness to ensure quality of intervention. Informed peer pressure is seen as catalyst for this [HAP international 2003]. In this environment, contrasting forces (collaboration and control, disclosure and ownership) are constantly in action.

The rise of networks

A plethora of networks join together different actors, at different levels, with different purposes (field /HQ, NGOs, IGOs, researchers, training, professional). Many of those networks connect NGOs. They may be formal or informal. They can be created on an occasional basis and dissolved in a few days (e.g.: a conference or a workshop with no follow-up). Or they can be the permanent arenas where debate and discussion take place (e.g. VOICE - Voluntary Organisations in Co-operation in Emergencies). Those that are alive - and not a simple list of contacts - are a formidable vehicle for communication and information exchange, especially when the link between information and action is present [Eade 1997, Gostelow 1999]. There are not many networks that are continuously active specifically in the shelter and settlement sector. Chapter 6 will provide a quick overview of those that tackle shelter and settlement and are supported by the Internet. Topu recognises three motives for the foundation of such humanitarian networks: First, the pooling of resources and information for more efficient relief assistance. Second, the need for standardization and coherence among the operational relief organizations, making cooperation and coordination of relief activities in the field easier. Third, to be recognized as an institutionalized counterpart to political interests of donor governments [] thus working synergistically to achieve a long-term goal [Topu 1999: 7]. Hence, those various networks cover, in one form or another, the different facets of communication: accountability, coordination, learning, and advocacy.

The communication gap between relief and development organisation

One of the problems with humanitarian networking is that it is self-focused on humanitarian issues and actors. The development / relief gap is very much visible when it comes to interaction between relief and development organisations. In chapter 2 I noted that the distinction between relief and development is not clear-cut and is, to a considerable extent, the result of labelling certain situations as relief or development. It is more functional as a way of describing the mode or operation adopted rather than the situation per se. In many cases even the definition of crisis is arbitrary: the trigger mechanism that starts relief can become a
164

political choice rather than an automatic reaction to objective factors. The research therefore advocates a more intense communication between relief and development organisations. I have argued that bridging the divide across relief and development opens possibilities for the exchange of models and practices for intervention that can be used in the shelter and settlement sector. However reality is different, and the split between relief and development organisations a very real one. The relief / development split as noticed in chapter 2 - affects in particular the shelter and settlement sector, as these are the relief interventions with the longer life span.

Relief

Development
Relief organisations that have always been emergency and relief orgs (MSF). However some acknowledge the need to gain expertise to understand development issues (e.g. in order to plan better exit strategies) Development organisations that have historically and culturally been developmental organisations (UNDP). Some are repositioning themselves on the market creating emergency / transition sections (e.g. UNDPs Emergency Response Division). Organisations that have historically and culturally always done emergency and development (Oxfam, Care). The split might be internal, across different, separated units. Organisations that have inadvertently evolved into doing both through the necessity of events (ECHO) Separate Organisations brought under one umbrella to create a unified response (Swiss model: SDR SDC)

Figure 5.3. How do organisations position themselves on the relief development continuum? [Based on: ALNAP 2001b].

As shown in Figure 5.3, organisations position themselves differently on the relief-development continuum. Some NGOs are mainly emergency focused (MSF, InterSos, CRS); others have separate humanitarian aid departments (e.g. OXFAM). There is a reason for this: when a crisis is declared, the modes of assistance change. Donors release funding, with much shorter timeframes and through specialised relief units, such as ECHO (for the European Union) or OFDA (for USAID). Different criteria and procedures are applied to sustainability, funding and implementation arrangements. The international response to a chronic crisis in particular may risk to reflect the organisational and political proprieties of the implementing agencies, rather than the needs of war affected populations and the vulnerabilities of those threatened by war [European Commission 1996: web page]. As seen in chapter 2, the separation between relief and development can enhance the swiftness of the emergency response, but undermine the possibility of exchanges between organizations and departments. This, in turn, decreases opportunities for communication and for exchange and cross fertilisation of practices. Furthermore, the split is also cultural and caricatured in the view of relief-workers as gung-ho, adrenaline pushed people and development workers as reflective tree-huggers and participation freaks (!). The ethic of the humanitarian has been stereotyped as a sort of temporary, morally myopic project which limits itself to meeting urgent physical needs before hurriedly abdicating in favour of development workers and their much
165

grander ethic of social empowerment and transformation. Such stereotypes have often been most fervently encouraged by the humanitarian workers themselves. But the stereotype helps no one in the long run [Slim 2000: 492]. Certainly those stereotypes neither help communication, nor the adoption of more responsive practices. Brandt asks: If relief does development and development can do relief, why should an NGO manage two parallel operations? Does it make sense to investigate the possibility of operating one unit, at least in the field? New offices could be established that freely mix relief, rehabilitation, and development activities [Brandt 1997: web page]. A very pertinent question, as, in the current cadre, the transition from relief to development as well as the realisation of developmental relief clearly is hampered by the fragmentation of achievements and expertise amongst so many different institutions. Better communication might represent a first effective step in this direction. Bridging the gap means to demolish many institutional barriers that separate development from relief, and to start exchanging culture and expertise amongst practitioners from both sides.

5.3.3 Communication with other actors

NGOs interact with many other actors, and the graphic in Figure 5.4 is an attempt to show the dominant factors in modelling the information and communication exchange.

DONORS
Upward accountability, advocacy

ACADEMIA
Informal accountability, advocacy, learning

UN
Upward accountability, coordination, advocacy

MEDIA
Informal accountability, advocacy

MILITARY HQ NGO NGO

Coordination, advocacy

Informal accountability, coordination, advocacy, learning

LOCAL AUTHORITIES
accountability, coordination, advocacy

BENEFICIARIES
Downward accountability, learning, advocacy

Figure 5.4. Communication amongst NGOs and other actors.

Some of these interrelations will be analysed through specific examples in the following, as a way to examine key problem areas and opportunities for information exchange, as well as to reinforce some points that emerged in the analysis so far. Each group of actors has, of course, internal dynamics that will not be discussed in this thesis. It will suffice to note, for example, that in the UN family there are problems of coordination, of leadership, overlapping mandates (or insufficient ones) that parallel those encountered amongst NGOs.

166

NGOs and donors: bureaucratisation of information

NGOs develop vertical relationships (partnership / financial dependence) with IGOs [Hulme and Edwards 1997]. IGOs are the recipients of a vast feedback (e.g. in form of reports from the field) and have the capacity to influence intervention. Attitudes of donors can certainly model co-ordination and information exchange. The relationship with donors is of course a key one. Projects are often modelled according to the time horizons and financial resources set by donors. This restricts the capacity of humanitarian agencies to set their own priorities and to implement desired programmes. Donors' priorities can severely limit the range of choice agencies face [Forman and Parhad 2000]. Hence the importance of advocacy from NGOs to donors (directly or via the public opinion) to create the conditions for improved practices. NGOs are getting increasingly good at mounting advocacy campaigns, but advocacy might not suffice when what is needed is a fundamental restructuring of the system and of the modalities through which aid is disbursed. Significant steps have been taken. Standards, for example, can be seen as a way to advocate equal support across crises, however it is unclear to what extent donors can be influenced by them in allocating resources [Darcy 2003, Smillie and Minear 2003b]. The dominant relationship between NGOs and their donors is upward accountability. This also translates into the dominance of reporting as the main form of information exchange. Information generation is, by and large, determined by donor requirements. Davies noticed that any donor demand for information means organisational attention and resources have to be directed to it and not somewhere else [Davies 1996: web page]. He adds that this could be at the cost of beneficiaries, as information relevant to them (to understand their needs and their view) might not be collected. Attention of the donors also tends to focus on results, hence narrowing the scope for understanding impact and innovation. Fieldworkers interviewed through the Internet questionnaire for this thesis confirmed the relevance of reporting. Three quarters of those interviewed relied on reporting for information sharing, making it the second most important option after informal talks (see Figure 5.5). Unfortunately much of those efforts are lost, as reports are seldom circulated and the data gathered through routine monitoring activities are rarely shared. Hence the need to look for more effective forms of reporting that, on top of satisfying bureaucratic requirements, could also improve information circulation [ALNAP 2003]. Reporting should also become an opportunity for critical analysis of the data rather than a reinforcement of the bureaucratisation of aid delivery. This of course depends on the extent to which information for reporting is intended and perceived as a mean for dialogue or as a form of control. Some authors expressed the fear that "improved use of information systems could further erode the operational independence of agencies by enabling donors to exert evergreater day-to-day control over their activities" [Schofield 2001: 18].

167

Information sharing
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Informal conversation % FM % RedR 75% 89%

Reporting (e.g. 43% 73%

Meetings in InterPresentation Discussion your organisation s to training lists 64% 58% 39% 42% 54% 36% 61% 22%

Writing articles / 61% 13%

Figure 5.5. Questionnaire results: information sharing, favoured options.

NGOs and the academia: research communication

Academia and, more generally, researchers, could have a key role in producing and circulating insights related to humanitarian intervention. In addition to direct fieldwork, academia might act as a receptor of information to be elaborated and conceptualised. It could provide synthesis and comparative studies, identify conceptual and/or information gaps, suggest methodological improvements. Literature reviews can document the historical shifts in conceptual development of issues and summarize debates [Van Brabant 1997]. Unfortunately, it is commonplace to observe that humanitarianism - as it happens in the field - still lacks (with few noticeable exceptions), solid academic champions. The situation is not as grim as it is perceived. It is true that research in situations of war is hampered by important practical, methodological and ethical challenges [Goodhand 2000, Groupe URD 2000]. Also, insufficient funding limits the output of those who wish to reflect on conflict and humanitarian response. However, considerable research on key areas (principles and challenges for humanitarianism, effects of forced migration, discussions on the modus operandi e.g. camp settlements) has been produced, as demonstrated in the course of this research. Research groups of an academic nature or consultancy based focused on research about policies and practices of relief interventions (e.g. HPN and ALNAP, Groupe URD, just to randomly name a few). Some tackled explicitly the shelter and settlement sector (e.g. ShelterProject, DFM at Oxford Brookes). Dissemination of results has been pursued actively (e.g. Forced Migration Portal, UNHCR working paper series, ID21 project). Humanitarianism and humanitarian practice are also increasingly perceived as a discipline worthy of academic status. A growing number of courses focused on humanitarian interventions are emerging

168

(CENDEP MSc at Oxford Brookes, the NOHA of EU, the joint consortium for the European Masters in International Humanitarian Assistance, etc.). They respond to the need to professionalize aid-workers (see 5.4.1 and Minear and Lubkemann 2000, Georgetown University & Fritz Institute 2003] and also provide a setting conductive to learning, where experienced fieldworkers and academics can together elaborate experiences [on the necessity of a shift from an environment enabling learning processes in practitioners rather than simple dissemination by academics see Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2002a]. In short, academia and research groups are attentive to the humanitarian world. They are important reference points for organisations as far as informal accountability is concerned. They are an opportunity to assist learning processes. Hence the importance to engage academic and researchers in communication initiatives aimed at reflection on practices. An open-door policy might allow the creation of a space fostering critical debate amongst many actors. However, in order to do this, it is important to develop the capacity of feeding the results of such debate back to the actors engaging with humanitarian interventions. Much academic research fails to engage with practice. A gap between those living in the ivory towers and those running in the dust is apparent. The distance is a physical one. Insecurity might create difficult conditions for access of researchers to the field. The opportunities to meet are in practice limited. Workshops might involve both groups, but they are most likely to target HQ personnel rather than the hardcore field staff. Equally, training is still an expensive option, accessible only to a few (mostly expatriate) aid workers. The distance is also a cultural one: the doers and the thinkers. It is necessary to reflect on this, when devising what information and knowledge management strategies can help promoting dialogue. There are strong criticisms of the prevalent system of scholarly communication [Association of Research Libraries 2000]. Academia rewards publications in academic journals of limited circulations and fails to appreciate the impact of research on the practice and the dissemination through different channels. Since funders and publishers often put pressure on researchers to make fresh contributions to knowledge, the emphasis of their studies is to produce original and scholarly, rather than useful, knowledge. Scholars can be fearful of making tangible recommendations. The result can be lengthy indigestible reports reflecting on complexity in the post-modern world rather than proposals for action [Crewe and Young 2002: 9]. Field-workers seem to have problems with the format and the language of academic research, as expressed by respondents to the questionnaire: Information is one of the most important tools we are able to offer to many of our partners. However it is frequently found that some academics blind quality information with jargon and un-translatable phrases and words (look how clever I am crap) which often results in valuable knowledge being ignored or at best circulated around a very small and insular group [reply to the questionnaire].

169

The information exchange tools used by researchers and field workers do not seem to intersect, as illustrated by Figure 5.6. According to the questionnaire results, technical manuals are one of the favourite ways to keep up to date. But those are ignored by academics. Conversely, field-workers stay clear from academic journals and academic literature. When it comes to newsletter magazines, academic ones (Journal of Refugee Studies and Forced Migration Review) are hardly read by fieldworkers. Vice-versa, professional newsletters are ignored by academics (the exception being the Refuge newsletter by UNHCR that scores quite well in both categories). When surfing the net, academics prefer to consult scholarly publications and reports, mostly ignored by practitioners who rather look eagerly for how-to-do manuals. The common ground is represented in websites providing news on humanitarian crises, appreciated by both.

Types of websites visited (FM subscribers)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Media sites 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 10% 10% 23% 23% 33% 3 2 Humanitari an news reports 7% 14% 17% 28% 35% Specific Academic documents, papers reports 7% 3% 14% 28% 48% 0% 3% 14% 41% 41%

Country reports 3% 14% 17% 35% 31%

Regional info 21% 31% 17% 24% 7%

Legistlation, Job offers stats 7% 24% 21% 24% 24% 31% 17% 21% 21% 10%

Org home 0% 14% 31% 35% 21%

Online catalogues 19% 22% 26% 19% 15%

Online manuals 21% 17% 10% 35% 17%

1 5: visited often - 1 never

Types of websites visited (RedR members)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Media sites 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 16% 30% 7% 25% 23% 3 2 Humanitari an news reports 9% 13% 22% 29% 27% Specific Academic documents, papers reports 43% 36% 14% 2% 5% 27% 29% 20% 15% 10%

Country reports 29% 21% 24% 24% 2%

Regional info 52% 26% 14% 7% 0%

Legistlation, Job offers stats 51% 33% 7% 7% 2% 25% 9% 11% 23% 32%

Org home 11% 18% 23% 25% 23%

Online catalogues 44% 24% 20% 10% 2%

Online manuals 28% 19% 19% 26% 9%

1 5: visited often - 1 never

Figure 5.6.Questionnaire results: Information sources.

170

Journals (FM)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Disasters not familiar Familiar (internet) Familiar (text) 56% 7% 37%

Humanitari an exchange 68.00% 28.00% 4.00% Familiar (text)

RedR 85% 8% 8%

Refugees 10% 38% 52%

Journal ref studies 10% 37% 53%

FMR 7% 40% 53%

Humanitari Developm an affairs ent in review practice 67% 11% 22% 74.10% 3.70% 22.20%

ICVA 75.00% 21.40% 3.60%

Refugee Journal of studies humanitari quarterly an 48.30% 24.10% 27.60% not familiar 58.60% 24.10% 17.20%

Familiar (internet)

Journals (RedR)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Disasters not familiar Familiar (internet) Familiar (text) 80% 8% 13% Humanitari an exchange 78% 10% 13% Familiar (text) Humanitari Developm an affairs ent in review practice 83% 5% 13% 66.70% 9.50% 23.80% Refugee Journal of studies humanitari quarterly an 97.50% 2.50% 0.00% not familiar 82.50% 7.50% 10.00%

RedR 4% 22% 73%

Refugees 45% 10% 45%

Journal ref studies 83% 2% 14%

FMR 86% 5% 10%

ICVA 95.00% 2.50% 2.50%

Familiar (internet)

Figure 5.7.Questionnaire results: information sources, journals.

Global strategies
academia Local govts
Programme implementation Comparative studies

NGOs

Think-tanks
Project implementation Evaluation (ex post and ex ante assessment)

Action

Policy Making Programme management Individual projects

Reflection

Figure 5.8. The links amongst action and reflection: a continuum for research.
171

It would be wrong to assume that reflection and research are exclusively an academic pursuit. NGOs have their own research units. Field-workers also engage in reflection and research when they do their assessments or evaluations. What emerges is a continuum of research exercises, as depicted in Figure 5.8. A vision of researchers and practitioners as two different, insular, worlds would be over-simplistic and would fail to capture the relationships that help transform ideas into action. Policymaking and programme implementation require a balance between action and reflection that can be achieved by single actors (e.g. NGOs performing assessments and acting on them) or through collaborations (e.g. a NGOs choosing to assist a particular group of beneficiaries based on a paradigm elaborated through academic research). This happens at many different and intersecting scales, from the single project to programmes, to the implementation of global strategies. If one tries to plot the areas of intervention of different groups (that are far more nebulous in reality than as tentatively depicted in Figure 5.8!), the overlap is evident. Academic research is prevalently placed at the upper right end, with little connection to actual policy making and action. NGOs tend to work at the bottom of the graph, on the whole axis action / programme management / reflection. However academics might engage with single NGO projects, or policy making by collaboratively setting up new frameworks. Competencies, techniques, paradigms for action and reflection need to be exchanged and complemented as shown in Figure 5.9. It is in this context that advocacy and learning thrive. On the contrary, what might prevail is a sense of aloofness. In highlighting the reason why research might fail to influence practices, Crewe and Young mentioned, amongst other factors: inadequate supply of, and access to, relevant information; researchers poor comprehension of policy process and unrealistic recommendations; ineffective communication of research; ignorance or anti-intellectualism of politicians or bureaucrats [Crewe and Young 2002]. As it has been discussed in chapter 2, for example with regard to the camp, much of the research produced in academic circles about shelter and settlement practices is highly critical of the current system, and invokes different responses in practice. Those different responses are not only concerned with simple adaptations that can be easily accommodated in the implementation of projects. They call for fundamental changes in the way the refugee problem is tackled. They might clash with the political agenda of governments, with the compartmentalised structure of relief as separate from development, its financing and its contractual nature. It is around those issues that advocacy is necessary. But when it comes to dissemination and advocacy, academic research still falls short (with some exceptions) of communicating results and influencing and reaching a wider audience [Bouchet-Saulnier 2001]. Can the NGOs be allied to academia in advocating new approaches? Yes, but up to a point. The dismissal of current approaches could also be perceived as a critique to the modus operandi of NGOs that are understandably defensive. The very same distance from the field that allows for detached analysis can also
172

generate fractures and unsatisfactory dialogue between academia and the implementers. Argyris noticed that, in general, those defensive routines are hard to overcome unless a staged dialogue occurs, possibly integrating description with intervention [Argyris 1999]. There is much potential for action, if academia and NGOs get engaged together. Establishing communication links amongst them is certainly a way forward to enhance critical reflection on the shelter and settlement and to leverage it, either to support effective advocacy or to translate it into practices.

Academic Institutions, Think Tanks Learning best practice Curriculum based on applied learning derived from field practice On going opportunities for cutting edge research

Donors Learning best practice Catalyst for defining best practice Mainstreaming new learning for more effective work

Humanitarian NGO Operations (working laboratory) Learning best practice for improved operations Identification of effective operation tools Mainstreaming new learning for more effective work

Figure 5.9. Best practice learning: joint benefits. [Source: Janz 2000].

NGOs and the military: communication and uneasy coordination

Military-civilian cooperation has important implications for communication, especially as far as coordination is concerned. It is an extreme, but very interesting case that demonstrates that attitudes, personalities, values and mandates are central in initiating, maintaining and directing a communication flow. Recent emergencies put the issue of military-civil cooperation in the limelight: military forces and civilians are working side by side in areas of conflict. Increasingly the military are also getting engaged in delivering humanitarian assistance, and in particular, have been involved in the setting and running of refugee camps. There is much debate around this issue [see for example: Witzig Davidson, Daly Hayes, and Landon 1996, Caritas / Aprodev 2000, Eriksson 2000, Martin 2000, Slim 2001, Maynard 2002, Barry and Jefferys 2002, Slim 2003]. It is highly contended if the NGO and the military can engage together in humanitarian operations. Still, it is evident that in many ambits and communication is one of them the military and the NGOs need to devise policies, channels and rules for engagement [SCHR 2002, UN/EU 2003, ACFOA 2002, ORHA 2003].

173

Communication and coordination for situation assessments: Military forces usually have a greater capacity to collect information than humanitarian agencies. It includes aerial reconnaissance information, which may be of value in tracking the movement of refugees and in site selection. Care must be taken, however, in the interpretation and use of such materials: the information it provides needs to be carefully weighed against information available from other sources, in particular first hand information from aid workers on the ground [UNHCR 1999a as adapted at http://www.aidworkers.net/UNHCR/military.htm]. As this excerpt points out, information exchange between NGOs and the military is potentially very important, but it is more easily said than done. Conflicting perceptions and attitudes undermine the possibility of building mutual trust, and, more important, different values and principles might persuade against collaboration. NGOs seeking to gather information to enhance their efficiency and operational security (e.g. maps, information from the theatre of military operations, location of UXOs, etc) might find closed doors on the ground of secrecy. And they might reciprocate by resisting divulging their intelligence to the military, to protect their neutrality. An important development in recent years has been the establishment of the HICs (see chapter 3) that facilitate information exchange by providing a common neutral ground and the technology to pull information together [Dziedzic and Wood 2000]. But even cooperation in the HICs can only take place if it is seen as non-threatening for the independence of the organisations involved. Information exchange for coordination, for example, might start to become problematic for NGOs when there is an attempt to use it and link it to control [Schofield 2002]. This is certainly a delicate issue in the NGOs military communication exchange. Coordination for programme implementation. Despite the assertion that the military should deliver aid only in exceptional circumstances [UNHCR 1999a], they have recently been directly involved in humanitarian assistance. The Kosovo crisis is a case in point, where national military contingents have set up camps. Drawbacks of those realisations have ranged from high running costs to insufficient attention to gender needs, and some of them had to be mitigated at a later stage by weaving in NGO support programmes [Suhrke et al. 2000]. If (and this is a big if) the military are to be involved in shelter and settlement interventions, one should really question to what extent their Standard Operation Procedures can satisfy population needs and not only a drive to efficiency. The Kosovo experience, for example, still holds many lessons to be learnt in terms of military / NGOs partnerships in assistance delivery. Whilst NGOs and the military had been found working together in managing and supporting the camps, there is hardly any lessons learned material to discuss this experience of collaboration. Formalised channels and procedures for cooperation have been built by the military in the form of CMOCs or CIMICs - Civil-Military Operations Centers [see Witzig Davidson, Daly Hayes, and Landon 1996, Pollik 2000]. However prejudices abound on both sides, and the deep differences in their organisational culture limit the dialogue [USAID/OFDA 1998, Minear, van Baarda, and Sommers 2000, Cross 2001]. Barry and Jefferys noticed that much of the analysis of the barriers to effective civilmilitary cooperation locates the root cause in a simple lack of understanding, and the solution typically put forward involves more joint training and
174

information-sharing, allowing the two sides to get to know each other better. However one should always remember that even in the presence of better communication, civilmilitary cooperation might raise difficulties of a much more fundamental nature linked to the mandate and the values of those organizations [Barry and Jefferys 2002].

NGOs and local actors

The issue of communication with the local actors is central in the development discourse. Significantly, it is often overlooked in humanitarian aid, not only in the shelter and settlement sector. Beneficiaries are, at best, clients [Davidson 2002] rather than partners. Opportunities for communication are limited. The lack of engagement and dialogue with the local population is a motive for concern [Needham 1994, Anderson 1995, NOHA 1998, Harrell-Bond 1999]. It also fails to help building local capacities [Smillie 2001]. Northern NGOs fail to engage at many levels: with individuals, communities, local NGOs and local authorities. Here are a few examples.

Refugee community, beneficiaries

Lack of participation and consultation with beneficiaries is found at all steps of the project cycle. Planning, as there often is an insufficient acknowledgement of population needs. Implementation, when lack of communication amongst international workers and local community is often manifest, for example in day to day situations in organisational communication in camps [Bo-yuen Ngai and Koehn 2002]. Monitoring and evaluation, when primary stakeholders are rarely involved [Kaiser 2002]. Downward accountability is rarely enforced. The ActionAid ALPS system, looking at improving learning by focusing less on reports and more on people, is the exception rather than the rule [ALNAP 2003]. Research by Groupe URD highlighted significant consequences of insufficient information exchange with beneficiaries in the specific field of shelter: the absence of information and explanations of the process can contribute to the spreading of rumours, and can create tensions and conflicts between the project operator and the population. The co-presence of several operators working on projects with similar objectives (but with varying modes of implementation) should call for improved and co-ordinated communication, but that is still lacking [Groupe URD 2002b]. Also, significantly, communication at the advocacy level is hampered by the perception of relief and a totally non-political endeavour, hence loosing an important channel to engage with the community. Capacity to adapt to the local context is essential to operate in relief operations. The generic relief worker who moves from one emergency to the next is no longer sufficient, if ever she or he was. Humanitarian agencies need specialists who understand the history, culture and fast-moving politics of a place, and can communicate them to policy makers [Slim 1995: 124]. Attentiveness to the local context requires that professionals avoid humanitarian tourism, implying not having the time to listen, to learn, to understand, to

175

develop relationships. International staff are not helped to understand the local context and society, and/or are simply not interested in developing such understanding [HAP 2001: 3]. Isolated, context-unaware expatriates limit the possibility to engage positively with the population and involve it as a resource. They rather favour technical standardised solutions. On the contrary, attention to the local context should be pursued fervently by NGOs, as one of their competitive advantages is precisely flexibility and adaptation to local specificity. Other actors might lack this sensitivity, as observed in Albania: military construction of camps led to a lack of consideration of soft planning aspects routinely considered by humanitarian agencies (e.g. recreational areas, considerations on security and privacy needs for women) [Suhrke et al. 2000].

Relationships with local NGOs and local staff

The lack of collaboration amongst Northern NGOs and Local NGOs has been a constant feature in recent crises [Brunnstrom 2000, Patrick I. 2001]. Communication amongst International NGOs and local ones is ineffective both when delivering information to local NGOs and in gathering information from them. Local organisations tend to have less access to information channels than their international counterpart, which are better inter-connected and have also better access to electronic media [DeWolf 1994]. The contextual knowledge owned by local NGOs is not adequately valued by a system that favours standardised delivery. This despite the fact that it is the local coping mechanisms, linked to a local understanding of the capacities of refugees and the adaptive responses of their hosts, which are crucial elements in refugee survival and the response to refugee influxes often well before the situations become `internationalised'. By developing from grass roots responses, local resources and coping mechanisms can be tapped more efficiently and there is likely to be greater cultural sensitivity to the needs of both hosts and refugees [Zetter 1996: 42]. The disinterest for communication with local NGOs also means that issues of capacity building are not tackled; hence the knowledge of NGOs does not get rooted in local counterparts. Local capacity-building was defined by international humanitarian organizations mainly as the hiring and training of local personnel to work for them. International actors should expand their support of civil society by working with national NGOs to identify and expand their roles [Sommers 2000: 109]. The lack of local staff in management positions is another weakness that impedes to capitalise on local knowledge and expertise during operations: agencies might claim to hire many local employees, but only a few occupy senior policy or management positions. This means that the possibility of gaining contextual knowledge by directly using local knowledge is curtailed [Salomons et al. 1998]. This is a great loss as it further undermines the possibility of understanding the particular political and cultural context in which NGOs are operating. It is also a missed opportunity to build local capacities that will be essential when international organisations leave. Investing in training of nationals, for example, could ultimately do a great deal for that seemingly elusive goal in emergencies of developing local capacity [Hayward 2001: 4], and would also help ensuring that capacities and lessons learned during the emergency phase could stay in the country and contribute directly to reconstruction [Mller Rasmussen 2001]. By failing to communicate and engage with local counterparts, relief agencies miss an opportunity to build capacities and knowledge as a durable form of assistance and to capitalise upon experience.
176

Analogous considerations could be made for the engagement with local authorities. As shown in chapter 2, the delivery of relief assistance is mostly based on the idea of substitution, hence bypassing local administrations.

177

5.4

LEARNING ACROSS THE HUMANITARIAN SYSTEM

As previously discussed, the fluidity of the humanitarian environment and the mobility of individuals make it difficult to retain acquired experience. High mobility of freelance workers across agencies, rapid turnover, lack of inductions / hand-over / debriefings are all factors that impede the capitalisation and the transmission of experiences in individual organisations [on shortcomings of human resource management see for example: Macnair 1995, IHE and People in Aid 1997, NOHA 1998, Pyles 1999, WHO 2000, Potter, Faber, and de Wolf 2001, ALNAP 2002a, Mayhew 2002]. At field level, certainly in humanitarian operations, the high rates of notably international staff turnover, work against continuity and organisational learning. Under such conditions, there is little incentive for both organisations and staff to invest in learning, or to question dominant ideas and practices [Van Brabant 1997: 17]. This is a structural problem of the humanitarian sector, based on short-term contracts. Policies for retaining staff are still insufficiently developed [EPN and RedR 2002]. When someone leaves an organisation, in the absence of effective ways to capture information, her/his knowledge normally leaves with her/him. The fact that shelter and settlement is not a strongly defined sector further aggravates these issues: it lacks obvious forums and circles where to consolidate and share expertise. Hilhorst and Schmiemann offer an interesting change of perspective when affirming that the very same speed of operations and staff turnover that hinder organisational learning also facilitate institutional learning, if this is understood to mean learning across the humanitarian sector. A number of experienced individuals have worked in and obtained an overview of a large range of crises and humanitarian organisations. They have developed social networks of humanitarian workers across agencies in which they exchange experience and ideas. Thanks to these humanitarian troubadours, one might say that an imagined humanitarian community is evolving in which humanitarians learn from each other and start to develop common agendas for change, despite differences that continue to exist between agencies [Hilhorst and Schmiemann 2002: 496].

individuals organizations system

Figure 5.10. The humanitarian system and the mobility of aid-workers.

Organisations are not the only bodies that learn, consolidate and adapt their knowledge: the whole humanitarian system does so. For this to happen the pull to coordination and information exchange must be
178

strong enough to counteract competitiveness (see chapter 3). Many initiatives of knowledge exchange and communication across the humanitarian sector provide evidence that this can happen. Theories dealing with autopoietic knowledge development [Magalhaes 1996] affirm that the modalities for information circulation that are applicable at one level can be scaled up to the next. If one assumes that the larger system is not the organisation, but the humanitarian system as a whole, it would be possible to apply knowledge management processes at that level. I already noticed in chapter 4, for example, how some of the modalities of knowledge transfer in organisations identified by Dixon might well be applied at the inter-organisational level. Organisations will still have a key role in facilitating a learning culture and ensuring that experience is effectively gathered, consolidated, analysed, packaged, communicated, adapted. However, knowledge management and support to learning at the organisational level which is the focus of much literature does not suffice, and new frameworks that reflect the increasing incidence of co-operative relationships between organisations are advocated [Beeby and Booth 2000]. An important point to make, however, is that knowledge exchange is not organised sequentially across different levels (individual, group, organisation, system), but that those levels interplay. Individual learning is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for organisational and institutional learning [AccountAbility 2003]. And humanitarian troubadours or, more generally, the networks established amongst individuals, might be conductive to systemic learning bypassing, to some extent, organisational routines.

5.4.1 Learning needs and opportunities for the professional aid worker
The current communication modalities score quite badly in fulfilling the learning needs of aid workers. When it comes to gaining knowledge and competencies they seem to be left on their own. This is of course a high-risk strategy for organizations. There is considerable evidence to suggest that individuals, rather than simply delivering materials, determine the success of an aid project [Mook 2001]; and it has been noticed that personalities may influence a project more than the policies of the organisation [Kaiser 2002]. However, the humanitarian sector is affected by inadequate training provision and the limited training that is available is not linked to learning. [ALNAP 2002] As this section will show, organisations are quite poor at investing in training, as well as at supporting wider learning mechanisms to validate the experience gathered when implementing programmes (discussed in chapter 4). The current human resource management practices are shaped by the nature of the funding earmarked for relief (rapidly disbursed but short-term, project-based), rather than by considerations on capacity building [Forman and Parhad 2000]. Agencies have little capacity to retain staff in between crisis, and field staff tend to be contracted as projects are approved, often hurriedly. In this context, mobility becomes a human resource nightmare rather than a possibility for dissemination of knowledge.
179

But mobility also means that aid-workers are continuously in need of refining their capacities, in order to find suitable placements in the competitive arena of humanitarian work. This may be an incentive for individual aid workers to look for communication channels for keeping up to date, and to engage with learning as a way to boost personal skills. Hence the need to create spaces for this to happen. The creation of professional registers (e.g. RedR, enrolling also shelter and settlement professionals) is an interesting example of how this space has been tapped. The support offered by RedR, for example, focuses on capacities and expertise. It offers short courses (also on shelter and settlement) through a very active training wing; it gives importance to debriefings; it runs an expert network to provide instant technical support to members deployed in the field. This is an example of how facets of learning can be addressed at the system level to complement organisational mechanisms. Other spaces for learning are created by communities of practice and initiatives such as the Aid Workers Network (see chapter 6). It is evident that the humanitarian troubadours can have an impact only if organisations are attentive to field level learning and exchange. However, this is an area that is only recently emerging (research on the topic is now underway at ALNAP, which also started a working group in this area in Nov 2003) and is grossly undervalued. The desire for professional aid workers is undermined by the inadequacy of learning processes. Times are ripe for a reflection on the modalities of communication that could support them.

Opportunities for personal development: training (and other options)

Training is only one facet of learning and communication, but it is widely perceived as one of the most important ways to deliver knowledge to aid workers. The attitude of field-workers to training and personal development has been investigated through the questionnaire conducted as part of this research. Despite the recognition of the importance of training, for example in the People in Aid Code [People in Aid 1996], agencies tend not to invest on temporary personnel, and budget lines are often not available to cover the costs of training for field staff [Hayward 2001]. The development of professional capacity through training might be left to the goodwill of aid-workers who are prepared to invest personal time and resources in it. What is the perspective of those working in the shelter and settlement sector? Many of the respondents of the questionnaire attended training courses (87%), and only 15% of participants to training courses were sent by their organisation. A striking 100% of respondents mentioned personal interest in the subject as the reason for attending. Networking and getting new contacts are definitely a big expectation (68%). Conversely, lack of time (67%) or non-availability of accessible training (50%) are the most important factors in preventing people from taking part in training.

180

Type of course attended

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

courses organised by your organisation FM RedR 25% 38%

degrees/masters/shor training organised by training organised by t courses by professional UN / NGOs Academic institutions organisations (e.g. 67% 33% 33% 55% 25% 83%

Other (Please specify) 0% 3%

Academic qualifications
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

First degree Forced migration RedR 43% 60%

Master degree 63% 56%

Doctorate 20% 2%

Professional qualifications 3% 58%

Other (please specify) 3% 4%

Figure 5.11. Questionnaire results: types of course attended. Figure 5.12 Questionnaire results: academic qualifications.

The view of this research is that training does not really coincide with learning, and if administered as a topdown exercise fails to generate a meaningful two-way communication. However, the fact that aid workers attend courses independently and that organisations are also increasingly sending their staff to externally led training courses might create an important space for communication and exchange of practices. Training is increasingly happening with modalities favouring mutual enrichment through exchange and validation of experiences. In other words, conventional top-down training is being enriched by the communication across professionals, tapping into knowledge assets at the system level. The development of the soft-skills that are needed to enhance communication is an important by-product of those forms of training. Increases in understanding or development of positive attitudes towards communication of experiences are important for field workers also because most staff failures in the field stem not from technical but from personal factors [Cosgrave 1998: no page].

181

Reason for attending training courses

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

personal interest in the subject FM RedR 69% 100%

increase opportunity to get a job / obtain a promotion 23% 35%

sent by my organisation 15% 15%

networking: meet people, get new contacts 54% 68%

Other 0% 8%

Reason for not attending training courses

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

did not feel not perceived the need to lack of time as useful do so 19% 17% 19% 0% 33% 67%

cost 48% 33%

FM RedR

no course available in accessible locations 29% 50%

no course do not know satisfying my what is on interests offer 10% 0% 19% 17%

other 10% 0%

Figure 5.13. Reason for attending training courses. Figure 5.14. Reason for not attending training courses.

Interagency forums and meetings are other communication arenas perceived as valuable opportunities by respondents. The aid industry is so fluid with personnel [There is a] need to identify opportunities to capture the knowledge built up during country mission (and general experience). This could be done through thematic workshops/group meetings right from the start of an intervention. We had experience of doing this in the waste sector of Kosovo and great to meet other people over a beer, people you would not normally meet since we all stick to our own org!!! [respondent to the questionnaire] Not only it is hard to consolidate learning: keeping it up to date is a luxury. 26% of the fieldworkers who responded to the questionnaire felt that they could not keep up to date; 49% recognised that they could not do it sufficiently, due to lack of time and other contrasting priorities. A respondent also pointed out the lack of commitment from agencies in providing information (e.g. not posting and making available sources for information). This is an important point, reinstating that when it comes to operational priorities, communication and learning score quite poorly at the individual as well as the organisational level.
182

Keeping up to date
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Yes 37% 26%

Yes, but not sufficiently 50% 49%

No 13% 26%

% FM % RedR

Reasons for not keeping up to date

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

appropriate sources don't exist 11% 9%

methods should be improved 21% 24%

limited access to existing information 42% 46%

lack of time 79% 64%

other priorities 32% 49%

other 5% 3%

% FM % RedR

Figure 5.15. Questionnaire results: keeping up to date: perceived attainments. Figure 5.16. Questionnaire results: reason for not keeping up to date .

The preferred ways for keeping up to date were technical manuals, informal talks, training, Internet but above all - practical experience. Hence there is a need for very practical products for information dissemination (i.e. manuals and guidelines that can be readily adapted to the field and not academic products that are despised) and to short-circuit learning and practice. Learning does not coincide with training. A fieldworker can learn by doing or learn by being in the field; s/he can exchange personal experiences with colleagues in a community that often develops close ties and a good deal of camaraderie. Knowledge exchanges need to be personal and dynamic. Field workers relate strongly on meeting people for gathering information (85% of the respondent assigned to this option a score at the top of the scale: 4 or 5). E-mail and personal archives are next. The web scores comparatively lower. This shows that there is a space for communication initiatives based on the use of e-mail rather than web driven (an issue that will be further discussed in the next chapter). Phone is also an option, favoured by nearly 70% of the respondents. Conventional mail and libraries appeal only to a marginal percentage of the respondents. So, it appears that oral or informal exchanges tend to be favoured on written, formal ones. The attitudes to the
183

written word of fieldworkers is also confirmed by another study on disaster NGOs operating in UK: The fact that very few respondents could quote the titles and authors of the wider disaster literature shows that such literature does not have a large audience among NGO staff. However, it does not necessarily follow that NGO workers are not well informed. Indeed, they consult a wide range of literature, albeit newsletters, oral and electronic sources rather than traditional academic works. Nevertheless very few read anything specifically about disaster theory, preferring concrete news from the countries affected. When the interviewed did have time to stand back and reflect, they seemed to like case studies and lessons-learned-type material. Certainly, material presented in shorter pieces was greatly preferred to books and longer, academic papers [Twigg et al. 2000: 88]. There are also problems of information overload and of access to information: rapid advances in information and communications technology have led to a proliferation in the quantity of information available to humanitarian workers at all levels - but not necessarily any corresponding improvements in their abilities to usefully handle that information [Recalde 2001: web page]. This issue, together with a deeper examination of the attitudes towards the Internet as a tool for communication and learning, will be tackled in the following chapter.
Information sources (RedR members)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Meeting people 1 2 3 4 5
5 4

Phone 7% 23% 25% 23% 23%

E-mail 9% 13% 22% 33% 22%

Web 11% 24% 24% 18% 22%

Post 18% 39% 32% 9% 2%

Libraries 24% 33% 24% 16% 2%

Personal Archives 9% 11% 29% 38% 13%

4% 11% 9% 29% 47%

3 2

1 5: used often - 1 never/rarely

Methods for keeping up to date (RedR members)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Acadamic books/journ als 13% 33% 18% 16% 20% 4 3 2 1

Technical manuals 7% 9% 24% 31% 29%

Newsletter / mags 7% 24% 38% 20% 11%

Informal talks 7% 7% 23% 25% 39%

Prof. Conferences associations 16% 24% 24% 20% 16% 7% 18% 27% 27% 21%

Training 5% 7% 25% 27% 36%

Libraries 9% 27% 36% 20% 9%

Internet 9% 11% 20% 36% 24%

Ediscussions 36% 36% 20% 7% 2%

Practical exp 4% 0% 4% 20% 71%

1 2 3 4 5 5

5: used often - 1 never/rarely

Figure 5.17. Questionnaire results: methods for keeping up to date. Figure 5.18.Questionnaire results: information sources.

184

Voice or whispers?
All in all the humanitarian troubadours have little voice. Organisations often fail to benefit from the expertise of their employees, and can actually crush learning by creating a culture that is inimical to it. Organisational pressures are actually more likely to inhibit learning than to foster it. Some actively voice their frustrations in efforts to expose organisational problems that need to be addressed [] however such voice is usually countered with various degrees and forms of suppressive action from the hierarchy because it threatens and embarrasses the organisation. Since most field personnel rely on short-term employment contracts, the fear of losing their jobs will inhibit them from voicing their criticism of policy problems []. Individuals choose simply to remain apathetic to organizational surroundings and policies, doing their jobs without asking questions or getting involved. Often become highly focused on accomplishing their individual task accepting the constraints of their condition, and facing no better alternative than to shut down many sensory and cognitive processes to a degree that allows them to escape [Walkup 1997: 53].

Unfulfilled expectations

Refugee demands External criticism AID WORKER

DISFUNCTIONAL POLICYMAKING Miscommunication Lack of evaluation Resistance to innovation Lack of learning Defensiveness and delusion ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTATION

Value conflict

Inadequate resources

Psychological distress MEDIATORY MYTHS

Encoding of culture

DEFENCE MECHANISMS Overwork -> burnout Detachment - > isolation from context Transference -> blame Reality distortion - > illusion of success

Figure 5.19. Humanitarian organizational culture and behaviour. Humanitarian aid-workers face, in their everyday life, many pressures, ranging from those determined to work under pressure in an alien and complicated environment, confronted with need and distress, to the ethical dilemmas that they have to deal with. Pressure might rise inside the organisation, vertically (HQ / field) or across colleagues because of different operational rules and priorities. Aid-workers that stay in the system cope with the psychological distress through a variety of defence mechanisms, that tend to become institutionalised in the organisation and are counteracted through the creation of mediatory myths by the organisation, i.e. in an attempt to portrait results in a more favourable light, to lessen the distress of failed humanitarian efforts. The system creates a culture that is resistant to change and innovation and impedes learning and innovation in the policy process [Source [Walkup 1997].

The pressures described above curtail communication by suppressing embarrassing messages and the confrontation of alternatives. Conversely, to realise the knowledge transfer envisaged by Hilhorst and Schmiemann, organisations would need to be receptive to the voice of the aid workers. Furthermore, an attitude to learning and communication would need to be infused at the individual level to strengthen such
185

voices. Capacities for communication should become part of the core skills of the professional aid-worker. Spaces and opportunities for knowledge exchange are actually sought by organisations. Interestingly, Oxfam recognised this by putting knowledge management in its competency model, profiling the characteristics of aid-workers [Bonard 1999a]. However, opportunities for feeding back and making more explicit individual knowledge are limited, in the shelter and settlement sector and in the humanitarian system as a whole. The current mechanisms for M&E as pointed out in chapter 4 - rarely capture the views of practitioners. The support for reflective practitioners [Schon 1983] is not yet widespread. Strengthening communication would require investments in terms of time and, consequently resources. As noticed by Minear, the action oriented nature of the humanitarian ethos and the hyperactive pace of the relief enterprise means that agencies and staff can hardly be expected to pause and reflect, during and after operations [Minear 1998]. A few organisations offer sabbaticals in order to allow their staff to produce final reports, but this practice is very limited. Debriefings are often disregarded, and ongoing channels for communication enabling communication fluxes in the learning organisation (see chapter 4) - are still lacking. A common frustration of many fieldworkers is not being able to effectively provide their views about the drawbacks of a project and their purposed solutions.

Communication challenges to professionalize aid workers

The humanitarian enterprise demands increasing accountability and efficiency: aid-workers as amateur enthusiasts are a dying breed. They are being replaced by highly competent professionals, who work to agreed sector-wide standards and whose performance is monitored by donors [Markby no date]. There are important communication issues in building the competencies needed by the professional aid worker. Key competencies need to be defined across the system, and developed. There is also an issue of advocacy: NGOs need to make clear how the competencies of their aid workers add value to their interventions, vis--vis other possible implementers. This issue is a thorny one in the shelter and settlement sector: not only it is required to define competencies based on the modus operandi, but it would also be necessary (see chapter 2) to rethink the modalities of interventions and the related competencies - to address wider problems of habitat rather then shelter only. In this section I will further discuss the nature of the competencies needed by professional aid workers operating in the shelter and settlement sector. I will then connect them with issues of communication. It will become evident that the competencies required are varied, and therefore, many modalities of communication need to be put in place to support them. Aid-workers need to have specialised sectoral skills as well as good generalist capacities. The shelter and settlement sector, in particular - as argued in chapter 2 - requires a good deal of interdisciplinarity. Defining

186

what competencies are required is a challenging task that requires communication across agencies. Registers and training providers have engaged with organisations in a reflection on this issue: how to establish a common language on the competencies required of personnel (and how to develop them) [Lambert 2000, Adiin Yaansah and Harrell-Bond 1995]. A shared definition of competencies is relevant in a system characterised by high mobility. It can help ensuring that professional aid-workers can perform adequately in a vast range of situations and organisational settings. Well articulated competencies can help organizing opportunities for exchanges of experiences and learning. There is an issue of capturing know-how pertinent to such competencies, to elaborate and disseminate it. In order to do so, technical training should not be limited to the acquisition of reactive, codified knowledge, but also instil the capacity to adapt, learn, criticise, and innovate knowledge continuously, i.e. the capacity of learning (Brook 2002). The development of critical capacity and openness to new solutions is particularly important in the shelter and settlement sector, requiring a serious reflection on the current modus operandi and interdisciplinary expertise. The expertise and capacities that are required of relief-workers are not limited to the technical ones [van Mierop 2002], but also include soft skills and familiarity with issues of broad relevance to all activities (e.g. gender awareness). Soft skills are also at the basis of effective communication with primary stakeholders, which - as discussed in 5.3.3 are often sidelined by interventions of a predominantly technical nature. Similarly, management and analytical skills - that are key to reflect on action, to capture new knowledge and to propel double loop learning - do not necessarily come packaged with technical expertise. It has been noticed that agencies are not according sufficient priority to the development of the necessary analytical capacity, either within their own organisations or elsewhere in the system [Wood, Apthorpe, and Borton 2001]. NGOs need to stress this is the added value that they can offer that the logic of humanitarian intervention is not only one of technical proficiency: additional competencies are needed to operate in these complex contexts. This is particularly important in the changing climate, where aid workers are expected to operate to standards of efficiency and accountability comparable to that in the for-profit world, and to concur with them. In the shelter and settlement sector, for example, it has been argued that there is no reason why companies should not build refugee camps if they can do it better than the international community [IFRC 1998]. Commercial companies are increasingly seizing commercial opportunities in relief contexts, and also the military are controversially - expanding their humanitarian role [see Stockton 1997, Slim 2003]. Bluntly put, from an aid-worker perspective: increasingly, humanitarian actors are working alongside very big investments from actors who have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about humanitarian principles and who generally could not care less. If we do not take the time to think through a modus operandi for relating to these people we are going to be sidelined [HAP 2003a: no page].

187

The added value of professional aid workers consists in harnessing their expertise with strong humanitarian motivations. The qualification of humanitarian should derive from having on top of the skills required as a professional in a sector - the attitudes and values that are required by the organization employing them. Aid workers need to develop the capacity to respond to a complex environment, posing multiple moral dilemmas [Slim 1997a], and to adapt their response to their values, at a time when humanitarian principles and values are constantly reformulated and debated, and interventions controversial [Leader 1998, Oxfam 2000a, Anderson 1999a, Anderson 1999b, Macrae and Leader 2000, Leader 2000]. Not surprisingly, aid-workers squeezed between conflicting mandates and organizational challenges - have been depicted as endangered chameleons [Slim 1995]. The way to protect such chameleons passes by an effective advocacy of their role, based on a critical assessment of how and if the humanitarian modus operandi - and the competencies of its representatives - can make a difference.
Challenges Turn-over and mobility Recruitment and retention of staff Induction / debriefing Responses Revision of procedures regarding staff recruitment Improvement of managerial procedures and skills Registers and rosters (internal or interagency) to identify skill availability Pathways for career advancement / development of criteria for internal promotions / training Expand skills of broad relevance to Definition of competencies all activities (e.g. gender) Development of training curricula and Expand technical core opportunities (by specialized organization / competencies academia) Expand managerial / analytical Attention to learning processes competencies Expand soft interpersonal skills Development of context-expertise requiring with long-term immersion in and familiarity with the complexities of specific settings Recognition of the importance of understanding socio-cultural, economic, political, and demographic factors and dynamics Academic / practitioners collaborations Move beyond action based on one size fits all formulas to highly context-specific planning and implementation Recruitment of regional staff Adoption of community-wide standards of conduct Communication challenges Perceive aid workers as humanitarian troubadours, and enhance the capacity to benefit from their expertise and diffuse values through them

Human resources management

Enhanced technical expertise

Greater attentiveness to Local context

Create an attitude of learning to promote the adaptation and evolution of technical skills Nourish soft skills supporting innovative practices (e.g. participation) Reinforce managerial skills of aid workers, emphasizing the importance of communication aspects Opening of communication channels with local counterpart. Use of knowledge as a resource and promote its transfer as an asset for the local community

Adherence to communitywide standards of conduct Clarity and coherence of agency missions

Need to improve accountability

Dissemination of standards and guidelines (see chapter 2) and critical reflection and adaptation of these Transmission and advocacy of values

Promote understanding and adherence to agencies core values

Measures for achieving professionalism in this sense, which may not put a premium on managerial or technical expertise, include specific forms of training and interaction, reflective exercises, and ethical-accounting procedures

Table 5.1. Facets of the professionalisation of aid workers. Based on [Minear and Lubkemann 2000] and expanded with communication challenges.

The discussion so far looked at the challenges of professionalising aid workers, in a context that poses important challenges to HR departments. As a way of summary, Table 5.1 - based on an analysis of Minear and Lubkemann 2000 identifies facets of professionalisation and highlights challenges and possible responses. In addition, it points out how communication can actually help enhancing such responses.
188

The thesis suggests that the reply to many of the challenges in professionalising aid workers are to be find in an environment that does not focus on HR strategies at the individual organisation level, but privileges communication across organisations and the establishment of shared learning. And also, an environment that looks at mobility as an opportunity for exchange and reciprocal enrichment. The multiple demands placed on the aid-workers to improve their professionalism cannot be fulfilled by a single mode of communication. The demands on professionalism need to engage the multiple actors of humanitarian system through communication: distillation, exchange, assimilation of practices and ideas. A few examples, applicable to the shelter and settlement sector: Communication amongst NGOs and research (M&E and research department in organization, independent and academic research institutions): to identify key areas for reflection, consolidate practices, providing tools and frameworks; Communication amongst aid-workers, e.g. through community of practices: creation of initiatives of mutual support and exchange of practices to advance knowledge and enhance effectiveness. Communities of practice are established in some areas (e.g. food, nutrition), but relatively less in the shelter sector; Ex-cathedra communication: training of aid-workers, through the ideation and delivery of ad hoc curricula that provide both soft and hard skills necessary for operating at high standards. The definition of such curricula needs to be based on meaningful interaction with the humanitarian community; Joint initiatives across organizations and individuals to redefine standards and codes and the very meaning of the aid-worker profession; Communication between HQ and field: to inform staff about the principles and the culture of the organization, as well as the standard practices. And, viceversa, information from the field to the HQ to help reshape principles and accumulate tested experiences through the exchange of practices; Communication and partnerships amongst international and local actors: to adapt responses to local contexts. What emerges is that the professional aid-workers should not only have solid professional expertise, but also the capacity to challenge such expertise, to adapt it to the complex environment of a crisis and critically, in order to avoid reinventing the wheel the capacity to be able to retrieve and to share it. In short: the capacity of learning.

5.4.2 Communal Knowledge

Having identified potential and shortcomings of both individual and organisational learning, it is now time to look at learning opportunities for the humanitarian system as a whole. The research already showed that there is a considerable degree of integration when it comes to information for operations, but it offered a more
189

pessimistic view of the state of the art as far as learning is concerned. However, as illustrated in Figure 5.20 initiatives are beginning to appear. Modalities differ. For example, they may involve people as members of organisations or in their personal capacities. Such projects seem to demonstrate that the space in between organizations is a fertile terrain for knowledge exchange. There are different modalities for organizing and supporting knowledge exchange. Barnard, for example, talks of knowledge pooling as a way to counteract the tendency of organizations especially those which invested in their own knowledge management systems - of being knowledge fortresses. Knowledge fortresses are little receptive to knowledge from the outside: they release little information and tend to exclude even the periphery of their own organization. Shared communication initiatives, externally lead, might create the opportunity for knowledge pooling on thematic areas (e.g.: livelihoods connect, http://www.livelihoods.org, bridge, http:// www.ids.ac.uk/bridge) [Barnard 2003]. Those initiatives are still mainly oriented at information for development exchange as negotiated between organizations, and require a strong degree of facilitation and investment.

Coalitions of organisations, interagency projects, partnerships Information system in organisations and organisational learning HQ Field Networks, CoPs, AWN HQ Field Field Field Field Field HQ Field

Field coordination, localised learning, LSO

Field

Figure 5.20. Space for collective and shared learning.

190

The Internet is also providing the support to many rather informal - initiatives, linking flexible networks of individuals. Networks are actively exchanging information amongst closed communities of sectoral experts (e.g. RedR TSS) or with a wider outlook to field-based learning (e.g. Aid Workers Network). The functioning of networks of interest for the shelter and settlement sector will be detailed in chapter 6. They define the possibility of a fertile communication space that is not hijacked by organisations or is not necessarily limited to narrowly defined sectors. They can provide peer-based and genuine exchange, building potentially innovative, cross-fertilised knowledge. Another interesting experience has been piloted in Malawi: the LSO, learning support office. It is an independent, neutral, field-level learning-support mechanism. It provides people and organisations working in the field with pre-packaged knowledge (e.g. libraries and training) and opportunities for knowledge exchange (e.g. that, for example, have been functional to the creation of interagency operational guidelines) [on the learning office see Robertson 2000, Reddick 2002, Borton 2003].

Learning IN
From previous operations and experiences

Learning OUT
Capturing learning from this operation for use in subsequent operations

LATERAL Learning
Between organizations, teams and individuals working in the operation
Figure 5.21. Learning in the LSO. Learning IN, OUT and LATERAL learning. [Borton 2003].

As illustrated in Figure 5.21 the LSO acts on three modalities of learning, that are described as learning IN (from previous experiences), learning OUT (to feed into future operations) and lateral learning (across actors working in the operations). Each of those modalities of learning has different communication implications, in terms of modalities and of tools that can be utilised. An evaluation of the LSO test recognised that lateral learning was the most successful of the three [Zehnder 2003]. The evaluation also pointed out the sensitivities of learning. Direct operational training (manual), service provision (facilitation of meetings/ workshops) as well as soft learning (questioning and input of knowledge) have been well accepted, as long as they touched only operational (logistical) changes in practices. Hard learning, based on external observation, seeking institutional, behavioural changes was rejected [Zehnder 2003: viii].

191

The LSO provided a physical as well as an opportunity space for interacting and building new knowledge, and ground it in previous experiences. There is certainly room for further adoption of this model. However, improving the effectiveness of this model depends not only on internal factors but on winning the diffidence of organisations and the resistance to learning, when learning also implies accepting mistakes and change. Critically the model demonstrated that learning out is problematic, as it raises barriers that are not otherwise apparent. Learning-out exposed the problematic relationship of learning with narrowly perceived forms of accountability and shielded communication. The borderline between learning and evaluations (that can be negatively perceived as judgemental) is still very thin in the eyes of organisation in the field, and inhibit important channels and spaces for communication.

192

5.5

Conclusions

Chapter 2 highlighted fragmentation amongst many actors as a problematic area for shelter and settlement interventions. This chapter expanded on these issues by looking at the actors engaged in the communication process around shelter and settlement and in the broader humanitarian sector. Fragmentation is certainly an issue when looking at the actors of communication. This chapter discussed how different groups (e.g. practitioners and academia) might fail to engage in effective communication, or how their relationships (e.g. implementing agencies and donors, field / HQ) might be biased by issues of control and power. At the same time, it pointed out opportunities for communication amongst them for improving shelter and settlement practices and policies. The underlying theme for this chapter is enclosed in one sub-hypothesis: that effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors. Fragmentation means that interventions are not effectively coordinated and that synergies are not achieved (see chapter 3). However, not only coordination, but also learning (chapter 4) is curtailed by barriers amongst organisations and groups. The mobility of individuals across projects and organisations makes it difficult to retain knowledge at the organisational level, according to the modalities discussed in chapter 4. The collaborative nature of the humanitarian enterprise should suggest ways to capitalise on the mobility of the humanitarian troubadours as an opportunity, and to create spaces for shared learning. In other words, learning processes should not only be enacted at the organisational level, or in narrowly defined sectors, but also in the humanitarian system as a whole. Initiatives to this respect are beginning to appear (e.g. networks, learning offices). It is evident that the shelter and settlement sector due to its interdisciplinary nature would benefit from the creation of spaces for shared learning across the relief system. In looking at the actors involved in shelter and settlement interventions, this chapter had to use multiple lenses. It looked at the interrelations of the broader structures (e.g. organizations / professional realms) but also at the interrelations of individuals within and across such structures. The understanding of this thesis is that both interrelations amongst various broad groups of actors (e.g. NGOs, academia, local communities, donors...) and individual capacities for communication are to be boosted to improve shelter and settlement interventions. No mode of communication is the silver bullet. Groups (e.g. organizational learning) and individual modes of communication are complementary. Another important complementarity - that has already been discussed in the thesis, but is worth recalling when talking about the actors of communication - is the one amongst doers and thinkers. If a virtuous circle is to be realised, linking policies and practices of action, the perspectives and the connections of different actors become key. These should include not only implementers and policy makers, but also the primary stakeholders of humanitarian interventions, too often sidelined by relief programmes.

193

To sum up: coordination and shared learning calls for improved dialogue inside and amongst a variety of organisations (e.g. NGOs vs. donors, academia, the military, local actors). But, side by side with this system perspective, individual attitudes towards communication also matter. Coordination and learning demand that individual aid workers have in their core professional capacities - the capacity to learn and communicate, and channels and opportunities that allow for this to happen.

194

THE INTERNET AND THE EXCHANGE OF HUMANITARIAN INFORMATION

This chapter discusses the role of the Internet in supporting the exchange of humanitarian information. In doing so it will argue the case for the sub-hypothesis improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media. This chapter highlights, in particular, areas where the Internet is transforming modalities of communication amongst various actors. It discusses how new modalities for communicating information for operations and for learning can be translated into practice, with particular reference to the shelter and settlement sector. The advent on the Internet has helped to boost the debate on communication. According to some commentators the impact of the Internet, and in general, of the new technologies, had been so pervasive as to give rise to a new network society [Castells 1996]. Others, whilst criticising the idea of an information society, still recognise that the advent of information technologies modified existing geographies and relationships, and opened new territories and opportunities [Webster 1995]. The humanitarian community struggled to catch up with the communication revolution. Getting on-line has been a problem for those posted in conflict-torn areas. However, the Internet is increasingly accessible, and initiatives tackling humanitarian interventions are emerging. The need to improve communications in disaster relief with particular focus on the communication technology has also been stated in international declarations such as the Tampere declaration on disaster communication [ReliefWeb 2004].
Coordination mechanisms Collaborative processes of data / information exchange across organisations Monitoring and evaluation Correspondence from HQ Organisational learning Manuals, how to guidelines Conceptualisation of knowledge (research studies, production of manuals and procedures) Communities of practice On-line training Discussion lists Updates who is doing what where, news

Reports, data on operations

Figure 6.1. Information exchanges and linked information generation processes.

195

The humanitarian community, whose character is to be dispersed, mobile and fragmented into organisations, can now gain by using the net. The Internet allows to establish more stable networks and pointers than it was possible only a few years ago [on the potential of the Internet and IT to serve disaster situations see Stephenson R. & Anderson P.S. 1997]. The interest of the Internet lies in the fact that the Internet is also a tool that can support many different knowledge management processes, as shown in Figure 6.1. Communication processes, such as these described in chapter 3 and 4, certainly involve much more than technicalities of using IT. IT systems are social systems so have to be developed along with investment in the people who are destined to use the systems [Crewe and Young 2002: 13]. Different communication processes can also materialise in many different products on the Internet. However, my experience is that when the results are crystallised on a computer screen, many users might see the end product but fail to capture the processes behind it. The range of expertises (i.e. not only technical) that are needed to put them in place might also not be fully appreciated. Some of the processes shown in Figure 6.1 are already rooted in organisations and are part of their routine (e.g. conventional forms of M&E). In this case the Internet simply provides a way to make them more effective, for example by abating costs, facilitating work of dispersed groups, enhancing dissemination. Other processes, however, are emergent. The advent of the Internet creates an opportunity to put them into practice. The exchange of geo-referenced data for operations, the establishment of virtual communities of practice were not an option a few years ago. These processes illustrate how the Internet might also act as a Trojan horse to slot new communication approaches into organisations, and to modify the use of information.

Hardware

Content

People

Figure 6.2. Dimensions of the Internet: hardware, content, community.

In providing an overview of the use and the impact of the Internet for humanitarian communication, this chapter will look at the Internet from different points of view: Hardware (the network of computers). This brings about issues of connectivity to the network. To what extent the net is available and used? Content (Internet as an information space).
196

This implies looking at the information stored and exchanged through the network. People (Internet as a network of people). This means looking at the people using the Internet, and at the networks and communities linking them. These dimensions complement each other. It is precisely the recognition of this complementary that spurred much of the developments of the Internet. As pointed out by some of those who made the net real: [the Internet] is as much a collection of communities as a collection of technologies, and its success is largely due to both satisfying basic community needs and utilizing the community in an effective way to push the infrastructure forward [Leiner et al. 2000: no page]. This observation is certainly relevant when adapting the Internet to communication on shelter and settlement. Aside from technological challenges, there is a need for getting the right information at the right time to the right person [UW-DMC 1996: webpage] a key challenge for information management systems (see chapter 3). But, more importantly, there is a need use the Internet also to support the generation of new information and knowledge deriving from relatively unstructured interactions across people (as discussed in chapter 4). In discussing these issues, this chapter will start by assessing to what extent the Internet is accessible and accessed by humanitarian workers and organisations (6.2). It emerges that the availability of technology is not the main problem anymore, at least as far as the work of Northern Agencies is concerned. However, physical access is a necessary but not sufficient condition to ensure real access to the Internet. Mindsets and information climate play an important role in defining to what extent information is accessed and circulated on the network. The two complementary aspects of content (i.e. Internet as an archive) and community will then be investigated (6.4). the view of Internet as an archive is discussed focusing on the format and availability of information on the Internet (6.5). The final section looks at the possible interrelations amongst actors for producing such information, and at ways to foster and support these (6.6).

197

6.1

SITUATING THIS CHAPTER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THESIS

Chapter 6 is about recognising the importance of the media when framing communication. In focusing on a very particular medium, the Internet which is opening new possibilities for communication - this chapter can make more explicit and visible the role that media have in shaping communication. At the same time, the novelty of this medium leads to consideration of issues of access and familiarity with the media (e.g. how to model messages to suite the medium and viceversa how to choose the right medium for each message). By looking in particular at the Internet, this chapter proposes alternative modalities through which the information exchanges illustrated in chapters 3 and 4 can take place. It also stresses the importance of using the media consider access of the various actors (see 5.1), but also their relationships and perspectives, as emerging from chapter 5. The Internet ends up to be seen, by this research, as a network of people, and not only as connected computers. Consequently, chapter 5 and 6 are closely linked, to the extent that one of the open questions that will be proposed by chapter 6 is to what extent the Internet can mirror social relations as they happen in the real world? (see 5.2).

Shelter and settlement sector

challenges

Grounding the hypothesis

Information

Communication options

Actors

Media

As chapter 5 did, this chapter will draw data from the questionnaire to researcher and fieldworkers involved in humanitarian work. In addition to this, interviews to key informants provided details not only on actors

198

perspectives, but also on their use of the Internet. This chapter also builds on a vast amount of data on web usage and accessibility derived from continuously monitoring of the Internet. And, of course, participant observation and direct involvement in Internet communication initiatives were of paramount importance in shaping this chapter.

199

6.2

INTERNET: ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY

At the inception of this research, the accessibility to the Internet was still a major concern. As a consequence, I focused my attention on its availability in the field. This was done by looking at manuals and studies on humanitarian communications [see for example Wood 1996, Klenk 1997, Schofield 2001], by contacting field communication experts (e.g. from RedR), by examining the outputs of working groups [e.g. ReliefWeb 2003a, UN-OCHA 99]. At the same time, I examined the development of practices and discourses on ICT for development [Ferretti 1999] and the tension between the digital divide [Feather 1998, Castells 2001, Bridges.org 2001(?)] and digital opportunities [Fink and Kenny 2003. See also Eldis 2003 for further resources on ICT in development and Quarantelli 1997 specifically on disasters]. I soon discovered that the emphasis on physical access to the Internet was a false problem as far as the information exchange for humanitarian interventions was concerned.

Figure 6.3. Internet World Users Map (2003). This representation is a demographic projection where the area of each state is proportional to the population accessing the Internet. This map is actually part of an animated series that shows how, at the beginning of the 90s, only the EU and the US had an Internet population large enough to be displayed on the map. However, other areas are constantly growing, and the projection for 2015 shows that the majority of users will be likely to reside in developing countries [GlobaLab 2002. Other maps and data on the use of the Internet in the south can be accessed from: Dodge 2003, Jensen 2002].

The Internet is available in almost the totality of countries (see Figure 6.3). Barriers to access have been rapidly reducing, even in war-torn societies. In addition, the Internet can be accessed also in the absence of

200

infrastructure, through a variety of tools (satellite phones, radios, etc.). International organisations have the capacity to pay for them and a satellite device is often a standard piece of equipment in their field offices. Even when humanitarian workers cannot get on-line or if they have only a slow speed connection they are still likely to have access to computers and CDs. The Internet can help information travel closer to the field and it can then walk the last mile reproduced on CDs or on printouts distributed locally. Humanitarian organisations are not likely to be amongst the information poor. On the contrary, having access to information, they have the responsibility to utilise it at its best, possibly in such a way to yield benefits also to those with no access to information (e.g. local NGOs and stakeholders operating in the area). Imbalances in information accessibility should be a matter for consideration, if the Internet is not to become yet another way of marginalizing them (see chapter 5). Conversely initiatives to improve access to the net by local actors (e.g. NGOs cyber cafs, telecenters) can rapidly multiply the wealth of information and contacts for local actors, to an extent that was unthinkable only a decade ago. What emerges is the importance of moving from a narrow definition of connectivity - intended as the availability of a connection point towards real access, indicating the extent to which technology is used and impacts on practice.

6.2.1 Achieving real access

The Internet, as seen from the south, can be much slower, less colourful and flashy than in the north, and, despite this, much more costly or slower to access. Satellite phones, used in remote field locations, are between 20 and 46 times slower than standard telephone Internet connections and cost between 0.6 and 2 a minute [AidWorld 2003a]. Figure 6.4 shows how the quality of connections decreases from the centre (i.e.: the North, the HQs), to the periphery (i.e. the South, the field). The last mile of connectivity is particularly problematic. Central HQ (& Northern websites) Country office (& other local resources) Field Offices

x
Fast connection (often broadband) allows transmitting large amount of data. The setting of permanent connections allows to work on line (e.g. access to centrally shared databases and resources) Connection is likely to be available, but can be considerably slower than in the main HQ. The volume of data transmitted is reduced The setting of a permanent connection can be problematic and more costly, making on/line work less appealing. Connection might still be available, but often through satellite. Data exchange is to be reduced to a minimum. E-mail (using small attachments only) might be the only viable tool. The problem of bridging the last mile can be solved by transmitting larger chunks of information on CDs. In this case the support of the country office / the desk officer / local humanitarian resources is the key for selecting, packaging and conveying material.

Figure 6.4. Connectivity, from centre to periphery.

201

Far from suggesting a Luddite attitude and rejecting the use of the Internet in the field, this research suggests a more field-friendly approach to information architecture design, which would help accommodating the needs of remote users. Part of the problem of accessing information at the end of the chain is a design fault. Information systems tend to be planned in the centre, with little consideration for the needs / constraints of the periphery. In addition, communication managers in humanitarian organisations should prioritise the needs of those with slow connections. Alternatives are available: many research groups and activists have been engaged in designing and promoting new solutions to improve the access to information also from remote locations [e.g.Bellanet 2003, VITA 2003]. The establishment of telecentres, for example e.g. in Afghanistan, Burundi, Kosovo, Tanzania [IRIN 2003, ITU 2002, Sargent 2004, UNHCR 2001] - is an attempt at increasing the connectivity not only of aid workers, but also of the refugees. On the contrary, even the websites/intranets of humanitarian organisations can be out of reach for those working in the field. The wealth of information displayed in the World Wide Web is, in practice, inaccessible. Respondents to the questionnaire administered for this thesis pointed out that if you are working in the field and have only satellite phones for communications, the costs make it impossible to use the Internet to look for information and that The Internet is fine if you are in a western country and the servers are quick, in developing countries it can be a long laborious task just to get your hotmail or yahoo messages through, never mind searching for information on web sites that are full of advertisements and graphics [replies to the questionnaire]. Whilst the web is out of reach, the e-mail is a possibility. And actually, as pointed out when discussing modalities for keeping up to date (see chapter 5), it is one of the favourite ways to exchange information, second only to meeting people face to face. There are tools for retrieving web content through e-mail, stripped bare to minimise download time (for example, the web2mail service, or the proposed Aid World project [AidWorld 2003b]. A few humanitarian sites are offering interfaces for low-bandwidth connection (i.e.: text only, no images) to enable also low-bandwidth users to browse (e.g. Humanitarian Information Centres, see Figure 6.5). To reduce the information gap, field-oriented documents should also be available and transmitted in lighter/alternative formats, e.g. e-mail or CD-ROM [UN-OCHA 2002]. In Kosovo, for example, the HIC, in addition to on line services, distributed CD packed with information, herewith including housing regulations.

Figure 6.5. Humanitarian Information Centre, Liberia. Alternative modalities of access: low (left) and high (right) bandwidth. Available from: http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/liberia/ - September 2003.

202

The achievement of real access is not limited to the physical availability of the network. It must be focused on the tension between technology and the human side of information and knowledge exchanges, and on the political aspects of information. Connectivity, development of the know-how to use the tool, political will to make use of the information, are all factors converging to define how and to what extent the Internet is accessed and used. Chapter 3 and 4 showed examples in which the Internet was used to support shelter and settlement programmes (e.g. in information for operations). In these cases, investments on Internet are actually helping to promote a culture of exchange. Viceversa, the research also exposed situations where information exchanges were still ill integrated in organisational procedures, and routines and organisational culture limited communication. Organisational culture, attitudes and mindsets are surprisingly solid blockades when it comes to actually using and promoting the use of the Internet. If the setting of a coherent approach to communication and information is not a strategic priority, little resources are likely to be mobilised on information and information support. Table 6.1 presents a list of factors that have been singled out as determinants of real access to the Internet from the south [Bridges.org 2001(?)]. They are significant also when discussing the use of Internet by aidworkers, especially when in the field. Some of them are dependent on the technology in use, but the majority relates to socio, cultural and economic factors.

Physical access Appropriate technology Affordability Capacity Socio-cultural factors Trust

Is technology available and physically accessible? What is the appropriate technology according to local conditions, and how do people need and want to put technology into use? Is technology affordable for people? Do people understand how to use technology and its potential uses? Are people limited in their use of technology based on gender, race, or other sociocultural factors? Do people have confidence in and understand the implications of the technology they use, for instance in terms of privacy, security? Relevant content Is there a locally relevant content, especially in terms of language? Integration Does technology further burden people's lives or does it integrate into daily routines? Legal and regulatory How do laws and regulations affect the use of technology and what changes are framework needed to create an environment that fosters its use? Local economic Is there a local economy that can and will sustain use of technology? environment Macro-economic Is a national economic policy conducive to widespread technological use, for environment example in terms of transparency, deregulation, investment, and labour issues? Political will Is there a political will to do what is needed to enable the integration of technology throughout a community?

Table 6.1. Determining factors for real access. [Adapted from Bridges.org 2001(?)].

203

6.2.2 The use of the Internet by aid-workers. Data from the questionnaire
Data on the usage and attitudes towards the Internet of aid-workers have been gathered through a questionnaire. For most users the Internet was not a novelty, but an acquired tool: they all had been using it for at least 3 years, or even longer (71%). They were mostly regular users, accessing it daily (64%) or at least 2-3 times a week (13%). Most people would have liked to use it more, but they were limited by lack of time (54%). Cost is another decisive drawback, mentioned by 26% of the respondents. Significantly, when aid workers are in the field, issues such as the inadequacy of local providers, connection costs, and lack of electricity hinder access. As a consequence, the use of the Internet while abroad is often considerably reduced (42%), and one in five respondents did not manage to use the Internet at all while abroad. Interestingly, 16% of the sample appears to use the Internet more often when in the field. The remaining quarter does not vary its usage (13%) or reduces it just slightly (11%). Being in the field meant, for someone, missing the Internet boom and having now to learn how to use the tool. As an aid-worker put it, Since Ive spent the last nine years in the field without access to the Internet I am only just beginning to discover its potential. The lack of confidence in how to use IT in the field might have created a vicious circle that prevented a wider use of the tool [Hummerlink 2002]. However, increased accessibility to the Internet might also create an incentive to catch up. The possibility to get in touch with family and friends seems to be the one big incentive for people to be connected. As pointed out by a respondent, after a day in the field one might still desire to look for an Internet caf, and if finally get access to Internet, then spend most of time writing to family and friends! [respondent to the questionnaire].
Search strategies
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

I do not know where to start from! Redr 0%

Search engines (e.g.: 93%

Web portals Organisatio Recommend Own Sites cited / gateways n databases ations from bookmarks in articles (e.g. (e.g. UNDP, colleagues 53% 71% 36% 58% 49%

Suggested in eFollow links discussion 13% 67%

Figure 6.6. Searching information on-line. Attitudes of fieldworkers (source: questionnaire).

When it comes to accessing resources, no one seems to be lost in the Internet. Ways of searching for information are varied, aid-workers make use of diverse modalities to access the information they need. The favourite option is to use search engines (93%). The least popular modality is the visit of sites recommended

204

in discussion lists (13%), which is explained with the low access to a discussion list by fieldworkers. Also the use of bookmarks scores relatively low (36%): aid-workers seem to rely more on their organisational websites (71%) and, to a less extent, web portals (53%) than on a set of favourite sites. They are then likely to surf from link to link (67% indicates following links as a way to search for resources). What seems to emerge is therefore a use of the Internet that can be influenced heavily by what users find in the start page of their browsers, in the pages designed by their organisations, and by what is retrieved through major portals and search engines. It is to be added that word of mouth is also quite efficient, with recommendations from colleagues as a choice for 60% of the respondents. The big drawback that limits the exploration of the Internet is the cost of connection. Currently it can be difficult to find exactly what you need. If you are working in the field and have only satellite phones for communications, the costs make it impossible to use the Internet for searching for information. [Respondent to the questionnaire]. In this context, what aid workers seem to need are well-established pointers of proven utility.

Internet (RedR)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 2% 12% 29% 45% 12%

Quality 2% 33% 31% 26% 7%

Reliability 2% 21% 55% 19% 2%

Coverage 2% 12% 50% 33% 2%

Easiness of use 5% 14% 21% 38% 21%

Searchability 5% 41% 33% 19% 2%

Cost effectiveness 5% 14% 29% 26% 26%

Timeliness 10% 33% 38% 17% 2%

Utility 2% 14% 19% 41% 24%

5: very good - 1 very poor

Figure 6.7. Perception of the Internet by fieldworkers.

Do aid workers think of the Internet as a useful tool? When looking at the Internet aid-workers have mixed feelings. They recognise the usefulness of the tool, but are also aware of the constraints in its use. I think it is a useful and easy way of getting information for relief, mainly because sometimes you are in such remote areas that any system is inaccessible. However it is not always easy to get the information you want. [respondent to the questionnaire]. Some are enthusiastic: Can not imagine how it is possible that we can have lived so many years without this tool [respondent to the questionnaire]. In other cases enthusiasm is cooled down by the discovery that there is a lack of information suitable for aid-workers: In most of the web is quite difficult to find more technical information [respondent to the questionnaire].

205

The characteristics of the Internet which received the best scores are utility, easiness of use, quantity of information, cost effectiveness (Figure 6.7). More than half of the respondents assigned a score >4 to them (However, only a small minority rated them with 5, the maximum score). Quality of information and coverage received a high score (>4) from approx. one third of the respondents, but only 7% and 2% respectively rated them as very good. Reliability, timeliness and searchability received the lowest scores (only a fifth of the respondents rated them with a score >4). The qualities that received the higher percentage of low scores (<2), with more than one fifth of the respondents being dissatisfied with them are: searchability (46%), timeliness (43%), quality (35%), reliability (23%). The Internet seems to be there and used in the field. E-mail appears to be more utilised than the web, a more time consuming and expensive tool. From the responses to the questionnaire, it looks like the establishment of reliable portals to information across organisations, equipped with e-mail support for those in a slow connection, could reduce the problems of aid workers when searching for information. Other aspects to be tackled are quality, coverage, and availability of practical and reliable information for those in the field.

206

6.3

USING THE INTERNET: SUBSTITUTION, EXTENSION, EXPANSION

Tim Barners Lee, the inventor of the WWW, wrote: The dream behind the Web is of a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information. Its universality is essential: the fact that a hypertext link can point to anything, be it personal, local or global, be it draft or highly polished. There was a second part of the dream, too, dependent on the Web being so generally used that it became a realistic mirror (or in fact the primary embodiment) of the ways in which we work and play and socialize. That was that once the state of our interactions was on line, we could then use computers to help us analyse it, make sense of what we are doing, where we individually fit in, and how we can better work together (Berners-Lee no date: no page). I have been intrigued by this vision, and have come to reflect about the extent to which Internet communication can be an embodiment of social interaction in the humanitarian arena. If the Internet is a mirror, it is a distorting one. The interest of the comparison lies in seeing what interactions are reinforced and which actors are benefiting, and which ones are marginalized. Problems of access still matter. Aid workers have been sidelined by the delay with which the Internet hit the field and by the lack of platforms for information exchange. However, projects to support their interaction are beginning to appear (e.g., Aid Workers Network - illustrated later in this chapter with a broad constituency, or sector-specific ones, such as the Emergency Nutrition Network [ENN 2003]). They might help to create opportunities for communication and interaction on the net. Attitudes are also important. The increased capacity to broadcast offered by the Internet can create opportunities and increase the visibility and the voice of advocacy-oriented groups who invest in communication. The visibility gained by the ODI a policy research groups - through active communication is an example of this. However the Internet also created resistance by those who could lose (of feel they could lose) power as information brokers [Crewe and Young 2002]. The increased relevance of Internet-based communication might reduce the visibility and influence of groups that are not investing in communication and dissemination. The visibility and influence of academics, for example which publish mostly in traditional vehicles such as books and referenced journals, that are costly and not freely and easily available on-line might be reduced. Their voice will not be heard by those using the net as a prevalent way to gather information (as it might be the case, for example, of those without access to libraries). Research portals such as the Forced Migration Site, the IDP project, the UNHCR/EPAU site are in countertendency, and offer resources to the general public (catering, critically, groups as different as academics, policy makers and practitioners). They are an important asset to circulate theoretical reflection and to debate new ideas, and to bridge the gap between policy and practices in the shelter and settlement sector through circulation of information.

207

The point is that the Internet is changing communication among the actors in the humanitarian sector and it is expanding their interactions. This is of course very important for a community, such as the humanitarian one, which is spread all over the world and needs to communicate. This research argues that the Internet is transforming the communication through three parallel processes: substitution, extension, and expansion. Substitution is about the fact that, content being equal, the Internet can be more fast and cost-effective than other media (e.g. radio, phone, post). So the use of the net is becoming more and more frequent in information exchanges, substituting other media. In addition, the Internet might extend communication. It would have been unthinkable, a few years ago, to maintain continuous contacts with colleagues across the globe, for example. Some barriers that used to limit information exchange (in particular the spatial one) are now less important. The idea of proximity is no longer a geographical term, but might depend on the availability of access to the net. In an extremely mobile community such as the humanitarian one, the Internet really represent a powerful connector. It allows connections to be maintained, connections that would have been otherwise prohibitive because of the cost. The Internet, for example, allow these in the field to maintain contact through e-mail, whilst expensive phone calls would not have been an option. The internet extend communication also because time lags are reduced (the internet is obviously faster than the conventional mail, for example), and because information can be transmitted in multi media formats (facilitating the exchange also of videos, images, voice). Expansion of communication is one step forward. It is not only about enlarging the circle of people that can be invested by the traditional means of communication, but also about widening the arena and the possibilities for communication. An example is the success of virtual communities of practice, a modality of information exchange that I identified as central in information for learning. These were simply not an option prior to the advent of the net. But technology alone does not suffice to expand communication. Sometimes, exciting new systems do not take off. The fact that new systems and possibilities exist does not imply that users will be willing to use them to expand their communication options. Extension of communication requires a big initial investment, in terms of persuasion, culture change, creation of habits. And the dividend might not be immediately evident. One of the great mistakes that organisations made in adopting new systems has often been to value technology over the process. This can lead to organisations investing heavily in systems that go beyond their needs and then fail to make use of them effectively. Information technology is not a magic bullet. On its own it will not create better information systems enabling organisations to function more effectively [Recalde 2001]. Communication can now be expanded by means of a variety of tools, as shown in Figure 6.8. Their suitability for supporting communication must be assessed vis--vis the characteristics of the processes to be put in place, as exemplified in the same table.

208

E-MAIL
Possibly the most widespread form of communication, it allows to send and receive text and files to users or group of users

Emphasis on e-mail broadcasting and/or group communication DISCUSSION LISTS

Users can subscribe / unsubscribe to a list to be able to send and receive email from all members of the list through a centralised e-mail address. Discussion lists exist in different forms (moderated, un-moderated, open, closed, etc). Archives might be posted on line. An example? http://www.dgroups.org

BLOGS
Streams or on line diaries that allow individuals an easy broadcasting of their news An example? KM bog

Emphasis on synchronous exchanges (mostly one-to-one)

Emphasis on continuous publishing by individuals WIKI

Webpages that can be modified openly by all users, by adding, deleting, changing the content on line. An example? c2.com/cgi/wiki

MESSAGING
Mostly one-to-one exchanges of messages. Messaging programmes can alert when users are on line to initiate synchronous exchanges.

WEB BOARDS
Web sites that allow for discussion amongst members. Messages are posted and displayed directly on the www, and are treated by subject. An example? forum.aidworkers.net

Emphasis on debate amongst visitors of the site IRC, CONFERENCING, CHAT

Several users can chat synchronously on line, in open forums or in private chartrooms. Chats are mainly text based. Sophisticated conferencing might include audio and video.

Emphasis on the creation of a collaborative (possibly anarchic!!) product

WEB Emphasis on synchronous exchanges (mostly collective)

Collection of pages that can contain multimedia elements (or even launch plug-in programmes) where content is published.

Information behaviour, information culture Know-how

One-2-one vs. group communication Individual vs. collaborative work Open / closed: Continuous / one-off processes Synchronous vs. asynchronous use Surf time: Push vs. pull: Authoring vs. browsing Verbal / non verbal communication Standardised / nonstandardised communication

The likely information behaviour and the attitudes of the individuals and groups using the tools are conditioned by different sets of factors: personal (e.g. the personality of individuals), role-related (rules and expectations connected with social position) or of environmental nature (environment conditions, culture, tradition). [Niedzwiedzka 2003] Most of the tools presented in the diagram do no really require advanced skills and are fast learned. However the latest fad can be daunting, hence the need to mediate between the need for innovation and the know-how and resistance to innovation of users. Discussion lists, web-boards are all tools that emphasize exchange of ideas across groups. Some tools are actually designed to support group work by providing shared environment and places where to meet and work together. Wikis, groupware, conferencing are examples of this. Some of the tools presented can be closed to external users. Intranets, private chants, closed discussion lists (where one is invited to join by the moderator) are all examples of them. The publication of a report on the net is a one-off process; the exchange leading into it a continuous one. E-mail, discussion lists, blogs are all tools that imply a continuous interaction or input. Some tools (e.g. conferencing) require the users to be on line at the same time. They maximise interaction, at the price of forcing users to come at a set time. Tools that are prevalently web based require users to stay connected for a relatively long time, e-mail based tools might be used off-line and minimise connection costs. Some tools are based on the assumption that the user will go on line and fetch the information needed (e.g. the web). Others emphasise the need to push information to the users (e.g. (e.g. discussion list e-bulletins). Some tools, such as blogs, wiki, web-boards, discussion lists and, of course, the web can support the need of users to author information and independently broadcast it. Internet is the realm of the written word: the tools presented capture and display mostly written knowledge. Voice-chat, videoconferencing, video broadcasting are available options, but in practice they are only used marginally, due to their cost (in terms of broadband / hardware). In some cases communication can become more effective when users employ the same convention and format for data exchange (e.g. data to be inputted in centralised databases). It is possible to use devices to gather structured information for example from the web (forms for data collection).

Figure 6.8. Tools at disposal and considerations that should be guiding their choice.

209

As it will appear from the analysis that follows, the shelter and settlement sector has not yet capitalised on the use of the net. However possibilities are emerging. Technology can be the Trojan horse that will persuade the humanitarian community to expand their communication options. The cases in point are the processes that have been described in the section on information for operations. They have been made possible, propelled and shaped by the availability of new technologies (GIS Internet) as well as by the far-sightedness investment of international agencies and donors in these systems. They are now creating new possibilities, attitudes and expectations about information management and sharing in crisis situation. Hence the need to reflect on how to capitalise on the Internet also to expand the debate on the shelter and settlement sector.

210

6.4

FROM INFORMATION MANAGEMENT TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: INTERNET AS A RELATIONAL SPACE

The Internet transmits information, but can support knowledge management. The relationship between the two will be briefly expanded from a theoretical angle, to clarify the linkages of Internet as content with Internet as a community. Information management (IM) has been around for a while: since the seventies, the availability of computers with increasing data processing capacities (for example in the form of databases), made it an activity central to organisations. The advent of the Internet augmented exponentially the interest in IM. Knowledge management (KM) is a more recent discipline that took off at the beginning of the nineties. It then became clear that even if information circulation was effective - it still would not lead automatically into the promised land of increased productivity or innovation [Prusak 2001: 1003]. Actually, the system designed to support IM (e.g. large organisational databases, intranets) tended to be underused [Dixon 2000]. Codification, archival of knowledge and computer centred exchanges in other words IM - were not enough to produce the innovative knowledge sought by the organisations. Knowledge and information are not synonymous, but, in reality, they tend to be muddled up or used interchangeably. Simplistically, knowledge resides in the individuals, and when it is transmitted (through any sort of means, e.g. conversation, written documents, etc), it becomes information. As the Internet can only deal with hard pieces of information, the interest of processes for capturing knowledge is evident, and the obvious question is: to what extent knowledge can be captured and made explicit? To what extent can the Internet support the processes that help capturing, sharing and adding value to explicit knowledge? The transformation of tacit [Polanyi 1962] into explicit knowledge is a crucial theme for todays learning organisations (see chapter 4). Processes of transformation of tacit into explicit knowledge (see for example Figure 6.9) and its subsequent internalisation by a wider community are led by individual motivations, organisational values and incentives rather than by the technology at disposal. Hence the quest for KM processes focused on people and not on computers. A plea that this research fully supports, warning, however, that the focus on people should not cloud, of course, the need to devise appropriate technologies to strengthen and support interactions. Once a culture fostering knowledge exchange is in place, Internet and IT can certainly support it. They can store and circulate the explicit knowledge generated. But, above all, they can link the people involved in processes of articulation, combination, and internalisation. The Internet is also a social space, of connected people. And knowledge management might be explored in this space. information

knowledge

211

Tacit to explicit ARTICULATION

Articulation of foundations of tacit knowledge

Tacit to tacit

Explicit to explicit COMBINATION

tacit

SOCIALISATION
Skills learned through observation, imitation and practice

Discrete pieces of explicit knowledge are combined into a new whole

explicit

Explicit to tacit INTERNALISATION

Explicit knowledge is shared and individuals use it to broaden their tacit knowledge

Figure 6.9. The spiral of knowledge. [Adapted from Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995]. Knowledge is constantly created through the interactions amongst tacit and explicit knowledge that happen within a group confronted with a task (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Devising ways of capturing knowledge is particularly important for humanitarian aid. Individuals can socialise and exchange knowledge and, indeed, the comradism of those working in the field allows for much dialogue and exchange of experience. However, as Nonaka and Takeuchi point out, socialisation alone does not go far: the real challenge is to capture valuable tacit knowledge and spread it among those who need to improve their know-how all over the organisation (and, in the case of humanitarian workers, across projects scattered all over the world).

Effective knowledge management is also about questioning which knowledge needs to be made explicit, and to what extent, and to be aware of which knowledge can be transformed into information (Figure 6.10). There is a limit to what can be stored and exchanged through electronic media. Hence the need for the Internet based communication projects to strike a balance amongst being repositories for knowledge made explicit (i.e. information) and pointers for less material knowledge resources.

Tacit knowledge (internalised in people) Knowledge management

Explicit knowledge (captured in information exchanges)

Information management

Tacit that cannot be expressed Things that are not said because nobody fully understands them. They remain elusive and inarticulate (the tacit knowledge according to Polanyi)

Implicit knowledge (could be expressed, but requires processing) Things that are not said because while some people can understand them, they cannot costlessly articulate them (the tacit knowledge according to Nonaka & Takeuchi) Things that are not said because everybody understands them and takes them for granted i.e. knowledge of them has been consciously or unconsciously internalised over the years

Explicit

Figure 6.10. Knowledge management and information management and the relation of tacit vs. explicit knowledge. Definitions adapted from [Boisot 1998].

212

Studies on inter-project knowledge capture for building projects noticed that the most widespread tools to exchange knowledge within organisations (i.e. information systems and manuals) are perhaps also those coming under the heaviest criticism as far as their effectiveness is concerned [Verboom 2002]. It was suggested that inter-project learning does not only need deliverables. A wider culture of learning and openness is required. There is no super-manual or library that can fully substitute the value of sharing ideas, especially when performing non-routine projects or when confronted with challenging contexts in a continuously evolving environment, as it is the context where relief happens. The challenge of well connected and complementary IM and KM is to make available information as well as offering the chance to improve and adapt it. Wenger recognised that, in reality, it is not possible to separate hard and soft elements composing knowledge: effective KM needs to tackle both processes of reification - i.e. giving forms to our experience by producing objects that congeal this experience into thingness [Wenger 1998b: 58] and participation. An exclusive focus on capturing knowledge might be misleading [Hildreth 2002].

Figure 6.11. The duality of participation and reification. [Wenger 1998b: 63].

When used to promote knowledge exchanges for shelter and settlement practices, the Internet should not be used only as a library. Its added value does not only consist in the capacity of better archiving and diffusing hard and codified knowledge. It also enables processes of generation and validation of such knowledge. For this to be possible, one must create arenas for knowledge exchange, where information is displayed and publicly available, and where it can be debated and enriched. I will now focus on the shelter and settlement sector to investigate how these theoretical developments are impacting (or might impact) on the generation/circulation of knowledge. The following section will review the information that is found on the Internet on shelter and settlement, and this will lead towards a discussion on information overload. I will then look at Internet-supported participative processes that can be employed to build dialogue and exchange on shelter and settlement.

213

6.5

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ON SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT

The most important incarnation of the Internet as an archive is the World Wide Web: a collection of connected pages and files. It can be easily accessed by means of browsers, seamlessly displaying a variety of formats: text, images, sounds, videos, etc. It contains information of different nature, of different quality, generated and refined by different types of actors (organisations, individuals, networks). The web provides a wealth of information, most of which is freely accessible. And critically, it can be accessed from any location, supporting the creation of stable sets of pointers for the mobile aid workers. Information specifically oriented to the shelter and settlement sector and humanitarian intervention is lacking on the web, in particular as far as information for learning is concerned. Information for operation received somehow more attention (see chapter 3). Incidentally, it is also worth noticing that Internet resources on shelter and settlement in natural disasters (prevention, risk reduction and response) received comparatively more attention than refugee crises [ISDR 2002]. At the end of 2003 there were two portals specialising on shelter and settlement practices for refugees. Shelter Project (http://www.shelterproject.org), at the University of Cambridge, was linked to a research project on the development of guidelines for transitional settlement and shelter for displaced populations. Another site, RefSettle, was designed to support this research (http:/www.brookes.ac.uk/refsettle). It contained a vast collection of links (nearly 300 sites) related with the communication of best practices for the shelter and settlement sector. It offered a snapshot of what resources were available when the systematic review of on-line resources took place (1999-2000). However, it is important to notice that the site was never intended to be more than a way of sharing resources accumulated in the research process, and would actually have required significant investment to be constantly updated. Other then this, information was scattered, and was to be found out by surfing through the sites of organisations, networks, and academic centres. Broad humanitarian portals (ReliefWeb, FMO - Forced Migration On-line, IDP project) provided a significant amount of information on shelter and settlement policies and practices even when no thematic areas were clearly dedicated to the sector. Some of those portals, academic in nature, attempted to reach out practitioners by displaying tailored resources (for example, see the sections on line manuals on FMO and Eldis). They were an open door for communication amongst doers and thinkers. A search on Google on refugee settlement planning in Dec 2003 generated approx 56.000 hits. And as shown in Figure 6.12- this was not even all that was available, as search engines do not capture the totality of documents on the Internet. This is a clear example of the challenges of information overload! However, when the information available was scrutinised, it emerged that much of this was noise, and the amount of quality

214

information available on shelter and settlement planning was in fact much more limited than the number suggested.

Info accessible only internally, by organisation members Information that can be retrieved only by accessing the organization site (e.g. through database search, internal links) Information that can be retrieved through search engines AND through links and internal search in a site

INDIVIDUAL SITES

SEARCH ENGINES

Highly visible information available through search engines, portals and sites

Specialised information might be found only on portals and ad hoc searches on specialised databases and not through conventional search engines. This information can be collected from individuals and from organisations Portals might reserve some of their resources to subscribers only.

PORTALS

Info available on organization sites or through portals, but not through search engines

Information stored in computers connected to the Internet, but available only through personal contact (private information on the HD of PC)

Figure 6.12. Challenges in retrieving information. The figure illustrate the challenges in retrieving information on the Internet, where users are confronted with Information explosion (more information is available than before); anarchy (information is produced by more, and more diverse, sources than before); scatter (information is spread across many sites); indexing nightmare (despite advanced search tools, finding information on development issues is more of a miss that a hit); information myopia (most Internet users use a few large 'portal' sites that only index parts of the Internet) [ECDPM 2000]. In addition, one should acknowledge the existence of a deep web- i.e. organisational databases not easily accessible through search engines [Bergman 2001] - and of the fact that many documents are not available to broad audiences as they are held on intranets.

Research conducted on the Resettlement in the Balkans and the CIS [Zetter, Ferretti, and Hamdi 2002] offered a further opportunity to assess the offer of shelter-related material on the web. Information would broadly fall into two categories: practical information for the conduct of operations (such as the one provided by the Humanitarian Information centres see chapter 3), and policy level research. It is also worth noticing the existence of a corpus of guidelines and regulations by international agencies [OHR 1998], which, however, were not accompanied by lessons learned or good practices. Information on attainments and practices was actually missing. Donors (e.g. ECHO) or other international agencies (e.g. IMG) had databases of on-going projects on line, but such databases offered little indications beyond the name of the implementing agency and the area of intervention (e.g. no project documents, M&E reports). The intense reporting activity

215

INTRANETS

INTERNET

that accompany most projects does not materialise in publicly available resources. Most evaluations do not result in shared lessons learning. Ineffective dissemination is also a problem. Relevant resources, especially grey materials, can simply not be put on line or they can be buried behind the walls of internal intranets. Different forces might be at work here. On one side - as I have noticed in the course of discussions with resource gatekeepers in organisations there is a desire to protect the image of organisations by not disseminating unreliable products, as grey materials can be, or controversial ones, such as evaluations. On the other side, departments and organisations might not have the necessary skills, know how, mindsets to disseminate the information they produced [Saywell and Cotton 1999]. As Hummerlink observed in a review for ECHO, individual NGOs websites perform quite poorly when it comes to satisfy the needs of the professional aid worker [Hummerlink 2002]. They tend to be oriented at a vast, anonymous audience and used as an advocacy tool, rather than to target humanitarian professionals as a tool for knowledge gathering and learning. Whilst the doers might be willing to communicate and exchange their experiences, they lack an appropriate arena to do so. They also lack an information climate favouring the exchange and the discussion on options and alternatives rather than the dissemination of few, rigid solutions.

216

6.6

COMMUNITIES AND NETWORKS

The broader humanitarian community can be segmented into many sub-communities, for example, on organisational bases, geographical (i.e. the humanitarian workers in the same country or region), sectoral (e.g. experts in specific fields). Segmentation by ambit and by expertise might single out the experts and the newcomers, the policy makers and the field workers. Networks across all these sub-communities might be created, reflecting organisational linkages (e.g. interagency steering committees), or individual needs.

Geographical segmentation (e.g. by country, region)

Sectoral segmentation (e.g. shelter, watsan, health)

Segmentation by expertise (e.g. competency level, seniority)

Segmentation by ambit (e.g. field, research, policy)

Figure 6.13. Humanitarian communities.

The advent of the Internet made possible the support of virtual communities, interconnected groups of individuals who use one of a number of computer-mediated communication forumsincluding Usenet newsgroups, listservs, Web-based discussion groups, etc.to share interests, activities, and goals [Burnett et al. 2003: no page]. Prior to the advent of the Internet, the dynamics of relief, the high mobility of humanitarian workers, geographical distances and communication cost were powerful obstacles to the establishment of on-going networks. This reduced the possibilities for communication, and, in particular, for informal, horizontal communication. In the network society, Castells would argue, networks are built by the choices and the strategies of social actors: it is not anymore the organisation, the culture of appartenance that matters, but sociality is built selectively [Castells 2001]. The extent to which communities can be entirely virtual renouncing face to face interactions - has been object of debate [see for example, specifically on communities of practice Millen and Muller 2001, Hildreth,
217

Kimble, and Wright 1998]. However, is evident that the Internet helped the creation or the strengthening of existing communities and the building of new ones. Whilst the use of technology alone is not enough to facilitate a community, a supportive technical infrastructure, including access to e-mail and web, is critical [Smith and McKeen 2003]. Software for collaborative on-line work is now available [Wenger 2001] but mailing lists are still probably the simplest and more useful tool for communities of practice. They are also the most plausible response to the need of working with the lowest practical denominator as e-mail is the single technology that can be accessed by any user of the Internet [Song 1996, James and Rykert 1998]. Virtual communities and networks can be an option to enact information exchanges amongst practitioners (and policy makers) even when accessibility to the Internet is limited. This allows individuals to maintain relationships with their colleagues regardless of their location. And relationships help to build trust, a powerful enabler of communication. Networks and communities (virtual and non-virtual) can take different forms. The big thing in knowledge management is now communities of practice (CoPs). CoPs indicate groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis [Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002: 4]. Born in the ambit of organisational management, CoPs are, ironically, amongst the best examples of the need for broader, inter-organisational approaches when dealing with knowledge. CoPs showed clearly that interactions in organisations do not follow management lines, but are organised functionally and, to a large degree, spontaneously, around areas of interest and expertise. This is an arrangement that is suited to todays increasingly mobile workforce, often more aligned to their professional identity than to their organizational affiliation [Allee no date: web page]. This is particularly relevant as pointed out in chapter 5 to the highly mobile humanitarian sector, making CoPs and analogous networks an option to initiate and foster communication in the inter-organisational space.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
unofficial voluntary Dynamism Legitimate peripheral participation No deliverables Similar jobs

Common language Common purpose

Shared / background experience

Communicating Participation Learning (situated) Community

informal

Creation of new knowledge Not simply social interaction

narration Evolution fluidity

CENTRAL FEATURES
POSSIBLE OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 6.14. Characteristics of communities of practice. [Source: Hildreth, Kimble, and Wright 1998].

218

Three features are central in CoPs: the domain (the area of competence and expertise), the community (the interacting people), the practice (the sharing of tools and practice) [Wenger 1998b, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002]. Other characteristics have been highlighted and studied in a vast literature looking at the dynamics of CoPs, as well as in practical guidelines for their development, or have been captured in lessons learned exercises. Figure 6.14 summarises some of the defining characteristics of CoPs emerging from the debate [Hildreth, Kimble, and Wright 1998]. CoPs do not include all possible models of networking communities which are relevant for knowledge exchange in the shelter and settlement sector. A CoP, for example, is not a team: it is not hierarchical, but self selected, informal and self organising, and it is not necessarily linked to the practical completion of a project [Smith and McKeen 2003]. When dealing with issues of knowledge capture and learning, a team will also normally make use of standardised organisational approaches, for example M&E. As compared with more informal CoPs, teams might also be connected to their organisations through institutionalised channels of communication as described in chapter 5. Strong interactions, focus on deliverables Organisational boundaries

Redundancy, serendipity, opportunity

Figure 6.15. Networks, communities, teams.

As shown in Figure 6.15, CoPs are situated someway in between loose informal networks (networks of acquaintances or colleagues, broad and lose relationships), communities of interests (people sharing the same interests, but not necessarily engaging in a continuous exchange) and delivery-oriented communities, who get together to release a product or service or to accomplish specific tasks [van Winkelen 2003, Wenger 1998b]. Individuals migrate continuously across them. People belonging to an informal network might get together to start a community of practice. A few members of a CoP might decide to work more closely, and engage in a common project. Conversely, teams might dissolve, but remain linked as a community of practice or, more loosely, as an informal network.

219

Figure 6.16. The web interface of two development / relief oriented communities: the development gateway (Humanitarian relief section / Afghanistan) and Dgroups. [Source: Development, Dgroups 2003].

Section 6.6.1 will look at networks in the shelter and settlement sector. I was not able to find CoPs responding to the definition given above. However different networks had the potential to evolve into more closely knit communities, focusing on building a practice. The extent to which a CoP can be created and, above all, stirred or centrally led is a controversial issue. The question is particularly relevant in the relief and development context, because CoPs are fashionable, and donors / northern organisations have been eager to support their creation. (See for example projects such as Dgroups by Canada, Development Gateway and other CoPs by World Bank [World Bank No date], to mention only a few). However, when CoPs have an agenda, there are issues of communication control (and, consequently, of what debate is allowed), as discussed in chapter 3. In a debate on KM4DEV (a mailing list on Knowledge Management for Development), it has been highlighted that the approach of a CoP should not be narrowed to satisfy the bias of the owner. Each participant contributes something to the discussion and the user of the ideas presented has to make the choice. The moderator/facilitator might help in clarifying the issue but to force a consensus is usually detrimental to the health of a CoP [Maru 2003: no page]. Commentators have expressed doubts about of the value of CoPs designed to maximise efficient, centralised information management and not engaged instead in exchanges that recognise the interplay of knowledge, people, and power [Van del Velden 2002]. Networks and communities of practices have a life cycle. Each phase of their life cycle poses different demands and offers different rewards to its participants [Pickles 2003]. As shown in Figure 6.17, they evolve, grow, and die. The catalyst for their creation can vary: follow up of face-to-face events (e.g. conferences), inception of new projects, commitment of individuals or groups to a given topic, etc are all powerful starters [White 2002]. As discussed in the examples in the next section, in the shelter and settlement sector networks were at the coalescent stage. In the same way, communities and networks can dissolve because the interest of members fade (e.g. in communities of practices) or a project ends (e.g. virtual teams / communities of delivery). A dynamic vision of communities evolving and transforming is suited to the dynamics of the humanitarian community, which can
220

be segmented in endless ways in sub-communities. Out of the sub-communities which materialise in networks or CoPs, a few are relatively stable (e.g. CoPs based on specialisation). Other are formed as a crisis occurs or as the interest for a topic suddenly rises (e.g. geographic networks; networking on response to the risk posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction). All in all, it is not only important to create communities, but also, to create the capacity to create communities when the need arises. Such dynamic communities will need to be adequately managed along the different stages of their life cycle so that the knowledge assets which are created and are valuable for a wide range of users are captured and survive the community that created them. Stages of development
Active Coalescing Potential
People face similar situations without the benefit of a shared practice Members come together and recognise their potential Members engage in developing a practice

Dispersing
Member no longer Memorable engage very intensely, The community is no but the community is longer central, but still alive as a force and centre of knowledge people still remember it as a significant part of their identities

Typical activities
Engaging in joint activities, creating artefacts, adapting to changing circumstances, renewing interest, commitment and relationships

Finding each other, discovering commonalities

Exploring connectedness, defining joint enterprise, negotiating community

Staying in touch, communicating, holding reunions, calling for advice

Telling stories, preserving artefacts, collecting memorabilia

time
Figure 6.17. Life cycle of a community of practice. [Source: Wenger 1998a].

Finally, attitudes and roles of participants in CoPs and virtual networks have also been the object of extensive attention. Various categorizations of community and network members have been proposed [see for example Millen and Muller 2001]. As shown in Figure 6.18, it is usually assumed that communities and networks have a core - giving norms, supporting, and regulating their functioning - and different categories of users. The degree of control that is exerted by the core varies. The communities and networks that will be analysed in the next section seem to indicate a tendency to utilise centrally led communities to stir the debate in the shelter and settlement arena. CoPs have been recognised as an important way to foster knowledge exchange. This research therefore argues that the building of CoPs might be one option to help supporting the building of practice for innovation in the Shelter and Settlement sector, and such CoPs can benefit from the Internet as an arena for exchange. The communities/networks that were active in the shelter and settlement sectors at the time of the research privileged centralised exchange vs. the involvement of participants. This is effective in creating deliverables, but does not suffice in creating dialogue, debate and on-going processes fostering innovation.

221

Transactional members Peripheral members (Lurkers) Participants Key contributors

Champions Facilitator(s)

Technologist

Figure 6.18. Roles, responsibilities and degrees of participation in virtual communities.

6.6.1 Communities for humanitarian shelter and settlement professionals

Sphere project
Sphere 2 [Sphere Project. 2003], the second edition of the standards for humanitarian response, is the result of a vast consultation. Essentially it was realised by a community of delivery tapping into a wide network of professionals. Each section of the standards had a coordinator who stimulated and received comments and was in charge of integrating them in the revised standards. The process privileged centralised communication. As it was pointed out in chapter 2, one of the limitations of the Sphere project, as far as the shelter and settlement sector is concerned, is precisely the fact that it did not generate communities of practices to continuously enrich the standards and to support them with practices. Much practical knowledge could have been harvested aside the main task of creating the standards, but this was not factored in the process. Information was only diffused as built into standards, and there were no provisions for parallel and broader processes of knowledge exchange.

Shelter Project: peer reviewing

The Shelter Project is an interesting example of a community that is a borderline community between practice and delivery. The core group, based in Cambridge, was engaged in producing a focused output (i.e. guidelines for temporary shelter, linked to a donor funded project), but informed its product with the knowledge
222

derived from community of experts. Such a community met regularly to exchange practices and expertise. Debates happened mainly in meetings, and there was little virtual support to continue them on line. A mailing list was used as a centralised way to disseminate key information (news from the projects, updated version of the guidelines). The Shelter Project could be seen as a CoP suspended between the potential and coalescing stages, where practitioners have been put in touch and can explore further areas for joint exchange.

RedR / TSS
RedR TSS (Technical Service Support) provides expert advice to members requesting it through a mailing list, centrally moderated by RedR staff [RedR 2002]. Questions are sent to a closed community of selected professionals who volunteer their expertise. Replies are sent back to RedR, checked for quality and then sent back only to the author of the query. TSS attains expert exchange, and tries to do so in a non-intrusive way, in order to be acceptable to busy professionals who might be willing to help but do not like to have their mailbox cluttered. However, RedR / TSS is not a CoP, because feedback mechanisms to all members are not in place. The TSS cashes in on reciprocity (members are willing to post advice also because they might request some in the future) and on the desire of members to be seen as experts. However, it is not a community; neither does it foster shared learning. Replies are not archived or shared on line. Unfortunately, no other initiatives have been launched to investigate the possibility of launching CoPs amongst the members of the RedR register.

Aid Workers Network

The Aid Workers Network (http://www.aidowrkers.net) was created in 2001 as a resource from aid-workers to aid-workers to provide mutual advice based on experience. It exposes information needs emerging in the field, and, to respond to them, it captures knowledge based on the interaction of a community of aid workers. Given the fact that such community is so widespread, the Internet was the tool of choice, but this does not rule out the possibility of putting into place face-to-face exchanges amongst practitioners. The AWN is a typical example of how the Internet can help communication and innovation. It allowed the creation of a communication arena that would not be feasible otherwise, and with more than 4000 members as of Dec 2003 it created a critical mass and the interest for spinning other knowledge initiatives. As illustrated in Figure 6.19, the project behind the AWN resulted from the combination of three main areas: Membership: promotion of the network and support for members, facilitation and building of a culture of knowledge exchange and trust, settings of expertise locator systems to facilitate grouping of members with similar characteristics and interests e.g. area of expertise, geographical area of work, etc.; Forum: an area for exchange of knowledge amongst aid workers, based on demand driven mechanisms, but also open to other forms of exchange (e.g. storytelling), to expand the possibilities of interaction;

223

Content: an area that collects hard information, in form of excerpts from existing manuals and resources, and condensed information resulting from the interaction of members.

MEMBERS (the community)

FORUM the meeting area, the help desk

CONTENT the library, the super-manual

Figure 6.19: the structure of the AWN.

There were challenges in enabling the process, as it required continuous facilitation. The vast amount of work required behind the scene reflected the fact that the most effective approaches in KM are not simply based on the availability of repositories and databases (the self-directed approach), but need to complement such resources with a user-oriented approach, supporting the users and actively pushing and promoting the transfer of knowledge and the usage of technologies and services [O'Dell and Grayson 1998]. However, these approaches are highly time and resource consuming and require strong facilitation skills. The AWN assumed that field-level learning requires the development of a culture of information exchange and a broad, interdisciplinary space for communication. The space for communication is an inter-organisational one, occupied by individuals in their own name rather than as organisation affiliates. The difference with existing communities of practice was that debates and exchanges were not necessarily specialised and sectoral, but could happen in a wider community, favouring connections between sectors. Rather than a static network, the AWN was a dynamic community of interest, which could nest more focused communities or act as a portal to existing ones (for example, links have been established with RedR TSS). The experience as of December 2003 indicated that:

224

Information can be exchanged between relief and development practitioners, who were equally present in the network: when it comes to practical problems encountered in the field, they can provide mutual assistance. This is in line with the artificiality of the distinction between relief and development as discussed in chapter 2. Information is to be exchanged between local and expatriates: the AWN provided very valuable examples where the local knowledge acquired by NGOs local staff had been exchanged with international personnel, and viceversa. The possibility of accessing and giving voice to local staff is very important for shared learning in the humanitarian sector: in chapter 5 the lack of involvement of local actors had been highlighted as an issue. Information is not only to be circulated in closed circles, but it is important to break specialism: technical experts working in humanitarian aid know where to find information on their specific area of intervention (e.g. through their personal contacts, libraries, existing communities of practice etc), but they might have difficulties in retrieving information on other fields of expertise. However the challenge of many projects is precisely the fact that no field of intervention can be tackled narrowly. Shelter experts, for example need to intervene - or to be aware of their impact - in different ambits (e.g. social, economic, environmental). Hence the importance of having a space where to meet people from different disciplines and learning together. Learning benefits from connection. Knowledge management initiatives directed to filed workers are appearing in organisations, but they are quite insular and mostly lead through intranets. Those arrangements protect information generated by organisations, but cause redundancy (different organizations might work to package and distribute the same information). Such knowledge management initiatives might also react slowly and inefficiently to sudden crisis: they are usually centrally driven, and this creates bottlenecks. A shared area for learning creates economies of scale and synergies across the humanitarian system. And above all it creates opportunities and space for the humanitarian troubadours (see chapter 4). Providing channels for dialogue amongst field workers also helps to break the gap field / HQ. Information needs and experience generated in the field are shared and validated by a community of peers. However, this process might also be seen, by HQs, as an opportunity to unveil learning needs, to discover where problem areas are, and as an opportunity to feed back information as an answer to demands originated in the field. In short, it could be an incentive to redesign dissemination strategies of HQ and make them more responsive to the needs of field workers. It is important to establish a gateway for learning. The creation of pointers for information for operations (e.g. the HICs, ReliefWeb) is creating a culture of data sharing across the humanitarian system, and places where it can be satisfied. There is still no equivalent for information for learning, and AWN type models can be a possibility. Links between the HIC and the AWN have already been established in Liberia, complementing them: while the HIC can reply to the who, what, where of in-country assistance, the AWN is acting on the how and why. Interestingly, whilst an autonomous HIC can be created for each

225

crisis (as information for operations is contextual), an AWN type of initiative is better left as a central learning hub (as information for learning needs to be reused from one place to another). A community needs to be nourished. Being on line does not suffice to create a community (exactly as the simple fact of being in a certain place does not guarantee that relationships will be initiated with other people which happen to be in the same place!). A great deal of facilitation is required, as well as fostering opportunities for exchange. An assumption of many internet-based projects is that interaction will start as soon as a platform will be provided, but my experience (and the experience of other facilitators met in the course of this research) with the AWN or other networks and with the monitoring of CoPs and mailing list indicates that this is not the case. The idea behind the AWN is that knowledge is socially constructed. Interestingly, comments of many organisations HQs about the project demonstrated a diffused scepticism on the capacity of field-based interaction to produce reliable information. There was clearly an issue about perceptions of information quality in humanitarian aid. The dominant view encountered in HQ appears to be quality as expertise, elaborated and delivered from the top. But at the same time, the degree of participation from fieldworkers in the network, and the feedback received, indicated that there are many practitioners with different views on the subject. Socially constructed quality means that quality is not an attribute (quality as a seal of approval), but is a process. Certified quality, disseminated in hard packages (e.g. publications and manuals) is only the tip of the iceberg, and in reality quality is constructed by a continuous process of legitimisation of knowledge, that is allowed by keeping information publicly available and subjected to scrutiny and revision. The pragmatic way this process was kick-started in the AWN was a demand driven mechanism, as illustrated in Figure 6.20. Valuing questions, incidentally, is typical of a culture which accepts nescience as a possibility for knowledge rather than a reason for blame. Such culture cannot be given for granted. Organisational cultures are often prone to inhibit innovation and dialogue by fear of mistakes, blame, etc [Argyris 1999]. In response to the question, expert transfer was realised and the results were dynamically captured in discussion forums or refined in articles or fact sheets. This process of collective building and articulation of information and knowledge is paralleled in other interesting initiatives on the WWW, such as the Wikipedia (http:www.wikipedia.org). To this regards it has been pointed out that: common knowledge still holds today that high quality information that can only be produced by a handful of highly skilled experts who are organized in the dedicated, hierarchic environment of universities or research centres and led by professional management. But by using the same dynamics that made the impossible open source goods possible, people are already busily attacking this notion as well, suggesting that a loosely knit network of skilled amateurs can produce comparable or better quality information in a collaborative paradigm than traditional solitary authors, institutions or publishers are able to

226

create [Neus 2001: 4]. The resistance of organizations to the collaborative paradigm indicates the need for the creation of an alternative space where to test this alternative. .

A community member asks a question

BULLETTIN BOARD Questions Replies

Other community members share their knowledge by providing replies based on their experience (generating new information) or pointing to existing resources they found useful (validating existing information) As the interface on which communication happens and information is produced is public, effective exchanges might attract new members Some members might act as information brokers, inviting other experts or communities of experts (internal or external to the community) to reply

Links to existing manuals, literature Generation of new content, (summing up replies) LIBRARY

Community members might help consolidating replies into new, organised content, and add it to the library

Figure 6.20. The demand driven information generation and consolidation mechanism.

227

6.7

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter argued the case for the sub-hypothesis improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media. In doing so, it looked at the role of the Internet in supporting and shaping communication in the humanitarian sector, with particular reference to the shelter and settlement sector. The availability of the network does not seem to be the main problem anymore. However the characteristics of the connection (slow vs. broadband) may result in a considerable gap between peripheral locations (i.e. many locations in the field) and well-connected places (where HQs tend to be). The amount of data that can be realistically exchanged (and, consequently, the format in which it is exchanged) differs a great deal from the well-connected locations and the peripheral ones. This creates obvious asymmetries in the communication process. There is also a problem of capacities and attitudes: rapid advances in information and communication technology have led to a proliferation of the quantity of information available to humanitarian workers at all levels - but not necessarily any corresponding improvements in their abilities to usefully handle that information [Recalde 2001: web page]. This is why this chapter, after quickly discussing issues of connectivity, focused on the usage of the Internet by shelter and settlement practitioners. What emerged is that there is an interest for the Internet, and capacities to use it. However technological inefficiencies (i.e. limited connectivity, further compounded by design of information resources that might not be suitable for location poorly connected) but also information management shortcomings (e.g. information scatter) impede the use the of the Internet at its full potential. The issue of information scatter and archival over the Internet has been analysed in the course of the chapter. The inequalities between centre / periphery are confirmed by the content that is displayed on Internet, when it is examined as an archive. At the strategic level, the problem seems to be information overload, and repetition and redundancy of messages [Quarantelli E.L. 1997]. However, at the field level, little information on shelter and settlement directly relevant for practitioners is available. The interest of the Internet in the context of this research resides in the fact that it is more then an archive. It provides new angles for investigating information for shelter and settlement for refugees in the context of humanitarian crises. It allows to reflect on which processes should be enacted to support the generation, validation and circulation of knowledge. This is why this chapter also referred to the Internet as a relational space. Much information is distributed, debated and generated over the Internet, by communities of users. This research argued that - whilst the Internet cannot substitute all communication interactions - it can extend

228

and expand some of them. This is certainly relevant for dispersed networks, such as the community of shelter and settlement specialists (and, more in general, aid workers). The thesis looked at how new modalities of communication - in particular communities of practice - have been boosted by the availability of the Internet. Looking at the Internet as a relational space is key. It helps to move away from technology-focused initiatives, and to focus on users, to critically examine how to realise many different communication modes (such as these discussed in chapter 3 and 4). The innovative character of the Internet has been a mixed blessing. On one side the development of Internet and information technologies was a stimulus to experiment new ways to support communication. The capacity to archive information (through databases and content management), to create dynamic sets of georeferenced information (the GIS), to disseminate information amongst individuals (e-mail), groups (discussion lists) or to broadcast it (web) was tested in different projects. Such projects actually created new spaces for communication: the availability of technology has been instrumental in realising new modalities of information exchange, with implications that are beginning to emerge. Those structures, of course (as seen in chapter 3) are not neutral, and are de facto restructuring interactions as well as power relations. The reflection on the technology overlaps with the use and control over such technology. On the other side the primacy of technology shades the role of the people in using and interacting with information. "One of the great mistakes that organisations make is to value the technology over the process. This can lead organisations investing heavily in systems and then failing to make use of them effectively" [Recalde 2001: webpage]. Information exchanges do not happen by magic once a medium is provided. Attempts to build intranets, databases, websites to magically inject knowledge and innovation into organisations fell short of expectations. They are there to witness that information technologies, on their own, will not suffice to generate useful knowledge, or to put it into use. Knowledge for learning is prone to suffer from this state of affairs. In the case of information for operations, substantial results could be achieved just by putting new technologies at work. This is not to deny the importance of participation in such processes (e.g. in data sharing). However, in this case, results (e.g. maps) could be and have been - produced even with limited participation, and used to demonstrate the potential of the process. The generation of knowledge from learning and its translation into information is a different business. It involves people, and requires a much closer focus on the process rather than on the product. Significant products cannot materialise in the absence of interaction. Knowledge generation is not an extractive process of data mining. It entitles reflection on action and elicitation of tacit knowledge. Hence the interest for communities and their virtual interaction. The untapped potential of the Internet, this thesis argues, is in supporting interactive processes to increase capacities to gather and broadcast ideas, and to create networks. In particular the Internet is very useful to
229

create pointers and to support communication spaces outside organisational and sectoral boundaries. Such spaces could offer new opportunities for the communication around shelter and settlement that as seen in chapter 2 needs to happen across organisations and sectors. Communities dealing with shelter and settlement are beginning to appear. They are fostering changes in the sector, but they still seem to privilege centralised networks as a form of interaction. Models such as the Aid Workers Network are another possibility. They indicate that there is room to experiment with more collaborative approaches, to create a space for shared learning and for knowledge management that is grounded into experience.

230

CONCLUSIONS

This research started by looking at how best practices on shelter and settlement projects could be effectively stockpiled. Following the fashion of the time, I looked at the realisation of a clearinghouse model. However it soon became evident that stockpiling alone would not be sufficient to address the information deficit of the shelter and settlement sector. Contrary to my initial assumptions, information shortage was not simply due to inefficiencies in the circulation of information that could be easily addressed by the use of information technologies. It emerged that the real challenge was not to find ways to use new media to better circulate information already available. The problem as I discovered from my preliminary research was the limited availability of information to be stockpiled: information conductive to better practices and policies was not available in the first place. A better generation of knowledge and know-how needed to be identified as more urgent considerations. It also became evident that the role and the scope for communication for shelter and settlement interventions needed to be better understood. Modalities of communication for the humanitarian sector, this research argues, have not yet been sufficiently scrutinised. Better communication is often suggested as a way forward, but without indicating which type of communication is needed, or who should be involved. I therefore set about investigating challenges for the shelter and settlement sector and the possible role of communication. In parallel, I looked at a variety of communication processes not only the original clearinghouse approach. I focused on different perspectives and attitudes of key actors towards information, knowledge and communication. It appeared that there is no one-size-fits-all communication strategy. Exchanges occur for different, sometimes even conflicting, purposes (e.g. for coordination, for learning and for accountability). These exchanges require different strategies, and yield different results. They all have the potential to improve practice, but none of them, alone, represents a silver bullet. What this thesis argues is that it is the effective combination of different forms of information exchange and knowledge management that will eventually contribute to improved practices. Intense efforts to conceptualise and organically merge together issues, problems, theories, examples that emerged from the research were required. The framework that underlies the narrative of this research was created as a result of this process (this conceptualisation is, itself, an important contribution, as frameworks for communication are still lacking in the humanitarian sector as a whole). This supported a reflection to match the challenges of the shelter and settlement sector with the communication options best suited to respond. The conclusion that follows is summarised below:
231

In the first section, Putting it all together, I summarise the key issues that emerged in the narrative of this thesis. In the second section, Reconceptialising communication, the elements of a framework for communication as emerged from the research will be outlined. This section illustrates, in detail, the different modalities through which communication can serve the improvement of humanitarian practices, as emerged from this research on shelter and settlement. The importance of communication, it is argued, lies chiefly in bridging crucial gaps. These gaps will be illustrated vis--vis communication options to tackle them, as found in the course of the research. In this respect the key is to recognise that the different nature of such gaps requires different communication options. In other words, communication needs to be articulated, connected and operationalised to an extent as the thesis shows that is not yet realised in humanitarian practice. However, fragmented practices show a way forward to reconnect and reconceptualise communication, so that it can become a tool to serve the improvement of the shelter and settlement sector.

The third section, Building a case for communication, positions the thesis vis--vis the emerging hypothesis. As proposed in the methodological section, the emerging hypothesis is proved when pulling up together frameworks and findings from the various sections composing this thesis.

In the final section, Shelter and Settlement: a contingency or an exemplar?, I then contend that communication in shelter and settlement interventions - as discussed in the thesis - can be an exemplar of wider communication needs and options for the humanitarian sector as a whole. I conclude by arguing that communication is or should be - in fact, at the heart of processes of transformation and change at the core of humanitarianism.

232

7.1

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

At the end of the introductory chapter, I presented a diagram exemplifying the structure of the thesis, to help the reader to get an overview of the contents and of their organisation. It is now time to go back to that diagram, to summarise the key points emerging from the research, and to clarify how they came together to prove the hypotheses.

Analysis of the humanitarian shelter and settlement sector (practices and reviews) to identify emergent challenges ... and linked communication challenges

Identification of problem areas

Emerging challenges Grounding the Hypotheses: Communication emerges as an option to improve shelter and settlement practices Emerging modalities

Analysis of communication practices in the humanitarian and comparable sectors

Info for operations

Info from learning

Analysis of attitudes and behaviours of different actors

Emergence of spaces for communication

Analysis the role of the Internet in enhancing the exchange of information for better practices As hardware As content

At the organisational level

At the individual level

As a network of people

Figure 7.1. The structure of the thesis.

233

7.1.1 Framing the thesis: the use of grounded theory

It is worth recalling how the diagram presented in the previous page did not pre-exist the thesis. It actually emerged as a result of the research, using grounded theory as the method. I already pointed out that - soon after the inception of the thesis - I discovered that, despite much lip service, communication for shelter and settlement was not something already in existence and that could be tested. The very nature of communication for humanitarian interventions had to be questioned, explored and understood, and there was no framework for that. To confront this challenge, I had to shift from a hypotheticodeductive method of work to grounded theory, the only way to fit together the pieces of the puzzle lying in front of me. Hypothesis and conceptualisation emerged by sifting through a vast collection of data, facts, material, experiences. It was not a linear process: I explored many routes, articulated sub-hypotheses, tested and verified emerging concepts, as described in the methodology chapter. A more linear and structured path began to emerge. A path that is the narrative of the previous chapters. As pointed out in chapter 1, one of the tenets of grounded theory is that the narrative (and the underlying conceptualisation) is, actually, a product of the research, not only a way to explain its main hypothesis. There is probably not only one way to frame communication and the challenges linked to it when the end goal is to improve interventions in the humanitarian sector. However, what I presented in the previous pages, is the framework that emerged - and survived enquiring and testing - when looking at how to improve the shelter and settlement sector with very special lenses those of grounded theory and at a very particular point in time: when a new medium, the Internet, appeared, and collaborative endeavours to improved shelter and settlement for refugees, supported by it, emerged.

7.1.2 Elements of a framework for communication for shelter and settlement

I now propose a summary of the key points emerging from the previous chapters. This will also serve as a way to pull them together and highlight them as elements composing a framework for communication for shelter and settlement in the humanitarian sector. Key challenges for the shelter and settlement sectors are then analysed vis--vis communication options to tackle them. In terms of structure, this thesis began by assessing challenges and information needs of the shelter and settlement sector, to understand where communication could make a difference. The subsequent chapters illustrated how information and communication can be put to work to improve the operation of the sector. This required an understanding of the processes, of the attitudes and needs of the actors, and of the channels at
234

their disposal. In this final chapter I highlight critical areas where the conjuncture of shelter and settlement policies and practices with new modes of communication provides an opportunity to serve sounder and more sustainable ways of improving the sector, and humanitarian interventions in general.

Challenges and information needs for the shelter and settlement sector (chapter 2)
Chapter 2 focused on shelter and settlement. It discussed the need to learn more effectively from previous experiences and to avoid reinventing the wheel. It called for more responsive and holistic approaches to shelter and settlement, recognising the complexity of the sector and its repercussion on the socio-economic fabric of refugees and forced migrants. Compared with other sectors, shelter and settlement for refugees has been slower to build and consolidate shared knowledge. Zetter noticed that - compared with other sectors of refugee assistance - the shelter and settlement lacked a body of experience and literature that could be transferred from a crisis to another and nourish imaginative new options. This research acknowledged that his point still holds. [Zetter 1995a]. As a whole, shelter and settlement is an ill-defined sector, lacking the visibility and the support of other sectors of humanitarian assistance (for example, water and sanitation). Communication in the form of extensive consultation with shelter and settlement specialists helped, in recent years, to put the shelter and settlement sector on the agenda (e.g. the Shelter chapter in Sphere) In discussing shelter and settlement, the research maintained an ambivalent attitude towards the idea of a sector. On one hand, the research acknowledged the importance of strengthening the sector: with the definition of a sector comes the establishment of a corpus of practices and of competencies and an arena for their refinement (see chapter 5 on the competencies of aid workers). Also, in the current humanitarian regime, aid is delivered through sectoral projects: hence the need to put a sector firmly on the agenda. On the other hand, the research recognised that the nature of shelter and settlement cannot really be captured by a sector, or by sector standards, without risking constraining interventions and creating yet another of the little boxes in which assistance is packaged. Shelter and settlement are not a physical feature, but the centre of gravity around which the lives of displaced people revolve. In this view, they become an opportunity to enact livelihoods approaches, to combine interventions pertaining to different sectors, to consider holistically various ambits (e.g. economic, social, political, environmental). However, a limited degree of innovation is manifested to this respect. Camps - despite being described, in principle, as the least favoured choice are still, de facto, the privileged solution. This is only partially due to the inertia of the system in learning and testing new solutions. Limitations to innovation derive from the way the humanitarian regime is conceived: the separation of relief from development corresponds, in reality, with the need to separate the displaced from the hosts.

235

The discussion on shelter led to rethink the way in which humanitarian assistance is delivered. Shelter and settlement show more explicitly than other sectors; (a) the fragmentation of humanitarian assistance; (b) the opportunity to question the divide between relief and development and; (c) the need to find alternative ways to bridge the gap. The study of shelter and settlement also suggests the need to move from delivery-based interventions to the enactment of processes; from an approach based on needs and vulnerabilities in favour of one based on rights. In this process, communication is key. Information is needed to explore the opportunity for synergies, to critically assess and challenge interventions, to study the coping strategies of displaced people, to build an understanding of the problematic of humanitarian action, all of which is necessary to devise an effective response. This section proposes that communication is key to implementing such approaches in three respects: 1) increasing connectedness and coordination in operations. This can be helped by an improvement of operational communication (to allow for better coordination in practice and for the realisation of synergies across different piecemeal processes); 2) improving and broadening learning mechanisms, to improve current practice and devise alternative interventions; and, 3) advocating different approaches, as the need for them emerges.

Multiple modalities for information production and exchange (chapters 3 and 4)

Chapters 3 and 4 are written based on the assumption that each of the challenges identified above requires different communication strategies; there is no one-fits-all. In these chapters I systematised approaches to information and communication management in and across implementing organisations as information for operations and as information from learning. Emerging theories on information and knowledge management vis--vis practices encountered in the humanitarian sector and, when available, in the shelter and settlement sector, were reviewed in these chapters and reconceptualised within the broader emerging framework. It is apparent, from this review, that information for operations is the area where most resource to support information exchange is currently being invested. Information for operations is also the area where examples of communication specifically tied to shelter and settlement programmes can be found (e.g. multi stakeholder assessments, project databases, etc). Nonetheless, it is equally clear that the need for information from learning (i.e. information responding to the hows and whys of organisations) is key, but it has still not been sufficiently addressed to date. Only limited examples of learning activities linked to shelter and settlement programmes and interventions could be found. A review of comparable sectors suggested possibilities and modalities for communication for learning that have been discussed in the largely aspirational - chapter 4. To date, systematic processes of knowledge
236

transfer linked to shelter and settlement interventions are simply not in place, or are limited - as in much M&E - to evaluating individual projects which then go on to have limited impact on subsequent practice elsewhere. In addition, there is an inherent risk in linking learning to modalities that are too rigidly project based. In the absence of thorough and broad reflection on impact, these can have the result of supporting restrictive frameworks that confirm the vision of shelter and settlement as a contractual process rather than as part of a more holistic approach. Hence the need to learn from people and to look at the possibilities offered by new modalities for knowledge management, in and across organisations. Issues of change were also addressed in these chapters. In particular I looked at how learning can result in a transformation of practice. In looking at issues of learning for change it becomes clear that the conceptualisation of humanitarian intervention as short term / delivery based is severely limited: learning would require breaking existing organisational and system constraints that are simply too ingrained. The life span of projects, the existence of parallel systems for the delivery of humanitarian / development aid are limiting the space for innovation and for a reconceptualisation of shelter and settlement interventions in the humanitarian context.

Actors (chapter 5)
One underlying issue in the thesis has been fragmentation (across sectors, across and between projects, and between relief-type and development-type assistance). Chapter 5 tackles the issue of fragmentation by setting out the broad range of actors that act or have a say in determining the characteristics of relief assistance. Barriers and obstacles to communication are then exposed. Communication and knowledge exchange are particularly endangered in those contexts where knowledge provides a competitive advantage for some organisations over others, or where learning clashes with a vision of accountability oriented to demonstrate performance against rigid criteria. In addition, limited dialogue between complementary players (e.g. academics and implementers) is limiting the potential for innovation. More positively, the fluidity of the humanitarian sector does create conditions where - even in presence of organisational barriers to information circulation (which still exist despite an increasing emphasis on knowledge pooling) - opportunities for communication across the sector are present. The creation of a culture of learning at the individual level; the provision of new spaces that can support communication amongst a variety of players are identified as conducive to the realisation of such opportunities.

The role of new media (chapter 6)

Chapter 6 recognises that the Internet explosion sparked a renewed debate on communication. This medium has created opportunities to enhance and also innovate modalities of communication. Hence the interest in looking closer at this medium to have a fresh outlook on communication.

237

By looking closely at the Internet I do not want to suggest that communication is to be supported exclusively by this medium. Most processes and interactions described in this chapter could happen also through other media. Clearly the Internet allowed some of them to expand and establish more easily, especially when communication has to connect a highly mobile population, geographically dispersed. The interest of the Internet, as this research discussed, does not reside so much in technical wizardries. It resides in its capacity to create a new place for interactions. In that place a variety of mechanisms can be enacted, often reflecting interactions going on in the non-virtual world (see section 6.2 Using the Internet: substitution, extension, expansion). After discussing the idea of access (connectivity vs. real access), this chapter explored the utility of the Internet from different perspectives: as an infrastructure (in dealing with issues of access, for example); as an archive (in looking at the tangible results of different modalities of information exchange); and above all, as a community of users: a relational space that allows the creation of communities and the establishment of exchanges which help to diffuse knowledge across the sector. It emerges that the Internet has become increasingly important as expertise is decentralised and spread across a broad and fast changing community, which requires this expertise to be efficiently and flexibly circulated and adapted. However, as this chapter points out, the shelter and settlement sector does not yet seem to benefit from the possibilities offered by the Internet. From what has been said, it is clear that the problem does not reside only on the issue of access and connectivity, but, rather in the lack of opportunities to congeal, on the Internet, a fertile exchange of information with a wider remit than the few communities and projects that this research could identify.

238

7.2

RECONCEPTUALISING COMMUNICATION

The usefulness of communication was found by this research chiefly in helping to bridge the gaps that became apparent in the analysis of the shelter and settlement sector. This was a critical finding of this thesis. Such gaps ranged from operational ones (e.g. lack of coordination) to more fundamental ones, deriving from the political context in which humanitarian interventions are performed (e.g. the gap between the desire to uphold the rights of refugees vs. the restrictions imposed by the refugee label, as extensively discussed in chapter 2). When looking at how to improve shelter and settlement programmes this research recognised that the grey areas - where the gap is - are the most interesting in terms of their potential for innovation. This research contends that communication has a strong potential in tackling gaps and fragmented spaces of intervention. But it then found that the nature of the gaps, and their intrinsic differences, impose the need to look at multiple modalities of communication. I will now focus on these issues, and discuss, through specific examples, how emerging gaps are (or can be) tackled through communication. To understand how communication can serve to bridge the gaps is an original contribution of this research.

7.2.1 Gaps and communication options

Communication for bridging operational gaps: issues of coordination

When referring to humanitarian operations the need to bridge some of the apparent gaps and fractures is expressed through the concepts of coordination. Coordination means establishing operational links across agencies and projects, and exchanging the information needed to act in a harmonised manner. Better coordination emerged as a key recommendation from the Joint Evaluation of the Rwanda Crisis [Steering Committee 1996], but poor coordination continues to appear as a thorny issue during crisis after crisis since then (see 3.1). The growing importance of information for operations during crisis shows that this problem is being tackled seriously by the humanitarian community (see chapter 3). At the same time, the advent of new technologies offered the opportunity for processing and sharing information (see chapter 3 and 6). However, as this research discussed, information for operations still falls short of releasing its full potential. On one side, contrasting priorities and lack of familiarity with new technologies might affect the information exchange. On the other, issues of security, control and power can seriously impinge the scope for data exchange. Such issues need to be understood and tackled if communication for operation is to be improved. Communication for operation is not all about the technical proficiency in setting up databases and GIS. It is also about the capacity of motivating and connecting organisations and people, and to win over the resistance to sharing.

239

Communication for achieving integrated interventions: habitat and connectedness

Connectedness - assuring that activities of a short-term emergency nature are carried out in a context which takes longer term and interconnected problems into account [Minear 1994a: web page] - is also currently emerging as one of the key criteria against which to evaluate humanitarian assistance projects [OECD/DAC 1999]. Lack of connectedness had manifested itself in ineffective links amongst humanitarian and developmental operations [ALNAP 2002a] through restrictive timeframes [ALNAP 2003]. The analysis of the shelter and settlement sector suggested that enhancing connectedness can have far reaching consequences. Humanitarian action and the sheltering of refugees is a case in point - is split across narrowly defined sectors for intervention (see chapter 2). It is fragmented across projects, but also across organisations, across sectors. This means, for example, that there are not projects tackling the habitat of refugees holistically. There are, instead, piecemeal projects: projects for shelter, projects for water & sanitation or infrastructures, projects geared at food security that are all conducive to a betterment of refugee settlements and habitat, but are rarely tackled holistically. This is a particularly thorny issue, especially for the shelter and settlement interventions, whose potential remit would encompass the wide concept of habitat rather than simply shelter (see 2.4). I discussed how it is not easy to change this state of affairs, as it is inherently linked to the way in which the humanitarian system is run and is financed (see chapter 2.2). Better communication can, however, ensure a space where synergies can be enacted, and where even the narrowly conceptualised shelter and settlement sector can benefit from links with interventions covering the habitat needs of people. Critically, communication for connectedness requires more than the exchange of information for operations. Mechanically joining projects would not suffice. A different outlook, a vision of integration is required for creating results that are more than the sum of the parts. This requires a move away from narrow, disconnected project frameworks oriented to shelter delivery to wider outlooks centring on the impact of the intervention on habitat. This requires a debate across different actors, engaged in practice and policy (see 5.2) to build and root a new understanding of shelter. It needs to be seen differently: from being a logistical challenge, it should become a connector for interventions.

Communication as a way not to reinvent the wheel: gaps in field learning across crises
The research found little evidence of effective dissemination of practices amongst crises. Practical guidelines for shelter and settlement for refugees appeared only at the very end of this research [ShelterProject.org 2004, Barakat 2003]. It remains to be seen to what extent they will be disseminated. Issues related to the transmissions of practices from one crisis to another have been discussed in several instances in this thesis. In particular I have pointed out the need to strike a balance in between the attempt at an excessive standardisation (all crises are the same) and the lack of learning (every crisis is unique),

240

discussing alternative models for communication (e.g. personalisation and codification strategies - section 4.6.3).

Processes of analysis and conceptualization.....

out crisis Learning across (e.g. expert transfer)

Figure 7.2: lesson learning and knowledge exchange across crises

in

crisis

As shown in Figure 7.2, the exchange of practices across crises can follow different modalities. They range from quick horizontal exchanges between individuals across crises to analytical processes of distillation of lessons learned. Modalities that have been found and illustrated by this research include, for example:

Exchanges happening synchronically during the crisis, for example by means of expert transfers (see 4.5) supported by CoPs of similar networks (see 6.6). For those exchanges to be effective, the existence of an enabling space / a support network is of paramount importance. This can be created inside organisations, but also across them (e.g. the Aid Workers Network)

Exchanges happening diachronically across the crisis, for example by means of humanitarian troubadours (5.4) who move from one crisis to another, and possibly, also across organisations. In this case the experience and the lessons learned are primarily linked to the individuals, hence the importance of processes that are oriented at learning from people. And, hence the need of processes to help retaining and transferring their knowledge on a wider scale than the individual mobility of aid workers would allow (see: process of knowledge exchange between teams, 4.5).

Analytical processes that distil key learning emerging from a crisis (e.g. M&E processes, see 4.4; single and double learning loops, see 4.5). They need to realise a virtuous circle of extraction of information from the field (learning out, see 5.4) and re-dissemination. Those processes are quite complex, as they require interactions between practitioners and policy makers / researcher. They require the capacity to analyse information but also, critically, to disseminate it. The reality is that dissemination processes are quite poor, hence the lack of information that feeds back into new crises.

Research and practice on such processes of field learning are still little established, but there is a growing interest around the issue (for example, ALNAP is now looking at field learning). Interesting opportunities to stimulate field learning have been identified by the research. The Sphere project, for example, could become
241

a trigger for the exchange of practices. The main purpose of the project is actually not to provide guidelines, but standards (a contentious issue: see 2.4.2). However this research pointed out that the Sphere project was instrumental in starting a debate on practices. Could it (or a connected project) also become a Trojan horse to support field learning and the exchange of practices? Other options for exchange of practices across crises are offered by the appearance of new spaces for learning. There is not much evidence yet of exchanges focusing on shelter. However, the experience of other emergency sectors - e.g. water & sanitation, food security - provides useful terms for comparison. Learning offices can be provided inside a crisis (to facilitate learning across, that can then be potentially transformed in to learning out); or through spaces for participatory training (see 5.4). The Internet has also a great potential to become a space for such knowledge exchange (see chapter 6.6, the AWN in particular)

Communication to devise and implement new concepts: gaps between policy and practice
This research contends that communication limited to the operational aspects of coordination and connectedness will not suffice to greatly improve the status quo. There is a broader need to consolidate scattered practice and research into concepts and frameworks for intervention to guide implementation, and the necessary re-conceptualisation (see chapter 2) of the shelter and settlement sector. There is a need for innovative and holistic policies and practices solidly grounded in learning processes, which involve all those engaged in realising shelter and settlement projects (see Figure 7.3).

Communication for operations

Concepts & frameworks policies

practices

Figure 7.3. Communication as a response to fragmentation. The fragmentation of practices and across actors in the settlement and settlement sector (and the need to connect to other areas of intervention) is problematic. Both communication for operation and communication for learning can help progressing from scattered practices to shared concepts and frameworks for intervention. Communication for operation helps reducing the gap amongst different projects and creates the synergies to affirm shelter and settlement as a centre of gravity of interventions. Communication for learning help conceptualise the expertise achieved and to confront it with the theoretical debate, to build new frameworks from interventions. Feedback of these concepts and frameworks is, of course, key.
242

Communication for learning

I noticed that, in addition to the need of ensuring operational coordination and connectedness when operating in the field, there is a need to pull together a wider array of practices and experiences derived from a variety of stakeholders. The shelter and settlement sector, this research argued, is inherently ill formulated. It needs alternative concepts and frameworks for interventions, and they need to be rooted into practice. The interaction practice / policy is essential to help the reformulation of concepts, frameworks and, ultimately, of the modus operandi of the sector. Hence the need of effective communication to gather information about practices (requiring, this research found out, better M&E and learning mechanisms) for learning lessons, as pointed out when discussing field learning. But critically, double-loop processes of distilling experience need also to feed into policies, and stir change. Communication will then be needed to feedback alternative concepts and frameworks for implementation. Communication is also needed to advocate new policies and modalities of intervention across different actors (herewith including donors and political actors); to win their resistances or their inertia to stimulate changes in the philosophy of interventions in the shelter and settlement sector. However, it emerged from the research that there is an unfortunate split across the policy and practice level of interventions (see 4.6, top down and bottom up models of change). In many occurrences communication is prevalently one-way and the feedback loops that ought to link the policy and practice levels are not effectively realised. For example, when M&E activities have a prevalent extractive character they might fail to engage these who actually are asked to realise change in the field. Neither can they effectively feed into policies. More generally, the limited capacity of tuning in with field staff when disseminating alternative paradigms for interventions elaborated at the policy level also reduces the possibility to enact alternative frameworks, and to operationalise policies. Rather than looking at communication as being split across policy and practice, this thesis aimed at blurring distinctions, and advocated mechanisms to expand their synergies rather than their differences. The gap between field and policy (that has also a parallel in the gap between operations and research) has been illustrated in Figure 7.4. The predominant current understanding of how learning occurs in the shelter and settlement sector as learning from projects views upward accountability as the key modality for communication. However, if coupled with one-way-only communication mechanisms and rigid management frameworks, this view of learning can limit the potential for adaptation of projects. The accountability dimension overshadows broader processes of organisational/sector learning. Hence the need for different forms of communication, whose value has been assessed in the research. The distance in knowledge terms between field and centre, which emerged as a finding from this research (see 4.6), means that cycles whereby experience can be reflected on, and concepts and tools to support practice can be re-disseminated do not occur. Defensive mechanisms within organisations, lack of opportunities and space for communication, bottlenecks in the upward transmission of information are all factors limiting the potential for the centre to identify areas for change and possible ways forward. At the same
243

time, once learning is elaborated into policies, concepts and frameworks centrally, there is little dissemination and advocacy from the centre (4.6), and resistance to innovation is apparent. A striking finding during a series of interviews was the almost total consensus within [UNHCR] that alternatives to camps in toto were simply not working or politically not feasible []. Challenges to this view were rare and mostly found with more experienced personnel or in those sections directly dealing with the broader consequences of relief work (community services, environmental unit) [Schmidt 1998 quoted in Harrell-Bond 2002: 16]. Good communication is central to the function of devising new concepts and disseminating them.

The prevalent model: learning from projects

Top down communication Extractive character Learning as teaching Policy over practice Limited dissemination / push of info Expertise as hard competencies and concentrated at the top

The emerging (?) model: learning from people

Centre / policy

Communication as dialogue Importance of feedback Learning in the heart of practice Policy responding to practice Pervasive knowledge management Expertise as diffused in the organisation

Field / practice

Figure 7.4. Communication between centre and periphery, field and HQ.

Experiences from other sectors seems to indicate the viability of alternative models to learning from people, to open new communication lines and to break communication barriers in organisations. However, I could find only little evidence of learning from practices feeding into policies in the shelter and settlement sector. This is possibly due to the nature of the sector that has been, until recently, ill defined. The debate on practices / policies really took over very recently (e.g. through ShelterProject, Sphere). To this debate the research offers a reflection on mechanisms for linking policies with practice through enhanced communication.

Communication to bridge the gap amongst relief and development

Another gap that emerged powerfully - the relief-development gap - was a fil-rouge of the research. I have suggested that there is a need for more effective exchange between developmental and humanitarian approaches, tools and techniques. It is important to confront the fact that the situation on the ground can be much more blurred than the operational schism between relief and development approaches often seems to indicate. In particular, in the context of returnees - where humanitarian interventions might have long-term consequences in, for example, shaping a post-war society the need for relief actors to gain command of developmental frameworks is well illustrated. On going processes to revise the competencies of aid workers; efforts of academic groups and researchers to disseminate theoretical reflection on this gap (e.g. Forced Migration site and UNHCR EPAU); increased information exchange on livelihoods and rights for humanitarian assistance (e.g. Livelihoods Connect by UNHCR); networks encompassing both relief and development
244

workers (e.g. Aid Workers Network), etc. are all examples of initiatives indicating that communication across the relief-development fence can occur. The impact of such communication on practice, however, depends on room for manoeuvre being available for experiment and innovation. This is difficult to achieve in a system that is primarily driven by short term, donor-controlled projects. Decisions about which innovative approaches can be tried, and which cannot (practices to improve integration of refugees being a case in point), often have deep political roots. Hence the need to strengthen the capacity to build a case on shelter and settlement, and to advocate for changes needed by the sector as a whole.

7.2.2 Other relevant gaps and grey areas

Reducing gaps amongst actors: the inter-organisational area
The research pointed out the need to connect a variety of actors and to blur existing organisational boundaries. This is particularly important in a sector, shelter and settlement, that is often little represented in humanitarian organisations, whilst retaining a potential for integrating practices. Inside organisations, communication should not be confined by existing management lines. It should involve more creatively different sets of actors and communities. Communication is also required to augment the feedback of information gathering processes (as in the case of M&E, see section 4.3), to open new communication channels (see 4.4), and, crucially also to join debates outside organisation boundaries. Humanitarian practices have been stirred, in recent years, in joined initiatives: the Sphere project is an outstanding example. Whilst much literature on knowledge and information management focuses on communication in organisations, what clearly emerged from this research is the existence of a grey space for communication that is animated by highly mobile individuals (the humanitarian troubadours), and where informal communication thrives. Attempts to structure the communication in this space has been realised. They offer a glimpse of the variety of processes that can be enacted. Communication across individuals in the interorganisational space includes data exchange (as in the HICs); training/learning (Learning Office, Aid Workers Network.). Limitations and potential of this space has been discussed in sections 3.3 and 5.4. An important point that remains to be made is that, being the inter-organisational space a nobodys land, i.e. not falling under the direct influence of any operational organisation, it might be overlooked. There are pros and cons to this: on one side, the informality of the inter-organisational exchange can create interesting opportunities for innovation. On the other side, the lack of more structured spaces for communication in this grey area could impede exchanges. The need to provide a framework for communication illustrating modalities and options for communication is even more urgent in this grey area: to create awareness of the existence of alternative communication spaces; to diffuse practices and create opportunities to animate and reinforce personal links across it; to create opportunities through which individuals, persuaded of the value of communication, can pool their experience and learning.

245

The technology people gap

The route to enable the development and practice of new approaches, this thesis argues, lies also in engaging in the opportunities offered by the communication revolution. The increased potential for communication amongst humanitarian actors has opened new possibilities for linking processes of accumulation of information and knowledge into practice, for knowledge development and sharing. The conjuncture of shelter and settlement policies and practices with new modes of communication, provides an opportunity to develop sounder and more sustainable practices and frameworks for interventions on shelter and settlement. The emerging Hypotheses recognised the importance of new technologies in improving communication, and the research validated it by pointing out how the Internet offered new modalities for communication well suited to the nature of humanitarian work. It is however key to observe that the advent of new technologies or new wizardries alone do not necessarily advance communication (or increase the impact of communication on practices). The establishment of an Internet connection, or a telecentre, or of an information management system might be in vain if the attention to technologies is not coupled with the attention to people. It is the improved capacity of users to embrace a medium to increase their space for communication that can bring about improvement in practices. This has been dealt with in the research when discussing the differences between processes of information management, technology driven, and wider processes of knowledge management. It appears that there is still a lack of understanding and capacity in exploiting the potential of new technologies in enhancing the communication across aid workers.

7.2.3 Communication: different modalities for different challenges

Let me sum up the argument so far. The narrative of this thesis built an argument to understand the value and the possible room for communication to improve practices in the shelter and settlement sector. Chapter 2 pointed out challenges for the sector. The successive chapters looked at key aspects of a communication framework: the information exchanges, the actors involved, the media. They provided evidence, collected from a scatter of data, that modalities of communication suitable for responding to such challenges exist. They are not yet necessarily found in the shelter and settlement ambit (and, in fact, many examples of the use of information and knowledge management had to be imported from other sectors), and might require adaptations from other sectors to be imported and used. However, there seems to be interesting opportunities to employ communication. In putting it all together I focused attention on the gaps that emerged from the analysis of the shelter and settlement sector and, based on the arguments built in the previous chapters, discussed how communication can help bridging them. The key point is that there is not only one-way of realising communication.
246

Communication encompasses a variety of information exchanges. Each of them has different characteristics. Each of them requires different approaches. Hence the need to tackle communication in a strategic fashion, acknowledging its complexity (as exemplified in Figure 7.5). This is a critical finding of the research. Based on a thorough examination of the state of the art of the shelter and settlement practice (and emerging challenges) and of communication in the humanitarian sphere, this research repositioned communication as a tool for improving practices, and defined problems and opportunities.

Lack of coordination and connectedness

increasing connectedness and coordination in operations

Information for operations (see chapter 3)

Lack of recognition of the multiple dimensions of shelter Policy and practice divide improving and broadening learning mechanisms

Learning from projects (see chapter 4)

Learning from people (see chapter 4)

Relief / development divide

Communication for change (see chapter 4) improving capacity to advocate new approaches

Quest for rights vs. political reality in the field

Communication for advocacy (see chapter 4)

Figure 7.5. Communication. An opportunity to bridge the gaps. The figure shows how the different modalities of information exchange detailed in chapter 3.and 4 can help bridging different gaps.

Whilst looking at how to improve shelter and settlement practices, this research found communication. But communication needed to be understood, systematised, articulated. Comprehensive models of communication and theories that could respond to the multiple challenges posed by the shelter and settlement sector were not available when I started this research. However, I could find examples of information exchange serving shelter and settlement. I encountered debates on apparently disconnected issues that I later found to be part of a communication framework (advocacy, accountability, learning, coordination). I encountered much specialised expertise (e.g. technical proficiency in data exchange). This thesis is a way to connect those examples and those concepts under the broader umbrella of communication.

247

7.3 COMMUNICATION AS A WAY TO IMPROVE PRACTICES: BUILDING A CASE

The process to prove the main hypothesis - that the improvement of practices for refugee settlement planning policies and practices can be supported by better communication - and the linked sub-hypotheses - a) Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities; b) effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors; c) improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media - was not a linear, conventional one. The methodology of choice to corroborate these hypotheses was grounded theory. The reasons for this choice have been discussed at length in the methodology chapter. It is worth recalling here that, at the beginning of this research (when I was investigating the idea of a clearinghouse), communication was assumed to be a response, and was intended mostly as a one-way process of dissemination and broadcasting information. However, the lack of information on practices brought about the question of the relevance of communication, and of its meaning. Why - despite the recurrent emphasis on the importance of communication - critical information was absent? Did it mean that communication was not, after all, producing the expected results? Or did it rather mean that communication was not adequately understood or implemented? The first step in replying to those questions was to look back at key challenges for improving shelter and settlement interventions, systematically, and to understand if, how and to what extent communication could really respond to them. An analysis of communication and of its role needed therefore to be questioned and grounded in practice, and its relevance could not simply be assumed. This was done in the course of chapter 2. Evidence to corroborate the hypotheses emerged from a process of matching the challenges in improving practices - that continuously emerged from the research process - with different modalities of information exchange as realised in practice in the shelter and settlement sector or in other comparable sectors. It was a process that produced a scatter of information and many research questions (as illustrated in figure 1.1). It culminated in the reorganisation of such information in the framework presented in this thesis, which can link communication options vis--vis practical challenges in the shelter and settlement sector. This framework encompasses three key spheres: the needs and perceptions of different actors that are stakeholders in the communication processes; the media employed; and the different modalities of information exchange that could be put in place. It is a framework found by the research that grounds the value of communication in practice and articulates it to respond to different challenges. The logic followed in this process is an inverted logic that starts from the data and builds theory. To demonstrate how this inverted logic can prove the hypothesis, I start by discussing the sub-hypotheses. As

248

argued in the introduction, the main hypothesis can then be built on them, and can stand solidly on a conceptually sound platform of data, verification, questioning and formulation of theory.

Supporting the sub-hypotheses

It should now be evident how the sub-hypotheses consolidate the findings of a broad analysis and reflection on communication practices that was undertaken through this research (see chapters 3 to 6):

Improved communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media. The possibilities of the new media have been reviewed at length: in chapter 6, when discussing the role of the Internet, but also in chapter 3, that showed, through practical examples, how information for operation is enhanced by IT. The potential of different modalities for info exchange ( 6.2), e.g. broadcasting vs. networking ( 6.4 and 6.5) has been spelled out. When saying that the communication can benefit from the possibilities offered by the new media, the thesis implies that such possibilities need to be understood, and the capacity to benefit need to be acquired. The analysis in chapter 6 showed the importance of understanding the differences between knowledge management and information management ( connectivity and real access ( 6.3). It demonstrated that the existence of the media does not lead automatically to its use, looking at issues of 6.1). The failure of information systems to deliver (as discussed for 6.4). Similarly, the shortcomings in delivery information from example in chapter 3), is not due to technological shortcomings, but to a use of the medium, that privileges technology vis--vis users ( operations for shelter and settlement sectors thought the Internet, cannot be attributed only to deficiencies of the medium, but to the fact that as discussed in chapter 4 information from learning is still little cultivated in the shelter and settlement sector, and this is a problem of attitude, rather than of technology.

Effective communication is dependent on taking into consideration the perspectives of different actors. The findings of Chapter 5 - in particular - demonstrate the need to understand and plan communication to integrate different approaches and to involve different stakeholders. Chapter 5 pointed out through a broad stakeholder analysis - that different actors have different (and sometimes contradictory) needs and attitudes toward communication. Different modalities of communication might suit different relationships amongst actors. Issues of power and control ( designing effective modalities of communication for operations ( learning ( chapter 5), for example, are crucial in 3.2), or can condition the creation of a

culture or openness rather than blame to foster or to curb - the exchange of information from 4.5). There also an element of capacity building, in that effective communication requires that 5.3). Chapter 5 also communication is a core competency for individuals as well as organisations (

demonstrated that perspectives and capacities of communication are dependent from the context in which the actors operate. In particular, there is a need to appreciate how communication can have

249

Individual / organisational / inter-organisational dimensions ( tackled by information exchange provisions.

5.3 and 5.4), and how those are to be

Communication can / should be realised through a variety of modalities. As pointed out in the methodology section, there is not a theory of communication for the humanitarian sector, and, more importantly, there is little appreciation of how the many facets of communication can apply to it. However, chapter 3 and 4 demonstrated through an investigation of communication practices - that communication is an articulated concept, and it can be enacted through a variety of modalities. They also demonstrated that such modalities might serve different purposes: e.g. communication for operations ( chapter 3); communication from learning: from projects ( advocacy ( 4.3) and from people ( 4.4); mechanisms to enact change in organisation and development of a culture of change ( 4.6 and 5.2); communication for

4.6). The value of systematizing communication to provide a broad framework emerged

clearly from the research. Communication has been articulated as encompassing a range of modalities, processes and tools that are often seen as disconnected, self contained activities (e.g. M&E, data sharing, learning), but that need to be reconnected to overcome their shortcomings (see for example the need to merge M&E and organisational learning processes, as discussed in 4.4).

Supporting the main hypothesis

As illustrated in Figure 7.1, the research built a case on the relevance of communication for improving practice by connecting key challenges in the shelter and settlement sector with modalities of communication that could respond to them. Chapter 2 articulated challenging areas for shelter and settlement interventions. These included: coordination (to help operations, to smooth the gaps between organisations and projects); connectedness (to move from narrowly defined and piecemeal ambit of interventions to better integrated approaches; lessons learning and creation of shared practices and standards across sectors; knowledge transfer from comparable area of interventions (e.g. shelter in disasters, development); policy and practice harmonisation, and for the realisation of synergies across the two; bridging the relief-development gap; questioning of current practices and assumptions, and advocating for alternative approaches.

It emerged (as articulated in the conclusions of the same first chapter) that such challenges could indeed benefit from improved communication. At this stage, communication was still a poorly defined concept, broadly intended, as pointed out in the methodology section, as an activity to convey information. The issue was not so much to acknowledge the importance of communication. The challenge was to articulate the concept of communication in such a way that it could respond to such varied challenges. It appeared that the
250

communication that could serve such different areas was not a narrowly conceived one. For example, the challenges posed by coordinating operations are clearly different from those posed by advocating new approaches. The analysis in chapter 3 to 6 allowed the foundations for such a framework to be constructed, and to articulate communication in such a way that it could respond to the varied challenges originated by chapter 2. Based on that, a framework for communication, as illustrated in the previous section was built. Communication proved to be a strategic tool that could be employed to tackle, actively, critical gaps emerging in humanitarian practices. Coordination shortcomings, for example, can be solved through an efficient use of information for operation - boosted by the availability of IT tools - and by an understanding of the perspective of different actors towards information sharing herewith including issues of control and power. The realisation of synergies amongst policies and practices can be realised by an adequate blend of mechanisms of organisational learning and learning for change (i.e. information from learning: learning from people) and learning from projects, again considering the different attitudes of actors towards information and blame. And so on. When the remit and the articulation of communication is acknowledged, communication can then be seen and used as a tool to improve practices in the shelter and settlement sector, as asserted by the hypothesis. The improvement of practices for refugee settlement planning policies and practices can be supported by better communication if a broad communication framework is provided. When looking at how to improve shelter and settlement practices, my thesis has developed an argument to understand the value and advocate scope for communication. It then redefined communication in a way to serve such need of improving practices. The building of a communication framework that is linked to the practical problem of improving practices is an original contribution of this research. In the humanitarian ambit there is not yet a framework for communication providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved and of the opportunities offered by communication. This thesis represents a first attempt to pinpoint and tackle this shortcoming. The problem was even more acute at the inception of this thesis, when many of the modalities and concepts for information exchange that have been subsequently tested had not yet emerged (e.g. HICs, Learning Offices, Aid Workers Network, Field Level Learning. Even knowledge management was still a very marginal topic). Incidentally, this shows the appropriateness of following an inductive, grounded methodology that allowed me to take on board new development rather than being stuck with research questions modelled on paradigms doomed to a rapid obsolescence in the rapidly changing relief sphere.

251

7.4

SHELTER AND SETTLEMENT: A CONTINGENCY OR AN EXEMPLAR?

The choice of the shelter and settlement as the sector for analysis of this research derives from the fact that I engaged in this process of research as a shelter and settlement specialist that was interested in exploring issues of communicating best practices through the Internet. However, the evolution of this thesis forced me to take a wider outlook on the humanitarian system. I became engaged in reviewing the humanitarian sector (and its current transformations) more widely. Equally, I have looked at communication broadly, to see what processes or realisations could be of help in improving the communication for the shelter and settlement sector. In this process the shelter and settlement sector proved to be powerful exemplar of challenges for humanitarian aid. The sector exemplifies the challenge of operating via a piecemeal approach, and through limited, short-term projects, without engaging with the multiplicity of dimensions of habitat and the broader stakeholder environment. The fact that shelter and settlement is a lumpy resource, and that it has a character of permanency that other sectors do not have, makes more evident and urgent a reflection on questions that are also to be answered in the context of the current redefinition of humanitarianisms (e.g. the debate between relief and development). In other words, shelter and settlement might not be the typical relief item, but exactly because of this - it has the power to make more visible challenges for the humanitarian response as a whole. I would argue that many ideas that I discussed in this thesis with a reference to shelter and settlement are echoed more widely in the literature and in the current discussions on the humanitarian sector as a whole. Also, looking at the practices in place for communication, it emerged that only a few communication initiatives strictly focused on the shelter sector. In many cases, actually, I had to register the lack of communication processes in the shelter and settlement sector that are used instead in other sectors (e.g. very limited use of communities of practice). In general the communication initiatives that have been looked at in this thesis are employed in relation with many sectors. In several occasions it has been pointed out that interdisciplinary communication can actually respond to some challenges in intervention (e.g. coordination and connectedness) and also enable cross fertilisation of narrowly defined sectors (see chapter 6 Aid Workers Network). That is why a thesis that chose to start an investigation from shelter and settlement as a contingency can in reality talk to many other sectors, as an exemplar of challenges in communication for humanitarian action.

252

7.4.1 Communication as a strategic and actionable tool for improving practices

From what has been discussed so far, the research findings suggest the need to shift from a vague view of communication (assumed generally as good but in reality little realised and actionable) to a view of communication as a practical response to the need of improving practices in the shelter and settlement field and in the humanitarian sector as a whole. This is a critical finding of this research. .

The value of communication is not assumed: it is grounded

The value of this thesis is to demonstrate from a perspective grounded in practice that communication can make a difference. By not adopting a hypothesis driven approach that assumed a theory of communication (and hence critically assumed the value of communication), the research serves to show that communication is not a merely academic pursuit, but is relevant for practice. This is an important shift. It should serve to substitute the prevalent lip-service approach to communication with one grounded in and oriented to practice to argue why and where communication is important. It is an articulated and operational approach that found communication in the quest for improving practice.
Communication as lip service Communication as an assumption (is happening, is good) Lack of scrutiny of the idea of communication and its linkages with better practices ... is translated in the lack of actionable frameworks for communication and a commitment to realize it in practice Communication as grounded Identification of key challenges for the improvement of interventions into practice Analysis of the possible role of communication, and of existing practices (in the shelter and settlement sector or in other sectors) Creation of a framework for communication, articulating its role and providing options for its realisation.

This is a point that I am keen to stress. This thesis is not the work of a communication expert, trying to export and sell its theories in a new arena. It is the work of a practitioner, interested in shelter and settlement sector, who noticed that many challenges in improving practices reside in improving communication. Not only lessons learned, and how-to procedures need to be exchanged, but, all in all, key areas of the new humanitarianism (the need for accountability, the need to enact right based approaches) constitute, inter alia, communication challenges.

Focusing on frameworks for communication in relief

In the course of this research, by closely scrutinising communication, in different forms, I realised that communication is generally assumed to be a good thing. However, the concept of communication often remains too bland and vague: it is rarely operationalised and understood as a priority, strategic and actionable area for improving practices. In addition, there is no clarity about what does communication entail, and what type of communication people are talking about. This research shows, for example, that exchanges of information that can be used for the shelter and settlement sector and in the humanitarian sector as a whole,
253

are varied, and involve different processes and mechanisms. It also shows that communication as seen by the IT expert is not the same as seen from the policy maker. Underlying this research there was the need for a reconceptualisation to allow communication and information for humanitarian relief need to break specialist boxes, and create a shared space for the circulation of knowledge and information. Also, an explicit recognition of a variety of communication processes in the humanitarian sector is still lacking. The lack of comprehensive and inclusive frameworks for communication is also reflected in the fact that communication, as an overarching function, is still lacking in organisation. As I pointed out in section 4.4, organizations might have IT departments, media departments, M&E departments, even learning departments. But a strategy connecting them is often absent. The problem that I have often encountered in the process of this research was a lack of understanding of communication as a broad framework. Conceptualising information plainly and clearly as information for operation and information from learning (learning from people, learning from project) was a key step to single out processes that are not often clearly recognised. I could then show how they fit in a broader communication strategy. During the course of this research I have presented such conceptualisations to various groups of practitioners (in particular M&E and communication practitioners), to test their relevance for their work in organisations. The feedback received has always been very encouraging. Simple frameworks that could respond to the need for a more encompassing view of communication have been perceived as innovative and fertile. Finally, I wish to point out that the process of reconceptualisation of communication elected grounded theory as the methodological perspective. Grounded theory (see 1.3) was used as a way to discover and articulate communication, in a context where comprehensive approaches are lacking, but new practices are emerging. As the founders of the grounded theory put it, The sociologists with theoretical generation as his major aim need not know the concrete situation better than the people involved in it (an impossible task anyway). His job and his training are to do what these laymen cannot do generate general categories and their properties for general and specific situations and problems. These can provide theoretical guides to the laymans action [] [Glaser & Strauss 1968: 30]. This quote should help summing up what was one of the main endeavours of the research: to provide a new, simple, actionable framework that could articulate challenges in improving practices through improved communication. But, also, to do so through conceptualisations that could also serve the laymen. It was therefore necessary to:

Ground communication in the practice, rather than use it as a convenient buzzword;

254

Articulate communication so that it could be operationalised, looking at existing practices in the shelter and settlement sector but also in other comparable sectors.

7.4.2 Can communication make a difference?

This research explored options through which communication could assist the shelter and settlement sector. It has shown that there is no need to reinvent the wheel as long as communication is in place. However, there is indeed a need to invent different vehicles for the delivery of assistance altogether. Communication is also key to enable sound reflection and advocacy for new approaches. This research showed that communication itself serves a variety of, sometimes complementary, sometimes contrasting, aims (e.g. accountability, learning, coordination, advocacy) and that communication is realised through a range of processes. Potential for improved communication has been highlighted through a review of development in information and knowledge management. I have re-packaged them - to suit emerging trends in relief - as information for operations and information from learning (i.e. learning from projects and learning from people). And I connected them with a reflection on the role of different actors and new media in the communication process. The intertwining of critical analysis of existing practice, reflection on potential areas for improvement, and the direct involvement in knowledge management initiatives has given this research its distinctive flavour: I have attempted to take a strong orientation towards identifying actionable areas where information and communication are influencing, or could influence, practice to improve shelter and settlement interventions and for the humanitarian sector as a whole. The need of think communication throughout is what emerged from this research. Communication is pervasive. It can influence both the implementation and the reconceptualisation of shelter and settlement interventions - and of the humanitarian action as a whole. It needs to be part of the core competencies of individuals and structured in organisations. The realisation of the potential for better communication requires better strategic thinking about communication. An operational framework for communication should evolve to guide strategic choices. It is important not to treat communication as an undifferentiated buzzword. Communication needs to be understood as encompassing a range of modalities, processes and tools. At the organisational level, communication needs to be managed. It requires resources, spaces, capacities. And critically, it requires the integral involvement of people. However the management of communication also requires flexibility. Many communication processes happen in grey areas and are relatively informal. Strategies for communication should also include the enablement of processes and the creation of communication spaces that allow for information flows outside the conventional organisational

255

lines and boundaries. Barriers for communication, herewith including the existence of a culture of blame, should be reduced. Communication needs to be valued as a core competency at the individual level. This research pointed out many examples of communication that require personal involvement, rather than simply the establishment of procedures. Structures, capacity and resources for the management of information and communication need to be built into organisations. But they also need to be built into the inter-organisational space to realise better operational exchange and learning across the sector. This requirement risks being over looked by organisations which seek to protect their own information capital. The choice of the media is of key importance in realising communication strategies. This research has highlighted in particular the role of new information technologies in creating new opportunities for communication and in supporting such processes. Several instances where good communication is already making a difference to the shelter and settlement sector have been identified by this research. The creation of standards and guidelines for the sector, and the possibility of coordinating shelter and settlement interventions with other sectors through HIC-type initiatives are the examples that stand out. The enactment of some of the processes envisaged in this research cannot be taken for granted. Resistance to the use of communication for learning and change can occur; organisational culture might not be ready to deal with communication as an arena for strategic action. Furthermore, the interaction between communication and power - acknowledged in passim in several instances in this thesis might limit the space for communication initiatives undermining consolidated roles, or trying to transform the power relations amongst different actors. Communication for coordination might clash with attempts to control the use of information. Communication for learning can present challenges when learning disproves current attitudes and approaches and consolidated expertises. There are positive signs that humanitarian organisations are becoming sensitive to ideas of communication and learning. For example, a reconceptualisation of the modes in which organisations reflect on theory and on practice is underway. This is demonstrated by the fact that several organisations (including Christian Aid and Oxfam) are merging monitoring, learning and policy functions providing a short-circuit that should support the capture, rehabilitation and dissemination of practice as discussed in this thesis. These changes are driven by the need to augment capitalisation on experience and capacity to learn across the organisation, and both endeavours have important communication aspects. It remains to be seen to what extent these merged units will in fact support more effective circulation of information, or will still centralise it.
256

Finally, this research has examined the shelter and settlement sector at a time when not only is the sector attempting to reformulate itself but the very idea of humanitarianism and its founding principles are being debated and redefined [UNICEF 1999, ODI 2003, Fuchs 1995, Levine 1997, Minear and Weis 1995, Slim 1997b]. A new humanitarianism - substituting neutrality with a more overtly political take on action - is emerging [Warner 1999]. Issues of accountability, learning, advocacy, coordination are in the limelight. These are all aspects that as discussed - have important consequences in the ways assistance is delivered. But they also shape the direction and the space for communication and, with this, the possibility of change and innovation. The potential for communication lies chiefly in short-circuiting principles and practice. Communication is the lifeblood of humanitarian intervention, where it is now positioned.

257

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE

This appendix presents the questionnaire that was sent to subscribers of the Forced Migration list and to selected RedR members to gather their perspective on communication for humanitarian work and research. More information on the questionnaire can be found in the section detailing the methodology of this thesis.

Figure 1. A screenshot of the web version of the questionnaire.

258

QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
0. How did you find out about this questionnaire?

Please specify

ABOUT YOU: PERSONAL PROFILE 1. Age

Please specify

2. Sex:

Male Female

3. What organisation(s) have you been working with in the last 2 years? (tick all that apply)

NGOs UN / International Org. Government Research / academic Private firm Media Other If other, please specify:

4. Which of the following describes you best? (tick all that apply)

Relief worker in the field Desk officer / HQ staff Consultant Researcher Other If other, please specify:

5. Number of months spent in the field in the last 2 years

6. Have you been specifically involved in relief projects for shelter / settlement provision?

Yes No

7. Your field of expertise is: (tick all that apply)

Architecture / Planning Engineering Other If other, please specify:

259

YOUR INFORMATION NEEDS AND RESOURCES 8. Do you feel that you are able to keep up to date with developments (e.g. technical developments, new research) in your sector? Yes (please proceed to question 10) Yes, but not sufficiently No

9. If you feel that you are not able to keep sufficiently up to date, what are the reasons? (tick all that apply)

appropriate sources don't exist methods of keeping up to date should be improved limited access to existing information sources lack of time other priorities other If other, please specify:

10. How important are the following for keeping up to date and getting the information you need for your activity in relief?
Please assign a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "Not important" and 5 represents "Very important".

1 Academic books / journals Technical manuals Newsletter, magazines Informal talks with colleagues Membership of professional associations / networks Conferences /workshops / meetings Induction / training / courses Libraries, information centres Access to electronic information (e.g. Internet / intranet) Participation in e-mail discussion lists Practical experience

11. When you need information (relating to your interests in the humanitarian field), how are you more likely to get it?
Please assign a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "Not important" and 5 represents "Very important".

1 Direct contact: meeting people Phone E-mail (personal e-mail / discussion lists) Web (Internet / intranet) Post (e.g. request print material) Information centres (e.g. libraries) Personal archives (e.g. your personal library / notes)

260

TRAINING 12. What academic qualifications do you have? (tick all that apply) First degree Master degree Doctorate Professional qualifications other If other, please specify: 13. Have you attended any specific training courses on humanitarian aid to date? no no, but I am planning to . yes (please proceed to question 15)

If you attended a course please proceed to question 15 14. If you have not yet attended any training course, what are the reasons? (tick all that apply) did not feel the need to do so not perceived as useful lack of time cost no course available in accessible locations could not find a course satisfying my interests do not know what is on offer other If "other", please specify:

If you did not attend a course please proceed to question 17 15. Please specify the type of course you attended (tick all that apply) courses organised by your organisation degrees/masters/short courses by Academic institutions training organised by UN / NGOs training organised by professional organisations (e.g. RedR) Other If "other", please specify:

16. Which were the most important factors for attending the course? (tick all that apply)

personal interest in the subject increase opportunity to get a job / obtain a promotion sent by my organisation networking: meet people, get new contacts Other If "other", please specify:

261

JOURNALS / NEWSLETTERS 17. Which of the following journals/newsletters are you familiar with? Did you access them on the Internet? Please tick as appropriate: Not familiar Disasters (ODI) Humanitarian Exchange (Humanitarian Practice Network) RedR Newsletter Refugees (UNHCR) Journal of Refugee Studies (Oxford University Press) Forced Migration Review (Refugee Studies Centre - Oxford) Humanitarian Affairs Review (ECHO - VOICE) Development & Practice (Oxfam) ICVA Talk Back (ICVA) Refugee Survey Quarterly (UNHCR - OUP) Journal of Humanitarian Assistance 18. Please indicate any other specific newsletter / journal that you find useful (List titles and, if known, publishers.) Familiar (printed version only) Familiar (accessed on the Internet)

262

YOUR USE OF INTERNET / ELECTRONIC RESOURCES 19. How often do you use the Internet? (tick all that apply) almost daily 2-3 times / week weekly irregularly (less than once a week) never

20. Is any of the following limiting your use of the Internet? (tick all that apply)

Lack of computer Lack of personal Internet access Lack of time Cost of access / connection I don't find the Internet useful/it's a waste of time I don't feel comfortable using computers No, I simply don't need to connect more often Other (please specify) If "other", please specify:

If you do not use the Internet please proceed to question 29 21. How long have you been using the Internet for: (please choose one) . less than 6 months less then 1 year 1-3 years . 3 years +

22. What kind of humanitarian information are you most likely to seek on-line?
Please assign a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "never use" and 5 represents "use often".

1 2 3 4 5 News from media sites

(e.g. CNN, BBC, online newspapers)

News reports from humanitarian organisations

(e.g.: ReliefWeb, Alertnet)

General country reports and overview (including early warning)

(e.g. IDP survey, World Refugee Survey, IRIN, Fews, Crisisweb)

Regional coordination initiatives

(e.g. Kosovo Humanitarian Community Information Centre (HCIC), Azerweb, HAIC Somalia)

Legislation / Official statistical data

(e.g. UNHCR statistics)

Job offers
(e.g. reliefweb humanitarian vacancies)

General information about organisations

(e.g. by visiting their home page)

Catalogues of on line libraries / on line bookstores On-line manuals, guidelines, reports

(e.g. Sphere Project, OFDA manual, State of the world refugees)

Academic papers and articles Specific documents / reports of international organisation and NGOs

263

23. When searching for information on the Internet: (tick all that apply)

I do not know where to start from! I use search engines (e.g.: Google / Yahoo) I go through web portals / gateways (e.g. Reliefweb, Eldis, ID21) I search specific organisation databases (e.g. UNDP, World Bank) I use my bookmarks I visit sites recommended to me by colleagues I visit sites that I have found cited in articles I visit sites suggested in e-mail discussion lists I follow links from site to site other If other, please specify:

24. Which e-mail newsletter / mailing lists do you feel are most important for your work? Please assign a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "do not know it" and 5 represents "use often". 1 Forced Migration Mailing list (Refugee Studies Centre) RedR mailing list The Humanitarian Times Relefweb mailing list 25. Please indicate any other specific mailing list that you find useful 2 3 4 5

264

26. In general, how does the Internet score for information on humanitarian aid according to the following Please assign a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "very badly" and 5 represents "very well". 1 2 3 4 5 Quantity of information Quality of information Reliability / Authority (can you trust the information you get from the Internet?) Coverage (can you find information on a variety of themes / geographical areas or is coverage limited?) Easiness of use (do you believe that the Internet software - e.g. e-mail programmes, browser - is easy to use?) Searchability (is it easy to find the information you want?) Cost effectiveness (Do you think that the cost to use the Internet is adequate given the services and information provided?) Timeliness (are sites and news updated as much as you would like?) Utility (in general, would you rate Internet as a useful tool for your activity in the humanitarian field?) 27. Please add any additional comments about the web, information online, access to the Internet, or anything else you feel like sharing in the section below:

28. If you use the Internet while working abroad, your use (compared with your home location) is: (please choose one)

greater approx. the same slightly reduced considerably reduced I do not use Internet at all while abroad

265

INFORMATION SHARING 29. How do you share information (related to your work in the humanitarian field)? What channels are you more likely to use to communicate experiences and ideas about relief activities? (tick all that apply) Informal conversation, chats Reporting (e.g. Situation reports / reports to donors, consultancy reports) Meetings in your organisation Inter-organisation meetings / Active participation in formal networks Presentations to training sessions / conferences Exchange of information e-mail discussion lists / correspondence Writing articles / books

30. What methods of keeping up to date could be improved? (tick all that apply)

Newsletters Short courses Seminars Books Websites

31. And how could they be improved? Please write your suggestions

If you have any final comment related to the topics dealt in the questionnaire, please add them here

266

YOUR CONTACT DETAILS (optional) If you wish to be informed about the results of the questionnaire and the progresses of the research please add here your contact details. Of course all the information you submitted will remain confidential Name: Surname: E-mail address:

Thank you for filling in this questionnaire. Your help is really appreciated! Now press the submit button and wait for an acknowledgement of your reply (this should take a few seconds) If you filled in the questionnaire in your mail programme, please ensure that you are online when submitting.
Submit Survey

267

Q1. AGE

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Respondents are spread out across the different age groups. The majority (40%) are in their 20s. The second largest group (30%) consist of people in their 40s.

RedR members:
The bulk of the respondents 42% are in their 30s, followed by 31% in their 40s and 20% in their 50s. Only a small minority (2%) is in their 20s.

Age
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Please specify % FM % RedR 3% 0%

20s 40% 2%

30s 17% 42%

40s 30% 31%

50s 10% 20%

Respondents from RedR are older than respondents from forced migration. This is probably due to the fact that the criteria for selection of respondents from RedR required strong professional skills and field experience in the areas of shelter and construction, therefore excluding younger and less experienced people.

268

Q2. SEX

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

There is a slight prevalence of female respondents (57%)

RedR members:
The very low number of female respondents reflects the strong gender imbalance in the RedR register itself, where women account only for a small minority.

Sex (FM)

Sex (RedR)

7%

43% 57%

M F

M F

93%

There are striking differences in the composition of the two groups. Forced migration members are evenly spread across sex (with a slight dominance of female respondents). RedR respondents are mostly male, reflecting a bias already existing in the register itself: fieldwork as a construction/shelter expert is still mainly a mans job.

269

Q3. ORGANISATION
Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

They are mainly (63%) engaged in academic / research institutions. 30% work in NGOs and 20% in UN/international organisations

RedR members:
Most respondents (64%) are working in NGOs, followed by those 43% working in private firms. A relevant percentage of respondents (34%) works in UN/international organisation and in government related organisations (27%). It is important to notice that RedR is about selecting people with adequate skills and providing them with freelance opportunities to do relief work, so members may be: currently working in the field in relief operations working in non-relief jobs and available for deployment at short notice in crisis areas working in non-relief jobs and not currently available for deployment.

Organisation
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

NGOs % FM % RedR 30% 64%

UN / International Org. 20% 34%

Government 13% 27%

Research / academic 63% 9%

Private firm 3% 43%

Media 0% 2%

Other 7% 7%

The division by organisation shows the different character of the two samples, one being more prevalently academic and one more practical. The forced migration list shows a prevalence of members engaged in research/academic organisations, whilst RedR members work mostly in NGOs and private firms. Some respondents provided further details about their organisations in Q4: Forced migration: Consultancy group - Jesuit Refugee service - Lawrence University - Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Mexico - University of Amsterdam - Workers' Union RedR: consultants DFID - London Underground - Mdicos del Mundo (Doctors of the World- Spain) - Oxfam - Partner in a private firm - Red Cross student - Swiss disaster relief - UMCOR

270

Q4. OCCUPATION
Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Whatever organisation they work in, most respondents (66%) are engaged as researchers, only a minority work as desk officers (14%), relief workers (10%) or consultants (14%)

RedR members:
Most respondents describe themselves as relief workers in the field (53%) or consultants (43%). Only a minority works in the HQ (16%) or as researchers (7%)

Occupation
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Relief worker in the field % FM % RedR 10% 53%

Desk officer / HQ staff 14% 16%

Consultant 14% 42%

Researcher 66% 7%

Other 17% 18%

This question confirms the split amongst RedR and FM: the first is prevalently field oriented, while the second is prevalently research oriented. More detailed replies about the current occupation include: Forced Migration: Doctor - Editor and Researcher - Program Assistant, dealing with agencies - information specialist librarian Student - UNHCR (refugee law) RedR: Architecture, Logistics, Administration - Relief Worker - Government Employee - consultant - logistics manager - Project Manager - Project manger (working from home) - Public Health Engineer - Retired Chartered Engineer, available periodically - Water and Sanitation expert

271

Q5. TIME SPENT IN THE FIELD

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

30 % of the respondents did not go into the field at all, but half of the respondents spent at least 3 months abroad and 18% have been permanently in the field in the last two years.

RedR members:
20 % of the respondents did not go into the field at all, but half of the respondents spent at least 6 months abroad and 31% have been permanently in the field in the last two years.

Time spent in the field

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Forced migration 12+ months 6+ to 12 months 3+ to 6 months less than 3 months None 18% 14% 18% 18% 32% Redr 31% 16% 20% 13% 20%

Both FM and RedR members spent a considerable amount of time in the field. The length of stay varied, with a considerable percentage of people permanently in the field (18% Fm, 31% RedR). As a whole, RedR members went more in the field, and for longer periods. Only 30% of FM and 20% of RedR respondents did not spend any time at all in the field.

272

Q8. KEEPING UP TO DATE

Do you feel that you are able to keep up to date with developments (e.g. technical developments, new research) in your sector?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Only 13% of respondents feel that they cannot keep up to date, but 50% recognise that they cannot keep up to date sufficiently.

RedR members:
26% of respondents feel that they cannot keep up to date, and 49% recognise that they cannot keep up to date sufficiently.

Keeping up to date
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Yes % FM % RedR 37% 26%

Yes, but not sufficiently 50% 49%

No 13% 26%

Most respondents feel that they can keep up to date, even if not sufficiently (87% FM 73% RedR). However, in both cases half of the respondents are somewhat dissatisfied with their capacity of keeping up to date. As a whole, FM respondents are slightly more inclined to feel well up to date than RedR members.

273

Q9. REASONS FOR NOT KEEPING UP TO DATE

If you feel that you are not able to keep sufficiently up to date, what are the reasons?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Lack of time (79%) is by far the main reason for not keeping adequately up to date. This is followed by a perceived limited access to existing information (42%).

RedR members:
Lack of time (64%) is the main reason for not keeping adequately up to date, coupled with the presence of other priorities (49%)

Reasons for not keeping up to date

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

appropriate sources don't exist % FM % RedR 11% 9%

methods should be improved 21% 24%

limited access to existing information 42% 46%

lack of time 79% 64%

other priorities 32% 49%

other 5% 3%

In both cases time is the main constraint when trying to keep up to date (mentioned by 79% of FM and 64% of RedR members) and this is, especially in the case of RedR members, often coupled with the presence of other priorities (49% RedR and 32% FM). The limitations in keeping up to date, therefore, do not appear to be linked to the lack of appropriate sources of information (mentioned only by 11% of FM and 9% of RedR members), but rather by the limited access to them (42% FM and 46% RedR). Also, a significant similar percentage of respondents (21 % FM and 24%) indicate that information sources could be improved. Other explanations included: FM: changes in my field occur so often and so rapidly RedR: lack of commitment from agency - not knowing where to look / sources of getting information not known - training not available at a sufficient level.

274

Q10. METHODS FOR KEEPING UP TO DATE

How important are the following for keeping up to date and getting the information you need for your activity in relief?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

FM subscribers attribute importance to a wide range of options for keeping up to date. Most options were selected with a high score (> 4) by more then 50 % respondents, with the exception of training. Technical manuals, professional associations and libraries follow training as the lowest rated choices (but are still considered useful by a relevant percentage of respondents). Internet is a favourite, with a striking 70% relating strongly on it (however, mailing lists received a lower score). Academic books and journals and newsletters are another good bet (academic sources are more strongly perceived as useful than journals), while technical manuals do not score so well. Informal talks and, to a slightly less extent, conferences are also perceived very useful (>4) by most respondents. Finally practical experience is perceived as strongly useful (>5) by most respondents.

RedR members:
Only a few options were selected with a high score (> 4) by most respondents: technical manuals, informal talks, training, Internet and practical experience. Amongst them practical experience is strongly perceived as the favourite way of keeping up to date. Some options score particularly badly, with more than 60% of respondents assigning a mediocre/low score (<3): academic journals, newsletters, professional associations, libraries, e-mail lists.

Methods for keeping up to date (RedR members)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Acadamic Technical Newsletter / books/journ manuals mags als 13% 33% 18% 16% 20% 4 3 2 1 7% 9% 24% 31% 29% 7% 24% 38% 20% 11% Prof. Conference association s s 16% 24% 24% 20% 16% 7% 18% 27% 27% 21%

Informal talks 7% 7% 23% 25% 39%

Training 5% 7% 25% 27% 36%

Libraries 9% 27% 36% 20% 9%

Internet 9% 11% 20% 36% 24%

Ediscussions 36% 36% 20% 7% 2%

Practical exp 4% 0% 4% 20% 71%

1 2 3 4 5 5

5: used often - 1 never/rarely

275

Methods for keeping up to date (FM subscribers)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Acadamic Technical Newsletter / books/journ manuals mags als 3% 13% 17% 23% 43% 4 3 2 1 27% 30% 23% 13% 7% 0% 3% 27% 47% 23% Prof. Conference association s s 3% 20% 20% 33% 23% 7% 3% 20% 50% 20%

Informal talks 4% 7% 21% 32% 36%

Training 10% 17% 30% 27% 17%

Libraries 3% 10% 30% 27% 30%

Internet 3% 0% 7% 20% 70%

Ediscussions 7% 10% 23% 27% 33%

Practical exp 3% 3% 23% 17% 53%

1 2 3 4 5 5

5: used often - 1 never/rarely

FM and RedR respondents have very different ways of keeping up to date. FM respondents relay on a larger number of different sources, while RedR members are much more selective. Also, the methods favoured by the two groups vary. They both agree to different degrees - on the usefulness of informal talks, practical experience and Internet. However favourites of one group might be strongly disliked by the other. This is the case of training manuals and training (that score very well amongst RedR members and badly amongst FM) and of academic books / journals, newsletters (that viceversa are favourites of FM members and disliked by RedR members). Libraries received a low score in both groups, and e-discussion scored much less favourably than the Internet as a whole in both groups.

276

Q11. INFORMATION SOURCES

When you need information (relating to your interests in the humanitarian field), how are you more likely to get it?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The choice of methods for keeping up to date confirms the usefulness of the Internet for FM subscribers, with nearly 90% of people attributing a high score (>4) to the web and the e-mail. Meeting people and use of personal archives and libraries are good second choices. Interestingly, for a research community, libraries score much worse than the Internet and are valued less than personal archives. Phone and post definitely appear out of fashion with more than 70% respondents attributing a mediocre value (<3) to them

RedR members:
RedR members relate strongly on meeting people for gathering information: 76% attribute a high score (>4) to this option. E-mail and personal archives are the second best bet, while the web scorse comparatively lower than the e-mail. Phone is also an option favoured (>4) by nearly 50% of the respondents. Post and libraries appeal only to a marginal percentage of respondents.
Information sources (RedR members)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 Meeting people 4% 11% 9% 29% 47% 3 2 1 Phone 7% 23% 25% 23% 23% E-mail 9% 13% 22% 33% 22% Web 11% 24% 24% 18% 22% Post 18% 39% 32% 9% 2% Libraries 24% 33% 24% 16% 2% Personal Archives 9% 11% 29% 38% 13%

5: used often - 1 never/rarely

Information sources (FM subscribers)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 Meeting people 7% 13% 30% 13% 37% 3 2 1 Phone 27% 20% 23% 23% 7% E-mail 0% 3% 10% 37% 50% Web 0% 3% 10% 37% 50% Post 11% 39% 32% 11% 7% Libraries 7% 17% 31% 24% 21% Personal Archives 0% 13% 37% 23% 27%

5: used often - 1 never/rarely

FM subscribers appear to strongly favour the Internet, in all its forms (web and e-mail), followed by document archives (personal and libraries). Meeting people also scores quite high. Comparatively, RedR members seem somewhat more oriented to personal contacts (meeting people, but also using phone and e-mail). Web and other forms of archives received lower scores.
277

Q12. ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS

What academic qualifications do you have?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Most FM subscribers have postgraduate level qualifications (63%) and 20% have also got a doctorate.

RedR members:
Most RedR members have postgraduate level qualifications (56%) and 58% has also got professional qualifications.

Academic qualifications
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

First degree Forced migration RedR 43% 60%

Master degree 63% 56%

Doctorate 20% 2%

Professional qualifications 3% 58%

Other (please specify) 3% 4%

FM subscribers tend to have higher academic qualifications (20 have a PhD), while RedR members gained a higher number of professional qualifications (58%)

278

Q13. TRAINING COURSES

Have you attended any specific training courses on humanitarian aid to date?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Most FM subscribers (59%) never joined a training course.

RedR members:
The overwhelming majority of RedR members (87%) participated in a training course, and a further 7% are planning to go to one.

Attandance to training courses

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

no FM RedR 59% 7%

no, but I am planning to 7% 7%

yes 35% 87%

As already indicated by Q10. Methods for keeping up to date, RedR members are more inclined to take part in training courses. 87% already attended one. 59% of FM subscribers that never took part in any training course.

279

Q14. REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING TRAINING

If you have not yet attended any training course, what are the reasons?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The main reason for not attending a course is the cost (48%) followed by lack of time (33%) and accessibility (29%). Only 10% could not find a course satisfying their interests. Factors denoting a certain indifference to training courses (e.g. not feeling the need to do attending courses, not perceiving training courses as useful, not knowing what is on offer) have been mentioned by approx. 20% of the sample each.

RedR members:
The main reason for not attending a course is lack of time (67%) followed by access problems (e.g. no course available in accessible locations - 50%). Cost is mentioned by 33% of respondents. Factors denoting indifference to training (i.e., not feeling the need to attend the course or not knowing what is on offer) are mentioned by 19% of respondents. Interestingly no one mentioned not perceived as useful or not finding a course satisfying my interest as a reason, and this could indicate that the range of courses offered and publicised by RedR are perceived as valuable and relevant by RedR members.
Reason for not attending training courses
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

did not feel not perceived the need to lack of time as useful do so FM RedR 19% 17% 19% 0% 33% 67%

cost 48% 33%

no course could not find do not know available in a course what is on accessible satisfying my offer 29% 50% 10% 0% 19% 17%

other 10% 0%

Lack of time, cost and lack of courses in accessible locations are the main reasons for not attending a course for both groups. Lack of time if by far the most important factor for RedR members (67%), while cost is the decisive one for Forced migration members (48%). As it has already resulted from Q10. Methods for keeping up to date, RedR members tend to believe that training is more important than FM subscribers do. In fact no RedR member mentioned not perceived as useful as a reason for not attending one (against a 19% of FM members). The training needs of RedR members seems to be better catered for: no one mentioned could not find a course satisfying my interests as a reason (against 10% of FM). However, courses might be little accessible, location wise (this is the case for 50% of RedR respondents). Finally, relevant factors for both groups with similar percentages are not feeling the need to attend a course (19% FM, 17 % RedR) and not knowing what is on offer (19% FM, 17% RedR) FM: most courses are aimed at relief to refugees, we don't consider relief as a separate issue.. should be hand in hand with development...also even when there is a course being held locally i.e. Forced migration by Oxford Uni in Bangkok, it is far too expensive

280

Q15. COURSES ATTENDED

Please specify the type of course you attended

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The training needs of FM subscribers are mostly catered for by the academia (67%). Training organised by UN/NGOs accounts for 33% and training from professional organisation and internal training account for 25% each.

RedR members:
The training needs of RedR members are mostly catered for by the professional organisation, herewith included RedR itself (83%). Training organised by UN/NGOs accounts for 55%, internal training for 38%. Academic institutions score lowest with 33%.

Type of course attended

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

courses organised by your organisation FM RedR 25% 38%

degrees/masters/shor training organised by training organised by t courses by professional UN / NGOs Academic institutions organisations (e.g. 67% 33% 33% 55% 25% 83%

Other (Please specify) 0% 3%

For their training FM subscribers and RedR members rely on different types of institutions. FM members privilege the Academy (67%) while RedR members tend to attend training organised by professional institutions (herewith included RedR itself). Intrestingly, what scored highest in one group scored lowest in the other.

281

Q16. REASONS FOR ATTENDING A COURSE

Which were the most important factors for attending the course?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

69% of respondents mentioned personal interest in the subject as the reason for attending the course. Networking and getting new contacts is also an important factor (54%). Increase job opportunities/get a promotion have been mentioned by 23% of the respondents, while only 15% has been sent to a course by their organisation.

RedR members:
A striking 100% of respondents mentioned personal interest in the subject as the reason for attending the course. Networking and getting new contacts are definitely a big expectation for those who join a training course (68%). Increase job opportunities/get a promotion have been mentioned by 35% of the respondents, while only 15% has been sent by their organisation.

Reason for attending training courses

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

personal interest in the subject FM RedR 69% 100%

increase opportunity to get a job / obtain a promotion 23% 35%

sent by my organisation 15% 15%

networking: meet people, get new contacts 54% 68%

Other 0% 8%

Both groups show similar patterns. The very high number of respondents that have a personal interest in the subject seems to indicate that training courses are well attended by people with a strong interest in the subject. Courses are not only about the curriculum, but also about contacts: looking for people that share similar interests is definitely a push for attending the course (54% FM members and 68% RedR). The stick (sent by my organisation) and carrot approach (increase job opportunities/get a promotion) comparatively push less people to attend training. Attending a course seems to be mainly a matter a personal choice: to develop personal interests. The appeal of training for improving job and make contacts is slightly higher for RedR members than FM subscribers. RedR: gain new skills and refresh old skills
282

Q17. JOURNALS / NEWSLETTERS

Which of the following journals/newsletters are you familiar with? Did you access them on the Internet?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Nearly all subscribers (>90%) of FM list read Refugees (by UNHCR), the Journal of Refugee Studies and Forced Migration Review. There is then a big gap with the group that came second (i.e. journals read by 40%-50% of respondents), which includes Disasters, Refugee Studies Quarterly, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs The other journals are read by at least 25% of respondents, the exception being RedR newsletter (16%). A relevant percentage of the respondents acess journals on the Internet. In some cases (Humanitarian Exchange, ICVA, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs) this is the main method of circulation.

RedR members:
Not surprisingly, the RedR newsletter if known to nearly all respondents, mainly in its printed form. Only another journal is read by more than half the sample (55%): Refugees by UNHCR. Development in Practice follows with 33%. All the other journals are read by less than 20% of the respondents. Journals are more often accessed in print rather than on the Internet.

Journals (RedR)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Disasters not familiar Familiar (internet) Familiar (text) 80% 8% 13% Humanitari an exchange 78% 10% 13% Familiar (text) Humanitari Developm an affairs ent in review practice 83% 5% 13% 66.70% 9.50% 23.80% Refugee Journal of studies humanitari quarterly an 97.50% 2.50% 0.00% not familiar 82.50% 7.50% 10.00%

RedR 4% 22% 73%

Refugees 45% 10% 45%

Journal ref studies 83% 2% 14%

FMR 86% 5% 10%

ICVA 95.00% 2.50% 2.50%

Familiar (internet)

283

Journals (FM)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Disasters not familiar Familiar (internet) Familiar (text) 56% 7% 37% Humanitari an exchange 68.00% 28.00% 4.00% Familiar (text) Humanitari Developm an affairs ent in review practice 67% 11% 22% 74.10% 3.70% 22.20% Refugee Journal of studies humanitari quarterly an 48.30% 24.10% 27.60% not familiar 58.60% 24.10% 17.20%

RedR 85% 8% 8%

Refugees 10% 38% 52%

Journal ref studies 10% 37% 53%

FMR 7% 40% 53%

ICVA 75.00% 21.40% 3.60%

Familiar (internet)

There are striking differences in what RedR and FM respondents read. The journal that is most popular amongst RedR members is the one less known by FM members. Both groups read Refugee by UNHCR (90% FM and 55% RedR) and Development in Practice (26% FM, 34% RedR). The low importance attributed by RedR members to journals (Q10. Methods for keeping up to date) is confirmed by the smaller number of journals known, compared with FM subscribers. Finally, access to the electronic version of such journals is still not an option for RedR members. They rely on the printed version much more than FM members do.

284

Q18. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Please indicate any other specific newsletter / journal that you find useful (List titles and, if known, publishers.)

FM:
Burma Courier email newsletter Discusses political, social, economic and refugee/internally displaced, migrants issues, regarding Burma. I really benefit by the information supplied by List International Migration Review (Center for Migration Studies, U.S.) International Organisation for Migration Local newsletters produced by refugee and exile groups on the Thai-Burma border PAHO Disasters Refuge (Centre for Refugee Studies, Canada) US DOS reports, AI reports, UK INS reports

RedR:
Eine Welt - Swiss SDC journal Guardian newspaper Ins & Outs - MSF publication Intermediate Technology New Internationalist Red cross UMCOR letters Mercy Corps int. publish Revival- published by university Of York Post war reconstruction unit. Source water and sanitation weekly - joint endeavour of the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) and the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. UN Wire

285

Q19. INTERNET: FREQUENCY OF USE

How often do you use the Internet?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Most respondents (80%) use the Internet daily or at least 2-3 times a week (17%)

RedR members:
Most respondents (64%) use the Internet daily or at least 2-3 times a week (13%)

Internet: frequency of use

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

almost daily FM RedR 80% 64%

2-3 times / week 17% 13%

weekly 0% 4%

irregularly (less than once a week) 3% 16%

never 0% 2%

Respondents of both groups use very frequently the Internet (daily or at least 2-3 times a week). Irregular/rare access (18%) is more pronounced amongst RedR members.

286

Q20. INTERNET: LIMITATIONS IN USE

Is any of the following limiting your use of the Internet?

Note: this was a multiple-choice question, so the total may be 100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The main factor in limiting access to the Internet is lack of time (39%). Practical limitations of the Internet do not appear to be decisive factors. Cost and lack of personal connection are both mentioned by 13% of respondents. On the other side, 30% do not perceive any limitation in their use of the Internet. They would not stay on line longer then they currently do.

RedR members:
The main factor in limiting access to the Internet is lack of time (54%). Amongst the practical limitations of the Internet, cost is the most decisive factor (mentioned by 26% of respondents). On the other side, 31% do not perceive any limitation in their use of the Internet. They would not stay on line longer then they currently do.

Internet: limitations in use

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Lack of computer FM RedR 0% 6%

Lack of personal internet 13% 6%

Lack of time 39% 54%

Cost of access / connection 13% 26%

I don't find the internet useful/it's a 0% 6%

I don't feel No, I simply comfortable don't need to using connect 0% 0% 30% 31%

Other (please specify) 13% 14%

Lack of time is the main limitation in the use of Internet, especially for RedR members (54%). Practical limitations, in particular the cost of connection, are more relevant for RedR members. A similar percentage of FM and RedR respondents (approx. 30%) are quite content with their access to the Internet and do not feel the need to use it more. FM: Poor access due to poor IT provider Speed of connection - spend too long downloading fancy graphics RedR: availability of local servers; bad connection bad server and phone lines being in developing country no electricity understanding the potential of the Internet working in the field it is not always easy to have access to Internet

287

Q21. INTERNET: LENGTH OF USE

How long have you been using the Internet?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

FM subscribers have been using the Internet for at least 1-3 years. Most respondents (87%) have been using the Internet for more than three years.

RedR members:
RedR members have been using the Internet for at least 1-3 years. Most respondents (71%) have been using the Internet for more than three years.

Internet: length of use

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

less than 6 months FM RedR 0% 0%

less then 1 year 0% 0%

1-3 years 13% 29%

3 years + 87% 71%

Internet is not a novelty for the respondents: all respondents have been using the Internet for more than 1 year. RedR members tend to be slightly younger users of the Internet: 87% of FM used it for more than 3 years, compared with 71% RedR.

288

Q22. WEBSITES VISITED

What kind of humanitarian information are you most likely to seek on-line?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The categories that received the best scores are academic papers and specific documents / reports, with more than two thirds of the respondents assigning a score >4. Media sites, humanitarian news reports and country reports also scored quite high, with more than half respondents rating them >4 (and approx. one third rating them >5). Legislation / statistical sites and homepages of organisations and online manuals scores similar percentages >4, however a lower percentage of respondents consider them very useful (respectively 24% and 21%) Regional information, job offers and on line catalogues received the lowest scores (less than one third of the respondents rated then with a score >4). Sites that are never visited by a relevant percentage of respondents are regional information (21%), job offers (31%), on-line catalogues (19%), on-line manuals (21%).

RedR members:
The categories that received the best scores are media sites, humanitarian news reports, job offers and organisation sites with approx. half respondents rating them >4 (and approx. 1/4 rating them >5). On-line manuals (35% respondents rating it >4), country reports (26% >4) and specific documents / reports (25% >4) follow. Regional information, legislation and statistics, and academic papers received the lowest scores (less than 10% of the respondents rated them with a score >4). Sites that are never visited by a relevant percentage of respondents are regional information (52%), legislation (51%); on-line catalogues (44%), academic papers (43%), country reports (29%); on line manuals (28%), specific documents and reports (27%) job offers (25%),

Types of websites visited (RedR members)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Media sites 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 16% 30% 7% 25% 23% 3 2 Humanitari an news reports 9% 13% 22% 29% 27% Specific Academic documents, papers reports 43% 36% 14% 2% 5% 27% 29% 20% 15% 10%

Country reports 29% 21% 24% 24% 2%

Regional info 52% 26% 14% 7% 0%

Legistlation, Job offers stats 51% 33% 7% 7% 2% 25% 9% 11% 23% 32%

Org home 11% 18% 23% 25% 23%

Online catalogues 44% 24% 20% 10% 2%

Online manuals 28% 19% 19% 26% 9%

1 5: visited often - 1 never

289

Types of websites visited (FM subscribers)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Media sites 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 10% 10% 23% 23% 33% 3 2 Humanitari an news reports 7% 14% 17% 28% 35% Specific Academic documents, papers reports 7% 3% 14% 28% 48% 0% 3% 14% 41% 41%

Country reports 3% 14% 17% 35% 31%

Regional info 21% 31% 17% 24% 7%

Legistlation, Job offers stats 7% 24% 21% 24% 24% 31% 17% 21% 21% 10%

Org home 0% 14% 31% 35% 21%

Online catalogues 19% 22% 26% 19% 15%

Online manuals 21% 17% 10% 35% 17%

1 5: visited often - 1 never

FM subscribers appear to visit a wider range of websites, and more often than RedR members. All the categories presented in the questionnaire received a high score (>4) from at least 30% of the respondents. In the case of RedR, this is true only for media sites, humanitarian news report, job offer, homepages of organisations, online manuals. Also, some categories are of no interest to a relevant percentage of RedR members: regional information (52%), legislation (51%); on-line catalogues (44%), academic papers (43%) are never accessed. The percentages of sites never accessed by FM subscribers are much lower. RedR members tend to look for news (media sites and humanitarian news report but are not so interested in country/regional reports) and refer to the homepages of organisations. As a whole, Fm subscribers are more report / paper oriented and they tend to seek on line mainly academic papers and specific documents and reports. Those same categories score the lowest amongst RedR members (in accordance with the findings of Q10. Methods for keeping up to date). The exception are news, which came good second for FM members, and score equally well amongst RedR respondents.

290

Q23. SEARCH STRATEGIES

When searching for information on the Internet

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Ways of searching for information are varied. The favourite option is to use search engines (93%), followed by searching specific databases (79%) and visiting sites suggested in discussion lists (79%). The least popular option is to use web portals / gateways (31%). Other modalities for searching information own bookmarks, recommendations from colleagues, citations in articles, links are a choice for 50-60% of the respondents.

RedR members:
Ways of searching for information are varied. The favourite option is to use search engines (93%), followed by searching specific databases (71%) and follow links (67%). The least popular option is to use sites recommended in discussion list (13%) which can be explained with the low access to discussion list (see Q9. Reasons for not keeping up to date). Also the use of bookmarks scores relatively low (36%). Other modalities for searching information use of web portals / gateways, recommendations from colleagues, citations in articles, links are a choice for 50-60% of the respondents.

Search stretegies
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

I do not know where to Forced migration Redr 0% 0%

Search engines (e.g.: 93% 93%

Web Organisati Own Recomme Suggeste Sites cited portals / on bookmark ndations d in ein articles gateways databases s from discussion 31% 53% 79% 71% 62% 36% 55% 58% 62% 49% 79% 13%

Follow links 66% 67%

No one is lost on the Internet (0% do not know where to go). Most users have different options for searching information, the favourite one being the use of search engines. Favourites also include searching organisation databases and links. RedR members tend to rely more than FM subscribers on web portals (51% and 31%), while FM subscribers use more often their own bookmarks (62% - 36%) and sites suggested in discussion lists (79% - 13%). In general the answers seems to show, as far as search techniques are concerned, a mix of search facilities and of suggestions from colleagues or other external sources.

291

Q24. MAILING LISTS / NEWLSETTERS

Which e-mail newsletters / mailing lists do you feel are most important for your work?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Not surprisingly FM subscribers are familiar with the FM mailing list that is perceived very useful (>4) by more than 80% respondents. No other list in the sample presented to respondents scored quite as well. Only 15% consider the ReliefWeb mailing list as very useful (>4).

RedR members:
The RedR list is used often (>4) by more than 50% respondents. No other list in the sample presented to respondents scored quite as well. Only 23% consider the ReliefWeb mailing list as very useful (>4). The Humanitarian Times was useful to 13% of the respondents.
Mailing lists (FM)
100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 Forced migration 6.90% 0.00% 10.30% 27.60% 55.20% RedR 90.50% 4.80% 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 5: use often - 1 never use Humanitarian times 65.20% 8.70% 13.00% 13.00% 0.00% Reliefweb 60.90% 4.30% 21.70% 8.70% 4.30%

Mailing lists (RedR)

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 Forced migration 85.00% 10.00% 2.50% 2.50% 0.00% RedR 14.00% 9.30% 25.60% 18.60% 32.60% 5: use often - 1 never use Humanitarian times 73.20% 12.20% 2.40% 4.90% 7.30% Reliefweb 44.20% 18.60% 14.00% 4.70% 18.60%

FM migration users appear very satisfied with the FM migration mailing list. RedR subscribers (which it is worth noticing - did not receive their questionnaire through a RedR mailing list, but through personal mailing) are familiar with the RedR list, but are less enthusiastic about its usefulness. The ReliefWeb list is rated moderately useful (>3) by a similar percentage of people across the two groups (approx. 35%) but RedR members are then more apt at assigning a higher score to it. The humanitarian times, now apparently discontinued was also known and used, even if by a small percentage of respondents.

292

Q25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Please indicate any other specific e-mail newsletter / mailing lists that you find useful

FM:
One on yahoo groups.com called <MEMP_list> CCRLIST@York.edu Center for Immigration Studies CODEP mailing Forced migration newsletter especially when Ms Mason runs that. hr-professionals Kabassa Newsletter from Africa. No time for others. Probe International International Rivers Network (development induced displacement) South African Immigration List Note Various Human rights lists IRIN bulletins

RedR
Cambridge Data Systems http://www.cambridgedata.com/listings/ DevNetJobs at http://www.devnetjobs IRC Source - watsan e-mailing newsletter IRIN None known Revival - as above Stratfor.com UMCOR Mailing list Water Sources

293

Q26. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERNET

In general, how does the Internet score for information on humanitarian aid according to the following?

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The characteristics of the Internet that received the best scores are quantity of information and utility, with approx. half of the respondents assigning the best score (=5) and 90% a score >4. Quality of information, easiness of use and cost effectiveness are also scored quite high, with more than 60% of users assigning a high score (>4). Amongst those, easiness of use was rated as very good (=5) by 38% of the respondents, cost effectiveness by 31%, while quality is considered very good only by a relatively lower percentage, 17%. Reliability and coverage of information, timeliness and searchability received the lowest scores (less than half of the respondents rated them with a score >4). However, none of those qualities received high percentages of low scores (<2). Respondents rather tended to rate them with a neutral score (=3) in most cases (40-50%).

RedR members:
The characteristics of the Internet that received the best scores are quantity of information, easiness of use, cost effectiveness and utility: more than half of the respondents assigned a score >4 to them. However, only a minority assigned as score =5, particularly in the case of quality (12%). Quality of information and coverage received a high score (>4) from approx. one third of the respondents, but only 7% and 2% respectively rated them as very good. Reliability timeliness and searchability received the lowest scores (only a fifth the respondents rated then with a score >4). The qualities that received the higher percentage of low scores (<2), with more than one fifth of respondents being dissatisfied with them are: searchability (46%), timeliness (43%), quality (35%), reliability (23%).

Internet (FM)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 0% 0% 10% 38% 52% Quality 3% 3% 31% 45% 17% Reliability 3% 0% 55% 35% 7% Coverage 3% 7% 41% 35% 14% Easiness of use 0% 0% 28% 35% 38% Searchability 0% 14% 41% 35% 10% Cost effectiveness 3% 3% 24% 38% 31% Timeliness 7% 14% 38% 28% 14% Utility 0% 0% 11% 43% 46%

5: very good - 1 very poor

294

Internet (RedR)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 2% 12% 29% 45% 12% Quality 2% 33% 31% 26% 7% Reliability 2% 21% 55% 19% 2% Coverage 2% 12% 50% 33% 2% Easiness of use 5% 14% 21% 38% 21% Searchability 5% 41% 33% 19% 2% Cost effectiveness 5% 14% 29% 26% 26% Timeliness 10% 33% 38% 17% 2% Utility 2% 14% 19% 41% 24%

5: very good - 1 very poor

When rating the characteristics of the Internet, both groups follow a similar pattern (e.g. the same characteristics tend to score highest / medium / lowest in both groups). The winning qualities of the Internet (those that had the highest percentage of >4 scores) seem to be quantity of information, easiness of use, cost effectiveness, utility. On the contrary, reliability, coverage, searchability, timeliness have room for improvement. Quality appears a controversial issue: 62% of FM members rate it quite high, but only 33% RedR members assign a score >4 to it, and 35% rate it as poor (>2). FM members tend to be far more enthusiastic about the Internet, assigning comparatively higher scores, as it appears from the following. quantity received a score of 5 from 52% of FM subscribers and 12% of RedR members quality received a score >4 from 62% of FM subscribers and 33% of RedR members reliability received a score >4 from 42% of FM subscribers and 21% of RedR members searchability received a score >4 from 45% of FM subscribers and 21% of RedR members timeliness received a score >4 from 42% of FM subscribers and 19% of RedR members utility received a score >4 from 89% of FM subscribers and 65% of RedR members Conversely, RedR users attributed a higher proportion of low scores: Searchability received a score <2 from 45% of RedR members and 14% of Fm subscribers Timeliness received a score <2 from 43% of RedR members and 17% of Fm subscribers Quality received a score <2 from 35% of RedR members and 6% of Fm subscribers []

295

In general, how does the Internet score for information on humanitarian aid according to the following?
Quality of information
100% 100%

Quantity of Information

90% 80%

90% 80%

70% 60%

70% 60%

50%

50%

40% 30%

40% 30%

20% 10%

20% 10%

0%

1 3% 2%

2 3% 33%

3 31% 31% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 45% 26%

5 17% 7% % Redr

0%

1 0% 2%

2 0% 12%

3 10% 29% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 38% 45%

5 52% 12%

% Forced migration % Redr

% Forced migration

Reliability of information
100%
100%

Coverage of information

90%

90% 80%

80% 70%

70%

60%

60% 50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

30% 20%

20%

10%

10% 0%

0%

1 3% 2%

2 0% 21%

3 55% 55% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 35% 19%

5 7% 2%
% Forced migration % Redr

1 3% 2%

2 7% 12%

3 41% 50% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 35% 33%

5 14% 2%

% Forced migration % Redr

Easiness of use
100%
100%

Searchability

90%

90%

80% 70%

80%

70%

60%

60%

50%

50% 40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

0%

1 0% 5%

2 0% 14%

3 28% 21% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 35% 38%

5 38% 21%
% Forced migration % Redr

1 0% 5%

2 14% 41%

3 41% 33% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 35% 19%

5 10% 2%

% Forced migration % Redr

Cost effectiveness
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
60% 100%

Timeliness

90%

80%

70%

50%
50%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

40%

30%

20%

1 % Forced migration % Redr 3% 5%

2 3% 14%

3 24% 29% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 38% 26%

5 31% 26%

10%

0%

1 7% 10%

2 14% 33%

3 38% 38%

4 28% 17%

5 14% 2%

% Forced migration % Redr

1= very poor - 5=very good

Utility
100%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 7% 10%

2 14% 33%

3 38% 38% 1= very poor - 5=very good

4 28% 17%

5 14% 2%

% Forced migration % Redr

296

Q27. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE WEB

Please add any additional comments about the web, information online, access to the Internet, or anything else you feel like sharing in the section below:

FM
I believe the Internet offers great promise in helping to address the problems faced by many NGOs and individuals that do not have access to information resources locally. The future of the Internet is not buying and selling, but sharing and accessing content. Sometimes no time to read all that is written. Too much information, although it would be great to read it all, there is just no time. So I quickly scan contents which pertain to migrant workers.

RedR:

After a day in the field am reluctant to then have to find an Internet cafe in the evening to search, if finally get access to Internet, then spend most of time writing to family and friends! Can be difficult to find exactly what you need. If you are working in the field and have only satellite phones for communications, the costs make it impossible to use the Internet for searching for information. E-mail is probably the most important factor when in the field and in combination with radio very cheap but satcom is easy to use. Surfing the web for information is too expensive and too slow when using either satcom or radio I think it is a useful and easy way of getting information for relief, mainly because sometimes you are in such remote areas that any system is . However it is not always easy to get the information you want or it is not . Can not imagine how it is possible that we can have lived so many years without tool In most of the web is quite difficult to find more technical information. Since I've spent the last nine years in the field without access to the Internet I am only just beginning to discover its potential. You can have all the information in the world but organisations may not be clear about your assignment tasks

297

Q28. USE OF THE INTERNET WHILE ABROAD

If you use the Internet while working abroad, your use (compared with your home location) is

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

The use of the Internet while abroad is, for FM subscribers considerably reduced (54%), and 18% of respondents do not use the Internet at all while abroad. Only 4% appear to use it more, while for approx. one quarter of respondents the use is the same (14%) or only slightly reduced (11%).

RedR members:
The use of the Internet while abroad is, for RedR members considerably reduced (42%), and 18% of respondents do not use the Internet at all while abroad. However, 16% appear to use it more. For approx. one quarter of respondents the use is the same (13%) or only slightly reduced (11%).

Use of internet while abroad

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

greater % FM % RedR 4% 16%

approx. the same 14% 13%

slightly reduced 11% 11%

considerably reduced 54% 42%

I do not use internet at all while abroad 18% 18%

Being abroad limits the access to the Internet and can completely curtail it (as it happens in 18% of the cases in both groups). However this affects to a less extent RedR members than FM subscribers: 42% of RedR member affirm that the use is considerably reduced, compared with 54% of FM. For 16% of RedR members the use appear, on the contrary, to increase (4% FM subscribers). The percentage of users that experience no variation or only slight reduction is similar in both cases (approx. one forth of the respondents).

298

Q29. INFORMATION SHARING

How do you share information (related to your work in the humanitarian field)? What channels are you more likely to use to communicate experiences and ideas about relief activities?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

All methods presented in the questionnaire have been selected by at least 40% of the respondents. The favourite method for sharing information are informal talks and chats with colleagues (75%), followed by meetings in the organisation (64%), exchange of information via e-mail (61%) and writing articles /books (61%).

Presentations are mentioned by 54% of respondents. Reporting (43%) and Inter-organisation meetings (39%) are the least favoured options.

RedR members:
By large, the most used method for sharing information are informal talks and chats with colleagues (89%), followed by reporting (73%), meetings in your organisation (58%), Inter-organisation meetings (42%), presentations (36%). Exchange of information via e-mail (2%) and writing articles /books (61%) are the least favoured options.

Information sharing
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Informal Reporting (e.g. conversation, Situation chats reports / % FM % RedR 75% 89% 43% 73%

Meetings in your organisation 64% 58%

Interorganisation meetings / 39% 42%

Presentations Exchange of Writing articles to training information e/ books sessions / mail 54% 36% 61% 22% 61% 13%

FM subscribers appear to employ a wider range of tools for sharing information than RedR members. All methods presented in the questionnaire have been selected by at least 40% of FM respondents. This is not the case with RedR members. For both groups, informal talks and chats are the main way of sharing information. Meetings in own organisation (and, to a less extent, inter-organisation meetings) are also a vehicle for information sharing, mentioned by most respondents in both groups.

299

The main differences amongst the two groups concerns written communication. RedR member use reports to share information to a larger extent, while FM subscribers make more use of articles published in journals/ books. Also, FM members use far more the e-mail for information exchange than RedR members and are comparatively more active in presenting to conferences / training. In general there is a preference for methods of communication that promote the information exchange with colleagues. Informal talks and organisation meetings score better than inter-organisation meetings. When it comes to written communication, RedR and FM members use different channels. FM subscribers rely to a great extent on academic publications, which are unlikely to be read by RedR members (see: Q10. Methods for keeping up to date; Q22. Websites visited).

300

Q30. METHODS TO IMPROVE

What methods of keeping up to date could be improved?

Note: this was a multiple choice question, so the total may be >100%

Subscribers of the Forced Migration mailing list:

Most FM subscribers (71%) believe that web sites could be improved, followed by short courses (48%) and seminars (43%)

RedR members:
Most RedR members (67%) believe that web sites could be improved, followed by newsletters (56%) and short courses (54%)

Information sharing
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Newsletters % FM % RedR 38% 56%

Short courses 48% 54%

Seminars 43% 46%

Books 24% 36%

Websites 71% 67%

Amongst the methods for information sharing the one which seems to have more potential for improvement are web sites.

Forced migration:
Books often take too long to be produced, Website could be update more often. More material from fieldworkers, placed in an analytic context By choosing countries randomly and organising seminars and workshops Short courses and seminars: Could be made more accessible to local NGOs and more inclusive of refugees and migrants (cheaper, on location, with translators) Short, specific, and not too costly courses, which are well advertised Web sites are not always designed in user friendly ways. Their structure and navigation could be improved to facilitate browsing. Also, organisations do not always take sufficient advantage of their web sites by keeping them up to date and by making available enough information One central website would help save time spent on research
301

I work for a NGO which is seeking funding for its projects. It would be great if more info on funding accessibility be posted. And info on contacts I have wondered why on-line conferences or seminars have not developed more. Simply a forum to post articles, and receive comments would be a start. Especially as so much changes so quickly in the field, by the time someone publishes, their information may not be as urgent as it once was, and conversely, the people who need the information cannot always get it until it is too late, or less urgent.

RedR members:
A better categorisation of information reducing the useless duplication of similar data I am not aware of all publications. More promotion and more links would be useful. Books are often too big and bulky and late. Short courses are fine but cost and tie of travel to the course Thus more Internet mailing lists on specific issues rather than general "refugee" theme, i.e. specify exactly what it is you are looking for in the newsletter and then the publisher can send you only what you want out of that weeks/months issue. Use more electronic mailing Co-operation between NGOs and University institutions General information exists in abundance and it is a matter of sifting through it to get the information that you need. Specific information about an area e.g. hydrogeology, meteorology and dynamic situations e.g. refugee movements, food security may be more useful but is less available. In a remote location, such as Papua New Guinea where I am based, it is not easy to access the various ways of keeping up to date. It is not easy to know how to obtain newsletters, books, etc or to get information on short courses, in an area where written information is hard to come by, and where the pressures of work to not allow much time for browsing / research. Including more technical information such as: water and sanitation in urban areas, or related to natural disaster relief. Increase frequency, availability, reduce costs I would like to know what is available on the Web. It should be accessible and free, if possible. The newsletters are meant to be newsletters not books. keep them brief with bullet points. Less theory, more practical hints Newsletters are already generally good, but information could be improved. Websites should have an executive summary Newsletters: made mandatory for all employees short courses: better training, used more often seminars: organised in a more efficient way, serve often as retreat rather than work. Books: mailing lists with new editions widely distributed, books available in organisations (library). Websites: increase quantity and quality of information posted, rather than being secretive Reduce the overall number and employ professional field experienced writers. Seminars: being very practical and with exchanges of personal experiences. Books: reprinting old editions which are quite difficult to find, updating some of with the changes observed during the last years, translating some of them local languages to make them useful to more people. Websites: making easier and links, updating. Short courses and seminars could be on up mto dat [?] practice and for experienced people. Books kept up to date with regular revisions. Websites that are faster in operation. There is the need of a better co-ordination between NGO and the need of having a continuous exchange of information. Such information require also a recollection in a readable and synthetic form that can be used as a valid experience for future related activities in the field.
302

FINAL COMMENTS
FM:
On Question 10: I want to add the many sites that are operated by various groups themselves; like for me, Somalinet (and at least 30) is highly valuable for getting the most accurate information. On question 29, [check what] this is not only a way to share information, but also an important way to get feedback; another way of data. I find E-mail and Internet highly valuable to get papers and discussed by those interested; Somali, academics, and. Also, from those who give me their responses I build my own list' to send additional writings. For example, I have published fieldwork reports as well as a chapter of my thesis on Somalinet, and working paper on UNHCR-EPAU's site

RedR:
As a relief worker of 9 years standing almost exclusively in the field in usually remote locations I have had very little exposure to any method of sharing info other than by relatively informal routes. May be if agencies at head office were sensitised regarding what is available and that was communicated thru the country office to field offices field workers would also be able to contribute to your research. The fact that in my experience zilch gets thru to the front line means either I should take a little more time back in communication zones or agencies should get their shit together I have found this questionnaire very interesting and hope it will be useful improving some issues. However I think it is quite easy to get used to have the improvements so we dont realize most of the people in the world dont have to them. Sometimes we complain for things we shouldnt ; we should look . I think the questionnaire is responding to a genuine need, to have easy access to information in the Relief and Humanitarian field. I would like to know more about how to get work in this field but haven't known where to start so the ideas suggested above will be very useful to me. Information is one of the most important tools we are able to offer many of our partners. However it is frequently found that some academics blind quality information with jargon and un-translatable phrases and words (look how clever I am crap) which often results in valuable knowledge being ignored or at best circulated around a very small and insular group. Relief work is easy to find, development is next to impossible The aid industry is so fluid with personnel (they come and go on short 3 month missions) so a lot of the incountry experience leaves and then have to start again with getting them into the local political situation. Need to identify opportunities to capture the knowledge built up during persons in country mission (and general experience) this could be done through thematic workshops/group meetings right from the start of an intervention. We had experience of doing this in the waste sector of Kosovo and great to meet other people over a beer, people you would not normally meet since we all stick to our own org.!!! The Internet is fine if you are in a western country and the servers are quick, in developing countries it can be a long laborious task just to get your hotmail or yahoo messages through, never mind searching for information on web sites that are full of advertisements and graphics. You list numerous sources of info on the net but do not give their web page addresses which would be very valuable. All the best

303

REFERENCES

Notes on the references found on the Internet: Web pages (in html format). In most cases web pages had a publication date: this is the date specified the reference. No date signals that the publication date was missing. Additionally, an accessed date is always recorded for web pages, as an indication that they might evolve and differ from the version that was consulted for the research. Other references (articles, reports, books retrieved from the Internet, in *.doc or *.pdf format, for example). To distinguish such documents from ordinary web pages, the date of access has not been indicated. In the case of journal articles, the reference date refers to the date of issue of the printed version. The reference date of the other reports and publications is the date which appears on their cover notes. The availability of these documents on line was last verified in December 2003. In cases where the URL (address) of the documents was too long or deemed prone to changes, the URL of an alternate page leading to the document was specified. This is the case, for example, of documents retrieved from searches on Internet databases: the referenced URL is the URL of the main search page. Some other documents can be accessed through an html abstract page presenting a summary of the document and a link to it.

AccountAbility. 2003. Assurance standard AA1000. London: AccountAbility. Available at: http://www.accountability.org.uk/aa1000/default.asp?pageid=52. ACFOA. 2002. Civil Military Interaction. Australia: ACFOA. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/0/7e57e9a993ea9c7cc1256ce90032ff79/$FILE/acfoa-cimicsep02.dochttp://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/0/7e57e9a993ea9c7cc1256ce90032ff79/$FILE/acfoa-cimic-sep02.doc. ActionAid. 2000. ActionAid Accountability Learning and Planning System (ALPS). Available at: http://www.actionaid.org.br/p/pdf/alps2000.pdf. Adiin Yaansah, Eddie, and Barbara Harrell-Bond. 1995. Regulating the nongovernmental sector: the dilemma. Refugee Participation Network 19. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/rpn191.htm. Adinolfi, Costanza. 2002. Why Europe's focus is now on "forgotten crisis". Humanitarian Affairs Review : 24-27. Available at: http://www.humanitarian-review.org/upload/pdf/AdinolfiEnglishFINAL.pdf. AidWorld. 2003a. "AidWorld: context. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.aidworld.org/hi/context.html. AidWorld. 2003b. "AidWorld - taking the world-wide-web worldwide. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.aidworld.org/. AIMS. 2003. Shelter and housing. Available at: http://www.aims.org.pk/wdww/documents/wdww_international_ngos_sectoral.pdf. 2003. Who is doing what where. Afghanistan: HIC. Available at: http://www.aims.org.pk/wdww/documents/wdww_reports/wdww_report4.pdf. Alertnet. "Alertnet. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.alertnet.org/. Allee, Verna. 1997. The knowledge evolution. Expanding organisational intelligence. Newton: Butterworth - Heinemann. Allee, Verna. no date. Knowledge Networks and Communities of Practice. OD Practitioner 32, no. 4. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html. ALNAP. 2001a. Annual Review - Humanitarian Action: Learning from Evaluation. London: ALNAP. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/AR2001/contents.html.

304

 2001b. The utility of strategic management tools within the aid community. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/meetings/pdfs/oct01_annexes.pdf. 2002. ALNAP Annual Review 2002. Humanitarian action: improving performance through improved learning. London : ODI. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/AR2002/. ALNAP. 2003. Annual Review 2003. Improving Monitoring to Enhance Accountability and Leaning. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/alnapbooks.html#aar2003. Anderson, Peter. 1999. Future Opportunities for Communication for Disaster Reduction at Community Level pp 185-187 in Ingleton, Jon ed. Natural Disaster Management. Leicester: Tudor Rose. Anderson, M, Howarth, and Overholt. 1992. A framework for People Oriented Planning in refugee situations taking account of women, men and children. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/GHARkit/files/PEOPLE_ORIENTED_PLANNING.PDF. Anderson, Mary. 1995. "The Lessons and Challenges of Participation in Disasters. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.usaid.gov/about/part_devel/docs/prtform15.html. Anderson, Mary B. 1999a. Do not harm: how aid can support pace - or war. London: Lynne Rienner. Anderson, Mary B. 1999b. "The Implications of Do No Harm for Donors and Aid Agency Headquarters. Web page [accessed May 2000]. Available at: http://www.cdainc.com/lcpp-policy.htm. Anderson, Mary B., and Peter J. Woodrow. 1989. Rising from ashes: development strategies in time of disaster. Boulder: Westview Press and UNESCO. Andrews, Lacey. 2003. When is a refugee not a refugee? Flexible social categories and host/refugee relations in Guinea. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3ea55d0a4&page=research. Annenberg Washington Program. No date. International Disaster Communications Project. The Tampere Declaration on Disaster Communications. Northweston University. Apthorpe, Raymond. 2000. Kosovo humanitarian programme evaluations: towards synthesis, meta-analysis and sixteen propositions for discussion. London: ALNAP. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/alnap/pdfs/kosovo.pdf. Argyris, Chris. 1990. Overcoming Organizational Defences. Pearson Allyn & Bacon. 1999. On organisational learning. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Association of Research Libraries. 2000. "Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing. Web page [accessed March 2001]. Available at: http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html. Atmar, Mohammed Haneef. 2001. The politicisation of humanitarian aid and its consequences for Afghanistan. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 19: 2-3. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Aysan, Yasemin and Oliver, Paul 1987. Housing and Culture after Earthquakes, A guide for future policy making on housing in seismic areas. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic. Aysan, Yasemin, and Ian Davis. 1992. Disaster and small dwelling: perspectives for the UN IDNDR. London: James & James Science Publishers. Babister, Lizzie, Jon Fowler, Ilan Kelman, Lucy Morris, Giles Newell, and Antonella Vitale. 2002. "The proportion of aid spent on the shelter sector: a scoping paper on the availability of data. Cambridge: Shelterproject.org. Available at: http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/shelter/downld/peer1rep/spend_06_02.pdf. Bakewell, Oliver. 1999. Returning refugees or migrating villagers? Voluntary repatriation programmes in Africa reconsidered. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/u015.htm. 2001. Refugee aid and protection in rural Africa: working in parallel or cross-purposes?. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3ae6a0c64&page=research. Barakat, Sultan. 2003. Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster. Humanitarian Practice Network Number 43. London: ODI. Barakat, Sultan, and Sue Ellis. 1995. Towards improved Shelter and Environment for Refugees and Displaced Persons within the postYugoslav Countries. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/poli/prdu/worksh/luton.pdf. Barnard, Geoff. 2003. Knowledge Sharing in Development Agencies: knowledge fortress of knowledge pool? EADI/IMWG conference. 305

Barry, Jane, and Anna Jefferys. 2002. A bridge too far: aid agencies and the military in humanitarian response. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/pdfbin/networkpaper037.pdf. Baskerville, Richard. 1999. Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2, no. 19. Available at: http://cis.gsu.edu/~rbaskerv/CAIS_2_19/index.html. Baumann, Pari. 1999. Information and Power: Implications for Process Monitoring - A Review of the Literature. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/abswp120.html. Beeby, Mick, and Charles Booth. 2000. Networks and inter-organisational learning: a critical review. The Learning Organisation 7, no. 2: 7588. Bellanet. 2003. "Bellanet - Supporting communications in the development community. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://home.bellanet.org/. Bellanet International Secretariat. 2000. Knowledge Management for Development Organisations - Brighton Workshop. Available at: http://www.bellanet.org/km/km2/index.cfm?fuseaction=brighton_report. Benini, Aldo, Charles Conley, Reto Haeni, Shawn Messick, Lawrence Moulton, and Matz Wennerstrm. 2001. Navigating Post-Conflict Environments - Humanitarian Information Management - Decision Support for Mine Action. VVAF - Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Available at: http://vvaf.policy.net/humanitarian/immap_report_1/immap_text.pdf. Benjamin, Judy A., and Khadija Fancy. 1998. The Gender Dimensions of Internal Displacement: Concept Paper and Annotated Bibliography. New York: UNICEF - Office of Emergency Programmes. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/IDPgen.pdf. Bennet, Jon. 1995. Meeting needs: NGO co-ordination in practice. London: Earthscan. Berg, Elliot. 2000. Why aren't organisations better learners? Learning in Development Co-operation. Jerker Carlsson, and Lennart Wohlgemuth Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Bergman, Michael K. 2001. The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value. The Journal of Electronic Publishing. Available at: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html or http://www.brightplanet.com/technology/deepweb.asp. Berners-Lee, Tim. no date. "The World Wide Web: A very short personal history. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory.html. Birkeland, Nina M. 2003. The Global IDP Project is pleased to present the inter-agency Camp Management Project. Forced Migration Review, no. 18. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR18/fmr18gidp.pdf. Black, Richard. 1994. Environmental change in refugee-affected areas of the third world: the role of policy and research. Disasters. no. 18. Black, Richard. 1998a. Putting refugees in camps. Forced Migration Review, no. 2. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR02/fmr201.pdf. Black, Richard. 1998b. Refugee camps not really reconsidered: a reply to Crisp and Jacobsen. Forced Migration Review, no. 3: 31. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR03/fmr307.pdf. Black, Richard. 2001. Environmental refugees: myth or reality?. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3ae6a0c64&page=research. 2003. Ethical Codes in Humanitarian Emergencies: from practice to research? Disasters 27, no. 2. Available at: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/issue.asp?ref=0361-3666&vid=27&iid=2&oc. Blaikie, Piers, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis, and Ben Wisner. 1994. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. London: Reutledge. Bo-yuen Ngai, Phyllis, and Peter H. Koehn. 2002. Organizational communication in refugee camp situations. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3e19a9d44&page=research. Boano, Camillo. 2003. Change the terms of reference: a new comprehensive approach to housing development. Boisot, Max. 1998. Knowledge Assets - Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. Oxford: OUP. Bonard, Paul. 1999. Modes of action used by humanitarian players : criteria for operational complementarity. Geneva: ICRC. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/5cacfdf48ca698b641256242003b3295/7e80114e396f2c674125673d00310bf8?OpenDocument. BOND. 1999. "The What and Why of Advocacy. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: 306

http://www.bond.org.uk/advocacy/guidwhatandwhy.html. BOND. 2003. Learning from work. An opportunity missed or taken? London: Bond. Available at: http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/briefs/learningfromwork.pdf. Borton, John. 1993. Recent changes in the international relief system. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/unbp.pdf. Borton, John. 2003. Transcript of the talk. Does Evidence Matter? ODI Lunchtime Meeting Series London: ODI. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Meetings/Presentation_13/Borton.html. Bouchet-Saulnier, Franoise. 2001. The theory and practice of 'rebellious humanitarianism'. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 19: 15-17. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Bowles, Edith. 1998. From village to camp: refugee camp life in transition on the Thailand-Burma Border. Forced Migration Review, no. 2. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/fmr023.htm. Boyden, Jo, Tania Kaiser, and Simon Springett. 2002. Global Study on Beneficiary Consultation and Participation. The case of Sri Lanka. London: ALNAP. Available at: http://www.intrac.org/Intrac/docs/INTRACSriLankaStudy.pdf. Bradbury, Mark. 2000. Normalising the Crisis in Africa. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a043.htm. Brandt, Donald P. 1997. Relief as development, but development as relief? Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a024.htm. Bridges.org. 2001(?). Spanning the digital divide. Understanding and tackling the issues. Available at: http://www.bridges.org. Brook, Georgina. 2002. " The Path to Professionalism: A Study of the Importance of Learning for the Humanitarian Worker. Master thesis. Oxford Brookes University. Unpublished. Broughton, Bernard. 2001. How logframe approaches could facilitate the planning and management of humanitarian operations. PARC. Available at: http://www.parcinfo.org/documents/e-learningDownloads/PARC_Web_Document_2.doc. Brown, Maggie, and Joao Neves. 2000. Lessons learned through the piloting of humanitarian charter and minimum standards. London: Sphere Project. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/pilot/lessons.htm. Brunnstrom, Cecilia. 2000. Report on the Relationship between Timorese and International NGOs in East Timor. Oxford: Oxfam. Unpublished. Bryman, Alan. 2000. Unobtrusive Methods in Social Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Buchanan, David, and David Boddy. 1992. The expertise of the change agent. New York, London: Prentice Hall. Buchanan-Smith, Margie. 2002. War and Accountability - Interrelationships between humanitarian organizations. Forum. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList499/F1A883E0FA8EF391C1256B9800490565. 2003. How the Sphere Project Came into Being: A Case Study of Policy-making in the Humanitarian Aid Sector and the Relative Influence of Research. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Abstracts/RAPID_WP_215.htm. Bugnion, Christian. 2002. Analysis of "quality management" tools in the Humanitarian Sector and their application by the NGOs. ECHO partners' annual conference ECHO: Brussels. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/2002_partners/quality.pdf. Burnett, Gary, Michelle M. Kazmer, Michael H. Dickey, and Katherine M. Chudoba. 2003. Inscription and interpretation of text: a cultural hermeneutic examination of virtual community. Information Research 9, no. 1. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/91/paper162.html. Buscher, Dale. 2003. Case identification: challenged posed by urban refugees. Annual tripartite consultations on resettlement Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/++wwBmemYR6KwwwwnwwwwwwwhFqA72ZR0gRfZNtFqrpGdBnqBAFqA72ZR0gRfZNcFq3elGGnxwDaGnh1tn n5elX3qmxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf. Butler, Jim, Fiona Scott, and John Edwards. 2000. Evaluating organisational change: the role of learning paradigms. Working Knowledge: Productive learning at work. University of Technology. Byrne, Bridget, and Sally Baden. 1995. Gender, Emergencies and Humanitarian Assistance: Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Available at: http://www.ids.ac.uk/bridge/Reports/re33c.pdf. 307

Callamard, Agnes. 2001. Why humanitarian accountability? Contextual and operational factors. Geneva: HAP. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/pdf/Why%20hum.%20acc%20II.,%20Revised%20CG%20-%20clean%20II.pdf. Calvi-Parisetti, Piero, and Donato Kiniger-Passigli. 2003. Coordination in Crisis Response and Reconstruction. Geneva: ILO. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/LibDocsByKey/LGEL-5MT9TR/$FILE/ilo-crisis.pdf?OpenElement. Captier, Christian. 2003. What does humanitarian protection really mean? Humanitarian Exchange, no. 23: 15.18. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. CARE. 2003. Managing risk, improving livelihoods. Programme guidelines for conditions of chronic vulnerability. Available at: http://www.kcenter.com/phls/2003CVGuidelines.PDF. Caritas / Aprodev. 2000. The role of the military and the role of humanitarian aid organisations in emergencies Bruxelles: Caritas / Aprodev. Available at: http://www.aprodev.net/files/DevPol/Cimic.pdf. Carlsson, Jerker, and Lennart Wohlgemuth. 2000. Learning in Development Co-operation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Available at: http://www.egdi.gov.se/pdf/20002pdf/2000_2.pdf. CASA Consulting. 2001. Evaluation of the Dadaab firewood project, Kenya. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+PwwBmeyxkM_wwwwnwwwwwwwhFqo20I0E2gltFqoGn5nwGqrAFqo20I0E2glcFq1nDVoGdDMnDBwcaoMpwq BDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell. 2001. The Internet galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Oxford: OUP. Castles, Stephen. 2002. Environmental change and forced migration: making sense of the debate. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3de344fd9&page=research. Chalinder, Andrew. 1998. Temporary human settlement planning for displaced populations in emergencies. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.forcedmigration.org/sphere/pdf/shelter/odi/temporary-human-settlement.pdf. Chapman, Jennifer, and Amboka Wameyo. 2001. Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy: A Scoping Study. London: ActionAid. Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/resources/pdfs/asp.doc. Charmaz, Kathy. 2000. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition (pp.509-535). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage. Chimni, B. S. 1999. From resettlement to involuntary repatriation: towards a critical history of durable solutions to refugee problems. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unchrc.ch. 2000. Globalisation, humanitarianism and the erosion of refugee protection. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre. Available at: http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/chimni3.pdf. Christoplos, Ian. 1999. Humanitarianism, Pluralism and Ombudsmen: Do the Pieces Fit? Disasters 23, no. 2: 125-38. Available at: http://www.oneworld.org/ombudsman/articles/HumPOmb.html. CityNet, UNDP, and UNHCS. 1998. Guidelines for Transferring Effective Practices - A Practical Manual for South-South Cooperation. Bangkok: Mitrnara Printing. Available at: http://www.blpnet.org/learning/transfers/transfer.pdf. Coburn, Andrew and Spence, Robin 2002 Earthquake Protection. Shelter, Food and Essential Services, chapter 4.6 pp 128- 134. Chichester: Wiley. Cohen, Don, and Laurence Prusak. 2001. In good company - How social capital makes organisations work. Boston: Howard business school press. Cohen, Roberta. 2001. The Guiding Principles - How do they support response strategies of the internally displaced? "Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced: Changing the Humanitarian Lens". Available at: http://www.nrc.no/response/paper-plenary3.doc. COHRE. 2000. Better Late than Never: Housing Rights in East Timor. COHRE. Available at: http://www.cohre.org/downloads/report_timor.pdf. 2001. Legal Resources on Housing and Property Restitution. COHRE. Available at: http://www.cohre.org/downloads/sources7.pdf. COHRE. no date. "Defining Housing Rights. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.cohre.org/hrbody2.htm. Collison, Chris, and Geoff Parcell. 2001. Learning to fly. Oxford: Capstone. 308

Colson, Elizabeth. 2003. Forced migration and the anthropological response. Journal of Refugee Studies 16, no. 1: 1-15. Correia, Zita, and T. D. Wilson. 2002. Factors influencing environmental scanning in the organizational context. Information Research 7, no. 2. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper121.html. Corsellis, Tom. 2001. "The selection of sites for temporary settlements for forced migrants. University of Cambridge. Available at: http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/shelter/research/sitesel.asp. Cosgrave, John. 1998. "RedR Training Evaluation 1996-1999. Web page [accessed May 2000]. Available at: http://redr.org.pub.activeisp.com/training/evaluation.htm. Creswell, J. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publications. Crewe, Emma, and John Young. 2002. Bridging Research and Policy: Context, Evidence and Links. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/RAPID_WP_173.htm. Crisp, Jeff. 1999. Who has counted the refugees?' UNHCR and the politics of numbers. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3b309dd07&page=publ. 2000a. Africas refugees: patterns, problems and policy challenges. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3c8399e14&page=research. 2000b. Thinking outside the box: evaluation and humanitarian action. Forced Migration Review, no. 8: 4-7. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR08/fmr8.2.pdf. Crisp, Jeff. 2001. Mind the gap! UNHCR, humanitarian assistance and the development process. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3b309dd07&page=publ. Crisp, Jeff. 2003. No solutions in sight: the problem of protracted refugee situation in Africa. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+zwwBmemFicKwwwwnwwwwwwwhFqo20I0E2gltFqoGn5nwGqrAFqo20I0E2glcFqewkazda5dc1BodD5aoDa5otr BeuGYnrnapGdxcnMadhapGdBGwqBnmaGnh1tnna5oB1wBodDaoDaEhGoqwDzmxwwwwwww1FqmRbZ/opendoc.pdf. Crisp, Jeff, and Karen Jacobsen. 1998. Refugee camps reconsidered. Forced Migration Review, no. 3: 27-30. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR03/fmr307.pdf. Cross, Tim. 2001. Comfortable with chaos: working with UNHCR and the NGOs; reflections from the 1999 Kosovo refugee crisis. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3b03e2774&page=research. Cuny, Frederick C. 1983. Disasters and development. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Currion, Paul. 2001a. New lamps for old: the role of information management in humanitarian assistance. ICVA - Talk Back 3, no. 1. Web page [accessed March 2003]. Available at: http://www.icva.ch/cgi-bin/browse.pl?doc=doc00000267. Currion, Paul. 2001b. "Humanitarian Information Centres: Establishing Coherent Approaches to Field-Based Information Management in Emergencies. Web page [accessed December 2002]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/symposium/InfoCenters.htm. Cushman, Mike. 1999. Gaining Value through Review and Learning - A Construction Industry Users' Guide to the Cross Organisational Learning Approach. London: B-HIVE - LSE. Available at: http://is.lse.ac.uk/b-hive/COLA_application_guide.pdf. Dabelstein, Niels. 2000. "Aid responses to Afghanistan: learning from previous evaluations. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/pubs/pdfs/dac.pdf. DANIDA. 1999. Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance. Evaluation of Danish Humanitarian Assistance through the UN and International Organisations 1992-98.DANIDA. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/Danida/English/Evaluations/DanishHumanitarianAssistanceVolume8/index.asp. DANIDA. 2000. "Danish Humanitarian Assistance - Synthesis Report. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.um.dk/danida/evalueringsrapporter/1999-9/1999-9-1/c5.asp. Darcy, James. 2003. Measuring humanitarian need -A critical review of needs assessment practice and its influence on resource allocation - Preliminary findings. Montreux IV - Donor retreat on the CAP and coordination on humanitarian emergencies London: ODI. Davenport, Thomas H., and Laurence Prusak. 1998. Working knowledge: how organisations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Davidson, Sara. 2002. The accountable organisation. Geneva: HAP. Available at: 309

http://www.hapgeneva.org/pdf/Accountable%20Org%20Final%20Report.pdf. Davidson, Sarah. 1997. The People in Aid Code of Best Practice in the Management and Support of Aid Personnel. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.peopleinaid.org/code/. Davis, Ian. 1978. Shelter after Disaster. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press. Davies, Ian. 2003. Observation made during the debate at the Shelter Project peer review 22-24 October 2003. Brussels. Davies, Rick. 1996. "Donor Information Demands and NGO Institutional Development. Web page [accessed January 2000]. Available at: http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/ngoinst.htm. Davies, Rick. 1998. "Order and Diversity: Representing and Assisting Organisational Learning in Non-Government Aid Organisations. PhD Thesis. Swansea: Centre for Development Studies, University of Wales. Available at: http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/rd/thesis.htm. Davis, Jan, and Robert Lambert. 1995. Engineering in emergencies - A practical guide for relief workers. London: Intermediate Technology. de Vibe, Maja, Ingeborg Hovland, and John Young. 2002. Bridging Research and Policy: An Annotated Bibliography. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp174.pdf. Dey, I. 1999. Grounding Grounded Theory. Academic Press. Demusz, Kerry. 1998. From relief to development: negotiating the continuum on the Thai-Burmese border. Journal of Refugee Studies 11, no. 3: 231-44. Department for reconstruction. 2000. Guidelines for housing reconstruction - Kosovo 2000. Pristina: UNMIK. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/hcic/departaments/reconstruction/housin_recon/guidelines/a_guidelines/guid_eng.doc. Development Initiatives. 2000. Global humanitarian assistance 2000. Available at: http://www.uned.es/dcpa/doctorado0405/cursos/subprograma_rrii_2005/55escobar_global_humanitarian_assistance_2000.pdf. DeWolf, Shirley C. 1994. Practical aspects of UNHCR-NGO partnership. Refugee Participation Network 17. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/rpn171.htm. Dgroups. 2003. "Dgroups. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.dgroups.org/. Dias, Clarence J., and Scott Leckie. 1996. Human development and shelter: a human rights perspective. New York: UNDP/HDRO. Web page [accessed August 2003]. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/ocational_papers/oc21a.htm. Dick, Shelly. 2002. Responding to protracted refugee situations. A case study of Liberian refugees in Ghana. Geneva: UNHCR/EPAU. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+3wwBmeFiw38wwwwnwwwwwwwhFqo20I0E2gltFqoGn5nwGqrAFqo20I0E2glcFqnmoqADzmxwwwwwww/open doc.pdf. Dierkes, Meinolf, Marcus Alexis, Ariane Berthoin Antal, Bo Hedberg, Peter Pawlowsky, John Stopford, and Anne Vonderstein. 2001. The Annotated Bibliography of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Creation. Berlin: Sigma. Dixon, Nancy. 2000. Common knowledge - How companied thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dixon, Nancy M. 1999. The changing face of knowledge. The Learning Organisation 6, no. 5: 212-16. Dodge, Martin. 2003. "An atlas of cyberspace: census and statistical maps of cyberspace. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/census.html. DRC. 2000. Legal and social conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in Western European countries. Danish Refugee Council. Available at: http://www.flygtning.dk/fileadmin/uploads/pdf/English_site/Publications/legalsoc.pdf. Drew, Roger. 2002. Learning in partnership. What constitutes learning in the context of north-south partnership. London: Bond. Available at: http://www.bond.org.uk/lte/discussion_paper.pdf. Dudley, Eric. 1993. The Critical Villager, Beyond Community Participation. London: Routledge. Dziedzic, Michael J., and William B. Wood. 2000. Kosovo brief: information management offers a new opportunity for cooperation between civilian and military entities, United States Institute of peace. Available at: http://www.usip.org/oc/vd/vdr/dziedzic-wood.html. Eade, Deborah. 1997. Capacity-building: an approach to people centred development. Oxford: Oxfam.

310

Earl, Sarah, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo. 2001. Outcome Mapping: The Challenges of Assessing Development Impacts. Ottawa: IDRC Evaluation Unit. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-26979-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. ECDPM. 2000. "Investing in Knowledge: Sharing Information Resources on the Web. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/FileStruc.nsf/index.htm?ReadForm&3C5178EEEC41CB85C1256C8B003618FD. ECHO. 1995. Environmental Impact of Sudden Population Displacements. Expert Consultation on Priority Policy Issues and Humanitarian Aid. ECHO. Available at: http://www.cred.be/centre/publi/131e/begin.htm. 2001. Partnership: principles, practices and paradigm. ECHO-NGO Partnership. Brussels : ECHO. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/partenersconf2001_c4.pdf. ECHO. "Evaluation. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/evaluation/index_en.htm. Economic and Social Council. 2002. The return of refugees or displaced persons property - Working paper submitted by Mr. Paulo Srgio Pinheiro pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 2001/122, UN Economic and Social Council - Commission on human rights. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/7893f45a0a2853a8c1256c080031227a/$FILE/ G0213998.pdf. Edwards, Michael. 1997. Organizational Learning in Non-governmental Organizations: What have we learned? Public Administration and Development, Vol. 17:17. 235-50. Available at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/d3f59aa3a570f67a852567cf00695688/02f13c008efdd02c8525682a0075e9ad?OpenDo cument. Eldis. 2003. "ICT for development. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://eldis.org/ict/index.htm. Ellis, Sue. 2001. Caught between a rock and a hard place. RedR Newsletter, no. 53: 3-5. ENN. 2003. "Emergency Nutrition Network. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.ennonline.net/. ENNonline. 1999. "Joint WFP/UNHCR evaluation of Kenyan refugee programme. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.ennonline.net/fex/12/ev25.html. EPN, and RedR. 2002. Fourth Emergency Personnel Network Seminar. Available at: http://www.redr.org/epn/coventry/Final_EPN4_report.doc. Eriksson, Pr. 2000. Civil-Military Co-ordination in Peace Support Operations - An Impossible Necessity. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2002]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a061.htm. European Commission. 1996. Linking relief, rehabilitation and Development - Communication from the Commission of 30 April 1996, European Commission. Web page [accessed October 2001]. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/legislation/recueil/en/en16/en161.htm. European Union. 2002. "Humanitarian aid: introduction. Web page [accessed November 2003]. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r10000.htm. Feather, John. 1998. The information society. A study of continuity and change. London: Library Association Publishing. Ferretti, Silva. 1999. Communicating for development with the Internet. Interschool conference. Fink, Carsten, and Charles J. Kenny. 2003. W(h)ither the Digital Divide?. Available at: http://www.developmentgateway.org/download/181562/W_h_ither_DD__Jan_.pdf. Fischel De Andrade, Jos, and Nicole Barbara Delaney. 2001. Minority return to south-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina: a review of the 2000 return season. Journal of Refugee Studies 14, no. 3: 315-30. Fitzgerald, Guy, Rudy Hirschheim, Enid Mumford, and A. T Wood-Harper. 1984. Information systems research methodology: an introduction to the debate. IFIP Working Group Colloquium: Information System Research: a doubtful science? Available at: http://cba.fiu.edu/dsis/truexd/ifip2004/1984proceedings/CH01BookIntro.pdf. Fitzpatrick, Daniel. 2002. Land policy in post-conflict circumstances: some lessons from East Timor. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3c8399e14&page=research. Forced Migration Online. 2003. "Forced Migration Online. Web page [accessed November 2003]. Available at: http://www.forcedmigration.org/.

311

Forman, Shepard, and Rita Parhad. 2000. Paying for Essentials: Resources for Humanitarian Assistance. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a021.htm. Fowler, Alan. 1997. Striking a Balance - A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organisations in international development. London: Earthscan. 2000. The Virtuous Spiral - A guide for sustainability for NGOs in international development. London: Earthscan. Freih, Loubna. 2000. Increasing accountability among humanitarian NGOs in disaster response - A Study for the Sphere Project Management Committee. Geneva. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/about/account.htm. Frerks, Georg, and Dorothea Hilhorst. 1999. Issues in evaluation humanitarian assistance. Evaluating Humanitarian Aid: policies, perspectives and practices. Wageningen: Wageningen Disaster Studies. 2002. Evaluation of humanitarian assistance in emergency situations. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3c8398434&page=research. Frohardt, Mark, Diane Paul, and Larry Minear. 1999. Protecting human rights: the challenge to humanitarian organizations. Occasional Paper, 35. Providence: Brown University. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/abstracts/op35.html. Fuchs, Peter. 1995. Humanitarian action in armed conflicts :basic principles. Seminar on "International Humanitarian Assistance in Conflict Situations" Geneva: ICRC. Available at: http://www.helpicrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList88/77523FC27901EC14C1256B66005906E5. Fbos, Anita H. 2003. Dilemmas of Urban Research in Africa. Workshop: Research on Refugees in Urban Settings: Methods and Ethics Cairo: American University in Cairo. Available at: http://www.aucegypt.edu/academic/fmrs/Outreach/Workshops_and_Conferences/Anitaworkshop.pdf. Galperin, Alexandra. 2002. Discourses of disaster, discourses of relief and DFID's humanitarian aid policy. London: Development Studies Institute - LSE. Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/destin/workpapers/alexandragalperin.pdf. Geoffroy, Vronique de and Grnewald, Franois. 2002. "The responsibility of the humanitarian actors. A complex concept in a nutshell. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.projetqualite.org/pq_engl/responsa.htm. Georgetown University & Fritz Institute. 2003. Challenges of Disaster Management Education: Proceedings. Available at: http://www.fritzinstitute.org/images/FI.pdfs/GeorgetownProceedings-Chal.pdf. Giesen, Peter and Griekspoor, Andre. 1999. "Monitoring and evaluation practices in MSF Holland. Web page [accessed January 2000]. Available at: http://www.mande.co.uk/msfh.htm. GIST - Geographic Information Support Team. 2000. "SHARE - Structured Humanitarian Assistance Reporting.. Available at: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/files/share.pdf. Glaser, B G and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. Global IDP project. 2003. "A Global Overview of Internal Displacement by the end of 2002. Global IDP project. Available at: http://www.idpproject.org/IDP_project/Global_regional_overviews_2002.pdf. GlobaLab. 2002. "Internet World Users Map (1993-2015). Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.globalab.org/eng/. Goldspink, Chris. 1998. Implications of a non-linear systems perspective of Organisations: How safe are Managements Sacred Cows? ANSYS Conference. Web page [accessed August 2003]. Available at: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~cgold/implications_of_a_non.htm. Goodhand, Jonathan. 2000. Research in conflict zones: ethics and accountability. Forced Migration Review 8: 12-15. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR08/fmr8.4.pdf. Gostelow, Lola. 1999. The Sphere Project: the implications of making humanitarian principles and codes work. Disasters 23, no. 4: 316-25. Goulding, C. 2002. Grounded Theory - A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London: SAGE Publications. Groupe URD. 1999. "Les Dangers et Incoherences des Approches Normatives pour lAide Humanitaire. Web page [accessed December 2000]. Available at: http://www.urd.org/rech/sphere/dangers.htm. Groupe URD. 2000. "Project qualit: projet pour l'amlioration de la qualit de l'action humanitaire. Web page [accessed December 2001]. Available at: http://www.urd.org/rech/qualite/projqual.htm. 312

Groupe URD. 2001. "From emergency to development: a project for improving the quality of humanitarian practices. Web page [accessed January 2003]. Available at: http://www.urd.org/qualproj/qualpro.htm. 2002a. Interim Report for ALNAP: Global Study on the Participation of Affected Populations in Humanitarian Action. Available at: http://www.globalstudyparticipation.org/. Groupe URD. 2002b. "Shelter and housing sector (Afghanistan). Web page [accessed January 2003]. Available at: http://www.projetqualite.org/travterr/habi_afg.htm. 2002c. Evaluation in the humanitarian action sector. Groupe URD. Available at: http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/TRESOR/cicid/atelier/contrib/217.pdf. Groupe URD. 2003. "Global Study on participation by Affected Populations in Humanitarian Action. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.globalstudyparticipation.org/. Groupe URD. no date. "Quality Project. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.urd.org/projqual/qualproj.htm. Grunewald, Franois, Claire Pirotte, and Veronique de Geoffroy. 2001. Debating accountability. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 19: 35-36. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Habitat International Coalition. no date. "The right to adequate housing. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.hicmena.org/elements.htm. Haggarty, Alta and Duncan, Craig. "Reliefweb: What we do - and lessons learned. Web page [accessed April 2001]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/help/whatwedo.html. Hallam, Alistair. 1998. Evaluating Humanitarian Assistance Programmes in Complex Emergencies. RRN Good Practice Review. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/pdfbin/gpr7.pdf. Hampton, Janie. 1998. Internally displaced people: a global survey. London: Earthscan. Hansen, Art. no date. "Mission of the IASFM. Web page [accessed November 2003]. Available at: http://www.unibamberg.de/~ba6ef3/iasfm/mission.htm. Hansen, Morten T, Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney. 1999. What's your strategy for knowledge management? Harvard Business Review : 106-16. HAP. 2001. Enhancing Accountability in Humanitarian Action. Attention and Discussion Points from the Gujarat field trip. May 2001. Geneva: HAP. http://www.hapinternational.org/pdf_word/453-gujalearning3.pdf. 2003a. Humanitarian Accountability: Findings and New Directions for the Future Humanitarian Accountability Project. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/confprestns.htm. HAP. 2003b. "Humanitarian Accountability Project. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/. no date. Key components of humanitarian accountability. Geneva: HAP. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/pdf/HAP%20BRIEFINGS%202,%20final%20version.pdf. HAP international. 2003. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership: A permanent accountability mechanisms. Constitution & questions and answers. Geneva: HAP international. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/HAP%20International/May%2010%20QandA%20and%20Constitution.pdf. Harrell-Bond, B., E. Voutira, and M Leopold. 1992. Counting the Refugees: gifts, givers, patrons and clients. Journal of Refugee Studies 5, no. 3-4: 205-25. Harrell-Bond, Barbara. 1993. Imposing aid: emergency assistance to refugees. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: Available at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/migration/1-3-7.html. Harrell-Bond, Barbara. 1999. The experience of refugees as recipients of aid. Refugees: contemporary perspectives on the experience of forced migration. Ed. Alastair Ager, 136-58. New York: Cassel. Harrell-Bond, Barbara. 2002. Towards the economic and social 'integration' of refugee populations in host countries in Africa. Refugee Protection in Africa: How to Ensure Security and Development for Refugees and Hosts Stanley Foundation. Available at: http://reports.stanleyfoundation.org/hrp/HRP02B.pdf. Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

313

Hayward, Tim. 2001. More than just Technical Skills Required. RedR Newsletter, no. 54. Available at: http://www.redr.org/resources/nl_ar_reports/uk/uksummer01.pdf. Hendrickson, Dylan. 1998. Humanitarian action in protracted crises: the new relief agenda and its limits. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/pdfbin/networkpaper025.pdf. HIC Albania. 1999. List of agencies operating in Albania. Tirana: HIC. Unpublished. Hildreth, Paul M. 2002. The duality of knowledge. Information Research 8, no. 1. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html. Hildreth, Paul M, Chris Kimble, and Peter Wright. 1998. Computer mediated communications and international communities of practice. Ethicomp'98. Available at: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/research/EthiComp98.pdf. Hilhorst, Dorothea. 2001. Good at Doing Good? Review of Debates and Initiatives Concerning the Quality of Humanitarian Assistance. International working conference: Enhancing the Quality of Humanitarian Assistance. Government of the Netherlands. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/. Hilhorst, Dorothea, and Nadja Schmiemann. 2002. Humanitarian principles and organisational culture: everyday practice in Mdecins Sans Frontieres-Holland. Development in Practice 12, no. 3 & 4: 490-500. Hovy, Bela. 2003. "Building a Gender and Age-Sensitive Approach to Refugee Protection. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=104. Hulme, David, and Michael Edwards. 1997. NGOs, states and donors. too close for comfort? London: Macmillan Press. Human Rights Watch. 2002. Hidden in plain view: refugees living without protection in Nairobi and Kampala. New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/kenyugan/. Hummerlink, Marcel. 2002. Evaluation of IT humanitarian platforms and their possible utilisation as co-ordination instruments. Partners' annual conference ECHO Brussels: ECHO. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/2002_partners/information.pdf. Hunt, Patric. 2000. Knowledge management - Implications and applications for development organizations. Bellanet International Secretariat. Available at: http://www.bellanet.org/km/main/report.html. IASC. 2002. Growing the sheltering tree: protecting rights through humanitarian action. Geneva: UNICEF. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_4397.html. ICG. 2002. Return to Uncertainty. Kosovo's internally displaced and the return process. Pristina ,Brussels: International Crisis Group. Available at: http://www.crisisweb.org/. ICG - International Crisis Group. 1998. "Minority return or mass relocation?" Web page [accessed 22 September 1999]. Available at: http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/bosnia/reports/bh33main.htm. ICG - International Crisis Group. 1999. "Preventing Minority Return in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Anatomy of Hate and Fear. Web page [accessed October 1999]. Available at: http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/bosnia/reports/bh50rep.htm. ICRC. 1996. "Code of conduct. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/code.asp. 1999. Workshop on Protection for Human Rights and Humanitarian Organizations: Doing Something About It and Doing It Well Geneva: ICRC. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList125/7E027916A110783BC1256C5A00543E2C. IDPproject. 1999. "Some functions assigned to the CRPC have remained ignored (1999). Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/B13397F2CF32F74FC125686C00309148. IDPproject. 2002a. "The Housing and Property Directorate and Claim Commission: current mechanisms leave most property claims unresolved. Web page [accessed March 2003]. Available at: http://www.idpproject.org. IDPproject. 2002b. "The issue of property allocation: An obstacle to return (2002). Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/F52B837567BCB708C1256BEC004B979E. IFRC. 1995. Key factors for developmental relief - Annex 3. 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Geneva: IFRC. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList187/CBD19F7F40316D76C1256B6600596B1F. 1998. World disasters report 1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999. Vulnerabilities and capacities assessment. An International Federation Guide. Geneva: IFRC. 314

 no date. Public health guide for emergencies. Geneva: IFRC. IHE and People in Aid. 1997. "The Human Face of Aid - A study of recruitment by international relief and development organisations in the UK. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.peopleinaid.org.uk/download/HUMAN%20FACE%20OF%20AID.pdf. IMG. 2001. Standards for the rehabilitation of residential dwellings (private houses and public / private apartment buildings). Sarajevo: IMG. IMG. no date. "The task forces. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.img.ba/sector_pages/task_force/. IMG - International Management Group. 1999. Kosovo Integrated Information System. Sarajevo: IMG. Available at: http://www.img.ba/kosovo/main/kiis/kiis.pdf. IMSMA, Information Management System for Mine Action. 2003. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.imsma.ch/. InterAction. 2001. "Interaction's Private Voluntary Organisation (PVO) standards. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.interaction.org/pvostandards. International Institute of Communications. "CDC-2001 - Second Tampere Conference on Disaster Communications. Web page [accessed April 2001]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/conference/cdc2001/index.html. IRIN/OCHA. 2002. 2002 readership survey results. Available from: http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/evaluation/p2/part2-7058.asp. ISDR. 2002. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Geneva: United Nations. IWPR. "Institute for War & Peace Reporting. Web page [accessed 2003]. Available at: http://www.iwpr.net/. Jacobsen, Karen. 1997. Refugees' environmental impact: the effect of patterns of settlement. Journal of Refugee Studies 10, no. 1: 19-36. 2001. The forgotten solution? Local Integration for refugees in developing countries. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/u045.pdf. Jamal, Arafat. 2000. Minimum standards and essential needs in a protracted refugee situation - A review of the UNHCR programme in Kakuma, Kenya. Geneva: UNHCR - Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch. James, Maureen, and Liz Rykert. 1998. From Workplace To Workspace. Using Email Lists to Work Together. IDRC. Janz, Mark. 2000. Changing parameters: challenges for practitioners and the humanitarian response community. Complex Humanitarian Emergencies - Lessons from practitioners. Eds Mark Janz, and Joann Slead Monrovia, California: World Vision. JEFF - Joint Evaluation Follow-up Monitoring and Facilitation Network. no date. "Did the Rwandan Evaluation Change anything?" Web page [accessed November 2003]. Available at: http://www.ennonline.net/fex/04/ev29.html. Jensen, Mike. 2002. "African Internet Connectivity. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www3.sn.apc.org/africa/. Jigyasu,Rohit. 2002. From Marathawda to Gujarat: Emerging Challenges in Post-earthquake Rehabilitation for Sustainable Eco development in South Asia Montreal: Conference on improving Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, Montreal University. Kaiser, Tania. 2000. UNHCRs withdrawal from Kiryandongo: anatomy of a handover. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/u032.pdf. 2002. "Participatory and beneficiary-based approaches to the evaluation of humanitarian programmes. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3c7527f91&page=publ. Karam, Kari, and Hanne Ulrichsen. 2002. Improving the Security of Refugee and Displaced Women. International Expert Seminar Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Available at: http://www.nupi.no/PubFelles/Boker/CPimprov_sec_refugee.pdf. Kelly, Charles. 2001. Rapid environmental impact assessment: a framework for best practice in emergency response. Sharing experiences in environmental management in refugee situations: a practitioner's workshop London: UCL. Available at: http://www.bghrc.com/DMU/WorkingPapers/WorkingPaperNo3.pdf. Kibreab, Gaim. 1993. The myth of dependency among camp refugees in Somalia 1979-1989. Journal of Refugee Studies 6, no. 4: 321-49. King, Dennis and Dilley, Max. 2001. "Structured Humanitarian Assistance Reporting (SHARE). Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/symposium/SHAREarticle.htm.

315

King, K. 2000. Towards Knowledge-based Aid: A new way of working or a new North-South divide? Journal of International Cooperation in Education 3, no. 2: 23-48. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/centas/towards.pdf. King, Kenneth, and Simon McGrath. 2002. Knowledge-based aid. A four agencies comparative study. Edinburgh: Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/centas/futgov-home.html. Kingsley, Michael. 1998. Does the cultural environment have an impact on results? Seminar for non-governmental organizations on humanitarian standards and cultural differences - Summary report Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), The Geneva Foundation to Protect Health in War. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/60FF5A57A2738BB5C1256B66005DA0E0. Klenk, Jeffrey S. 1997. Emergency information management and telecommunications. Disaster Management Training Programme. Geneva: UNDP - DHA. Lambert, Bobby. 2000. Professionalising Emergency Personnel. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 17: 44. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Lancaster, Warren. 1998. The code of conduct: whose code, whose conduct? Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a038.htm. LaPorte, Bruno. 2002. Knowledge is currency at the World Bank. N/A : 10-13. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/documents/K_is_currency.pdf. Larose, Laurent, and John Adams. 2002. Accountability and quality: uncomfortable bedfellows? Humanitarian Exchange, no. 21: 19-21. Available at: http://odihpn.org/pdfbin/exchange21.pdf. Lautze, Sue. 1997. Saving Lives and Livelihoods: the fundamentals of a livelihoods strategy. Feinstein International Famine Center, Tufts University. Available at: http://famine.tufts.edu/pdf/lives.pdf. Lavergne, Ral. 2002. Results-Based Management and Accountability for Enhanced Aid Effectiveness. CIDA. Available at: http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment2/$file/enhanced-aid_ref.pdf. Leader, Nicholas. 1998. Proliferating principles; or how to sup with the devil without getting eaten. Disasters 22, no. 4: 288-308. Leader, Nicholas. 2000. The Politics of Principle: the principles of humanitarian action in practice. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport2.pdf. Leckie, S. 2000. Resolving Kosovo's Housing Crisis: challenges for the UN Housing and Property Directorate. Forced Migration Review, no. 7: 12-15. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.5.pdf. Leckie, Scott. 2002. Housing rights: a neglected issue by the humanitarian community. ICVA - Talk Back 4, no. 2: 15-16. Available at: http://www.icva.ch/files/tb4-2.pdf. Leiner, Barry M., Cerf, Vinton G., Clark, David D., Kahn, Robert E., Kleinrock, Leonard, Lynch, Daniel C., Postel, Jon, Roberts, Larry G., and Wolff, Stephen. 2000. "A Brief History of the Internet. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.isoc.org/Internet/history/brief.shtml. Levine, I. 1997. Humanitarian Principles: The Southern Sudan Experience. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpn/pubs/netab21.html. Locke K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Loescher, Gil. 1993. Beyond charity : international cooperation and the global refugee crisis. New York: Oxford University Press. Loughna, Sean. no date. "What is Forced Migration? " Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.forcedmigration.org/whatisfm.htm. Ludema, James, David Cooperrider, and Frank Barrett. 2001. Appreciative enquiry: the power of the unconditional positive question. Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Peter Reason, and Hilary Bradbury, 189-99. London: Sage. Macnair, Rebecca. 1995. Room for improvement: the management and support of relief workers. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?ID=2138. Macrae, Joanna. 1999. Aiding peace and war: UNHCR, returnee reintegration, and the relief-development debate, UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/pubs/pubon.htm. Macrae, Joanna. 2001. Aiding recovery? : the crisis of aid in chronic political emergencies. New York: Zed Books. 316

 2002a. International humanitarian action: a review of policy trends. London: ODI. 2002b. The new Humanitarianisms: a review of trends in global humantiarian action. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.itp.sssup.it/advancedreadings/humanitarian/hpgreport11.pdf. Macrae, Joanna, Sarah Collinson, Margie Buchanan-Smith, Nicola Reindorp, Anna Schmidt, Tasneem Mowjee, and Adele Harmer. 2002. Uncertain power: the changing role of official donors in humanitarian action. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport12_screen.pdf. Macrae, Joanna, Susanne Jaspars, Mark Duffield, Mark Bradbury, and Johnson Douglas. 1997. Conflict, the Continuum and Chronic Emergencies: A Critical Analysis of the Scope for Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Planning in Sudan . Disasters 21, no. 3: 223-43. Available at: http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=disa&open=1997#C1997. Macrae, Joanna, and Nicholas Leader. 2000. Shifting sands: The search for coherence between political and humanitarian responses to complex emergencies. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport8.pdf. Magalhaes, Rodrigo. 1996. Organizational Learning, Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Memory: new proposals towards a unified view. Working Paper Series, 60. London: Department of Information Systems - LSE. Mancino, Kimberly, Anita Malley, and Santiago Cornejo. 2001. Developmental relief: NGO Efforts to Promote Sustainable Peace and Development in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies. Washington: InterAction. Available at: http://www.interaction.org/files.cgi/867_Developmental_Relief_Report_I.pdf. Markby, Lucy. no date. "The aid worker. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.celestia.co.uk/wexas/p2_theaidworker.htm. Martin, Susan and Moller, Elizabeth. 2002. "NGOs and practical protection in humanitarian crisis. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/857fe2d1e7ed423a85256ca70061e42f?OpenDocument. Martin, Susan F. 2000. Forced migration and the evolving humanitarian regime. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/u020.htm. Maru, Ajit. 7 October 2003. "Peer Assist - Communities In Practice. E-mail to Knowledge Management for International Development Organisations (KM4DEV) list (km4dev-l@lyris.bellanet.org). Matthews, Sarah, and Nigel Thornton. 2000. 'Doing the knowledge' - How DFID Compares with Best Practice in Knowledge Management. London: DFID. Available at: http://mail.bellanet.org/kmdir/upload/DFID_KM.doc. Mattelart, A and Mattelart, M. 2000. Theories of communication: A short introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mawdsley, E, J Townsend, G Porter, and P Oakley. 2002. Knowledge, Power and Development Agendas - NGOs North and South. Oxford: INTRAC. Mayhew, Barney. 2002. Finding, developing and keeping programme managers: a sector-wide problem. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 22: 26-28. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Maynard, Kimberly. 2002. Good practices: information sharing in complex emergencies - Report from a Roundtable on HumanitarianMilitary Sharing 2001 Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference, Virtual diplomacy initiative - United States Institute of Peace. Available at: http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/reports/11.html. Millen, David R., and Michael J. Muller. 2001. Computer-Supported Communities of Practice. 2nd ECSCW Workshop on Community Knowledge. Available at: http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/0/5fe8cf56251d1adf85256c31004dd0b3/$FILE/TR2002-04.pdf. Minear, Larry. 1994a. The International Relief System: A Critical Review. Parallel National Intelligence Estimate on Global Humanitarian Emergencies. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/electronic/e_irsa.html. Minear, Larry. 1994b. "The International Relief System: A Critical Review. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/electronic/e_irsa.html. Minear, Larry. 1998. Learning to Learn. Seminar on Lessons Learned in Humanitarian Coordination Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden. Available at: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Watson_Institute/H_W/Documents/learningtolearn.pdf.

317

Minear, Larry. 1999. Partnerships in protection: an overview of emerging issues. UNHCR Conference on Strengthening Collaboration with Humanitarian and Human Rights NGOs in Support of the International Refugee Protection System. Available at: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Watson_Institute/H_W/Documents/Partnership.Protection.pdf. Minear, Larry, and Stephen Lubkemann. 2000. NGO Policy Dialogue VIII - NGO Professionalism. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/new/pdf/Report08.pdf. Minear, Larry, Ted van Baarda, and Marc Sommers. 2000. NATO and the humanitarian action in the Kosovo crisis. Providence: The Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, Brown University. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/electronic/e_op36.pdf. Minear, Larry, and Thomas G Weis. 1995. Mercy under fire: War and the global humanitarian community. Oxford: Westview Press. Minear, Larry, and Thomas Weiss. undated. Humanitarian principles and operational dilemmas in war zones. New York: UNDP. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic. 2003. "Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in South-Eastern Europe Food for Thought. Web page [accessed April 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/c6fc144590f200c5c1256cc50053f599?OpenDocument. Misbah Yousif, Tarig. 1998. Encampment at Abu Rakham in Sudan: a personal account. Forced Migration Review, no. 2. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/fmr024.htm. Mitchell, John. 2003. Practice makes perfect? ALNAP's assessment on the quality of 127 evaluations of humanitarian action, 2000-2. Partners in development evaluation - learning and accountability. Joint French and DAC/Working party on Aid Evaluation Paris: DAC. Mitchell, John, and Deborah Doane. 1999. An Ombudsman for Humanitarian Assistance? Disasters 23, no. 2: 115-24. Available at: http://www.oneworld.org/ombudsman/articles/OmbHum.html. Mook, Byron. 2001. Evaluating information: A letter to a project manager. Available at: http://www.cta.int/pubs/wd8025/. Moore, Jonathan. 1999. The humanitarian-development gap. International Review of the Red Cross, no. 833: 103-7. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList78/EE30655200237ACBC1256B66005CFE19. Morgan, Peter, and Ann Qualman. 1996. Institutional and capacity development, results-based management and organizational performance, CIDA - Political and Social Policies Division Policy Branch. Available at: http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment/$file/1996-05RBM&OrgPerf.pdf. MSF. 1997. Refugee health. An approach to emergency situations. Macmillan. MSF. 2001. "Humanitarian action must not be a tool of political interest. Text of the speech delivered to the UN by Rafa Vila San Juan, MSF Secretary General and Choir of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.msf.org. Muggah, Robert. 2003. Hard choices: a critical review of UNHCRs community development approach in Nepal. Humanitarian Exchange. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?ReportID=2497. Myers, Michael. 1997. Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 21, no. 2: 241-42. Available at: http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz. Mller Rasmussen, Anja. 2001. Information and development: the information effect. Information Development 17, no. 1. Available at: http://www.bellanet.org/leap/docs/p12_RASMUSSEN_article.pdf. Needham, Robin. 1994. Refugee participation. Refugee Participation Network 17. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/rpn174.htm. Neus, Andreas. 2001. Managing Information Quality in Virtual Communities of Practice. Lessons learned from a decades experience with exploding Internet communication. IQ 2001: The 6th International Conference on Information Quality. Niedzwiedzka, Barbara. 2003. A proposed general model of information behaviour. Information Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, 9, no. 1. NOHA. 1998. Management in humanitarian assistance. European Community. Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotake Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nutley, Sandra, Isabel Walter, and Huw Davies. 2002a. From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. St Andrews: Research unit for research utilisation - University of St Andrews. Available at: http://www.standrews.ac.uk/~ruru/KnowDo%20paper.pdf.

318

 2002b. Learning from the diffusions of innovations. St Andrews: Research unit for research utilisation - University of St Andrews. Available at: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ruru/Learning%20from%20the%20Diffusion%20of%20Innovations.pdf. O'Dell, Carla, and C. Jackson Grayson. 1998. If only we knew what we know. New York: The Free Press. O'Donnell, M. R, D Bacos, and M. L Bennish. 2002. Nutritional response to the 1998 Bangladesh flood disaster: Sphere Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Disasters 26, no. 3: 229-41. O'Malley, Dolores and O'Donoghue, Geoff. 2000. "Discussion Paper: NGOs and the Learning Organisation. Web page [accessed 2000]. Available at: http://www.bond.org.uk/lte/orglearn.html. OCHA(? ). A rapidly deployable Humanitarian Information Capacity - Proposed Inter agency support to OCHA - Concept paper. OCHA. 2003. OCHA Advocacy Strategy 2003-2004. OCHA. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/advo0304.pdf. OCHA. no date. "Humanitarian Information Centres. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/abouthics.html. ODI. 1998. The state of the international humanitarian system. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/briefing/1_98.html. 1999. What can we do with a rights-based approach to development?. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/3_99.html. 2003. Humanitarian Principles and the conflict in Iraq. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/briefing_note_april2003.pdf. O'Dell, C., and C. Grayson. 1998. If Only We Knew What We Know. Free press. . OECD/DAC. 1997. DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace and Development Co-operation and DAC Policy Statement. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/htm/pubs/p-cpdc.htm. 1999. "Guidance for Evaluating Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/Evaluation/pdf/human_en.pdf. OECD /DAC. 2001. Evaluation feedback for effective learning and accountability. Paris: OECD - DAC. Available at: http://www1.oecd.org/dac/Evaluation/pdf/eval_effectiveLearning.pdf. OECD / DAC. 2001. Glossary of Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management. Paris: OECD/Working Party on Aid Evaluation. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/htm/glossary.htm. Offenheiser, Raymond C., and Susan Holcombe. 2001. Challenges and Opportunities of Implementing a Rights-based Approach to Development: An Oxfam America Perspective. Northern Relief and Development NGOs: New Directions in Poverty Alleviation and Global Leadership Transitions. Available at: http://www.mindtel.com/projects/ssc02/documents/oxfam.html. OHCHR. no date. "Fact Sheet No.21, The Human Right to Adequate Housing. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/housing/fs21.htm. OHR. 1998. "Code of practice for reconstruction and repair. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.ohr.int/ohrdept/rrtf/key-docs/reports/default.asp?content_id=5567. Ombudsman Project. 1999. An Ombudsman for humanitarian assistance? A report on the findings from a feasibility study. Currents, no. 21: 9-14. Available at: http://www-ibyr.adm.slu.se/Currents/curr21.PDF. Orange, Graham, Alan Burke, and Mike Cushman. 1999. BITWorld'99 - Business Information Technology Management: The Global Imperative London: LSE. Available at: http://is.lse.ac.uk/b-hive/pdf/bitworld.pdf. ORHA. 2003. General Guidance for Interaction between United Nations Personnel and Military and Civilian Representatives of the Occupying Power in Iraq. Available at: http://coe-dmha.org/Media/Guidance/6GeneralGuidance.pdf. Owen-Davies, John. 2000. Information, information and more information. Oxfam. 2000a. An end to forgotten emergencies?. Oxford: Oxfam. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_disasters/forgotten_emergs.htm. Oxfam. 2000b. A guide for staff and managers. Oxford: Oxfam. Oxford English Dictionary. No date . 3rd Edition. Available at: http://www.oed.com/. Oxford. Oxford University press. 319

Oxley, Marcus. 2001. Measuring humanitarian needs. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 19: 28-30. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. 2002. Measuring humanitarian need. Humanitarian Exchange. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?ReportID=2345. PADCO. 1981. Transition Housing for Victims of Disaster. Washington, DC :Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance -USAID. PAHO. 2000. Chapter 10. Planning, Layout and management of temporary settlements and camps. Natural disasters: Protecting the Publics Health. PAHO. Pain, Adam. 2002. Understanding and Monitoring Livelihoods under Conditions of Chronic Conflict: Lessons from Afghanistan. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp187.pdf. Patrick I. 2001. East Timor Emerging from Conflict: The Role of Local NGOs and International Assistance. Disasters 25, no. 1: 48-66. Available at: http://pluto.bids.ac.uk/ingentaJournals/cs_display/19723eb873-e548232f8700. Payne, Geoffrey. 2000. Lowering the ladder: regulatory frameworks for sustainable development. 17th Inter-Schools Conference Sustainable Cities: Sustainable Development: The Urban Agenda in Developing Countries Oxford. People in Aid. 1996. "The People in Aid Code of Best Practice. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.peopleinaid.org.uk/code/code01.htm. Perouse de Montclos, Marc-Antoine, and Peter Mwangi Kagwanja. 1997. Refugee camps or cities? The socio-economic dynamics of the Dadaab and Kakuma camps in Northern Kenya. Journal of Refugee Studies 13, no. 2: 165-83. Phillips, Melissa. 2003. The role and impact of humanitarian assets in refugee-hosting countries. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=RESEARCH&id=3e71f7fc4&page=research. Phoung, Catherine. 1997. 'Freely to return': reversing ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Journal of Refugee Studies 13, no. 2: 16583. 2000. At the heart of the return process: solving property issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Forced Migration Review, no. 7: 5-7. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.3.pdf. Pickles, Tim. 2003. Practice Guide: Techniques for Engaging with Members. Bristol: Sift. Available at: http://www.sift.co.uk/practice/guides/participation.doc. Pinsonneault, Alain, and Kenneth Kraemer. 1991. Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. Available at: http://www.crito.uci.edu/research-archives/pdf/urb-022.pdf. Pirotte, Claire, Bernard Husson, and Francois Grunewald. 1999. Responding to emergencies & fostering development: the dilemmas of humanitarian aid. London, New York: Zed Books. Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal Knowledge - Towards a Post-critical Philosophy. London: Routledge. Pollik, Sean. 2000. Civil-military cooperation: a new tool for peacekeepers. Canadian Military Journal : 57-63. Available at: http://www.journal.dnd.ca/engraph/Vol1/no3/pdf/57-63_e.pdf. Porter, Toby. 2002a. An External Review of the CAP, OCHA's Evaluation and Studies Unit. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2002/ocha-cap-ECOSOC-18apr.pdf. 2002b. An embarrassment of riches. Humanitarian Exchange, no 21: 2-4. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?ID=2449 . Potter, Jonathan, Floris Faber, and Will de Wolf. 2001. Managing people: minefield or goldmine? ECHO partners' conference. ECHO. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/partenersconf2001_c1.pdf. Prusak, L. 2001. Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal 40, no. 4 : 1002-7. Pugh, Michael. 1998. Post-conflict Rehabilitation: social and civil dimensions. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a034.htm. Pyles, Freda. 1999. "Who cares? A review of American NGO human resources practices on recruitment training and debriefing of humanitarian aid workers. University of York - Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU). Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/prdu/abstract/diss38.htm. Quality Project, 2002. Proceeding of the launching seminar for the quality project. Quality Project, Groupe URD. Available at: http://www.projetqualite.org/pq_engl/proceed.htm.

320

Quinn, Mick. 2002. More than Implementers. Civil Society in Complex Emergencies. A Discussion Paper. London: International Alert. Available at: http://www.international-alert.org/pdf/pubdev/67143_2nd_Briefing.pdf. Rapid / ODI. 2003a. "How the Sphere Project Came into Being: A Case Study of Policy-making in the Humanitarian Aid Sector and the Relative Influence of Research. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Abstracts/RAPID_WP_215.htm. Rapid / ODI. 2003b. "Theoretical models. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Lessons/Theory/Theories_index.html. Raynard, Peter. 2000. Mapping Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance. London: ALNAP. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/pubs/pdfs/praccountability.pdf. Recalde, Pablo. 2001. "Information management, sharing and standards. Web page [accessed September 2003]. Available at: http://www.adrc.or.jp/publication/International/HP/Paper(Pablo).htm. Reddick, Moira. 2002. Real-time learning in the Southern Africa food crisis. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 22: 17-18. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. RedR. 2002. "Technical Support Service (TSS). Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.redr.org/tss/index.htm. Reed, Bob. 1991. Technical support for refugees: lessons from recent experiences Loughborough: WEDC. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cv/wedc/techsupp/techsupp.htm. Rehn, Elisabeth, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. 2002. Women, War and Peace: the independent Experts' Assessment on the impact of armed conflict on women and women role in peace building. New York: UNIFEM. Reindorp, Nicola, and Peter Wiles. 2001. Humanitarian Coordination: Lessons from Recent Field Experience. A study commissioned by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). London: ODI. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/LibDocsByKey/LGEL-5D9CBZ/$FILE/odi-coord-jun.pdf?OpenElement. ReliefWeb. 2003a. "Emergency Telecommunications. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/. ReliefWeb. 2003b. "Financial Tracking System. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/fts. Richmond, Anthony H. 1994. Global Apartheid. Toronto: OUP. Robertson, Kate. 2000. Developing the ALNAP learning office concept. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 17: 34-35. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Roche, Chris. 1999. Impact assessment for development agencies : learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam. Rocky Mountain Institute. 2003. "Refugee Camps as a Model for Sustainable Settlements. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.mindtel.com/projects/ssc02/documents/rmisscproposal.html. Roper, Laura, and Jethro Pettit. 2002. Development and the learning organisation: an introduction. Development in Practice 12, no. 3&4: 258-71. Rose, J. 2000. "Information systems development as action research - soft systems methodology and structuration theory. Lancaster University. Available at: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~jeremy/pdf%20files/thesis.pdf. Rye Olsen, Gorm, Nils Carstensen, and Kristian Hyen. 2002. Humanitarian Crises: What Determines the Level of Emergency Assistance?Media Coverage, Donor Interests, and the Aid Business. Forgotten Humanitarian Crises - Conference on the Role of the Media, Decision-makers and Humanitarian Agencies Copenhagen: Danish Refugee Council. Available at: http://www.forgottencrises.dk/ForgottenCrises_Conference_net.pdf. Salomons, Dirk, Matthias Finger, Arjuna Kannangara, and Mohamed Yonis. 1998. Building Regional And National Capacities For Leadership In Humanitarian Assistance. New York: Center on International Cooperation - New York University. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/pages/cic/pdf/Building_Leadership.pdf. Sanderson, David. 2002. Cities, disasters and livelihoods. Sustainable Cities conference Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Available at: http://www.careinternational.org.uk/resource_centre/urban/cities_disasters.pdf. Saywell, D. L., and A. P. Cotton. 1999. Spreading the Word: practical guidelines for research dissemination strategies. WEDC. Available at: http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/publications/details.php?book=0%20906055%2063%206.

321

Saunders, Graham. 2002. Housing, Lives and Livelihoods: Lessons in Post-Disaster Assistance from Goma. New York: Catholic Relief Services (CRS). Schafer, Jessica. 2002. Supporting Livelihoods in Situations of Chronic Conflict and Political Instability: Overview of Conceptual Issues. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp183.pdf. Schmidt, A. 1998. How camps become mainstream policy for assisting refugees. Unpublished. Refugee Studies Centre Library, Oxford. Schmidt, Anna. 2003. FMO Thematic Guide: Camps versus settlements. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/RSC_Oxford/data/FMO%20Research%20Guides%5Ccamps.pdf. Schofield, Robin. 2001. Information systems in humanitarian emergencies. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 18: 15-16. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900SID/LGEL-5JXM8D?OpenDocument. Schofield, Robin. 2002. "New technologies, new challenges: information management, coordination and agency independence. Web page [accessed September 2001]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/9ca65951ee22658ec125663300408599/40cc380e730fbe5885256c0f006b2c1a?OpenDocument. Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. SCHR. 2002. SCHR Position Paper on Humanitarian-Military Relations in the Provision of Humanitarian Assistance. Available at: http://actintl.org/resources/manual/SCHRpositionpaper.doc. Scott-Flynn, Nick. 1999. "Coordination in Kosovo: the challenge for the NGO sector. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/c528cd07fbb8c5ff852569d20069c4d5?OpenDocument. SDC. 2003. "Knowledge: the most important capital. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.sdc.admin.ch/index.php?userhash=505838&nav=3,385,385,385&l=e. Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline - The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday. Sestina, Alison, Hugh Graham, Weaver Smith, and Steve Song. 2000. Technology for knowledge management. Knowledge management Implications and applications for development organizations. Patric HuntBellanet International Secretariat. Setchell, Charles A. 2001. Reducing vulnerability through livelihoods promotion in shelter sector activities: an initial examination for potential mitigation and post-disaster application. Feinstein International Famine Center. Available at: http://famine.tufts.edu/pdf/working_paper_5.pdf. Sexton, Richard, and Isobel McConnan. 2003. A comparative study of After Action Review in the context of the Southern Africa Crisis. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/pubs/pdfs/aar_key_messages.pdf. ShelterProject.org. 2003a. Report on the transitional settlement sector. Cambridge: ShelterProject.org, Cambridge University. Available at: http://www.shelterproject.org. ShelterProject.org. 2003b. Shelter beyond a tent. Draft guidelines for the transitional settlement of displaced populations. Cambridge: Shelterproject.org. University of Cambridge. Available at: http://www.shelterproject.org. Shepherd, Gill. 1995. Impact of Refugees on the Environment and Appropriate Responses. Relief and Rehabilitation Network Newsletter. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/pdfbin/newsletter04.pdf. Slim, Hugo. 1995. The continuing metamorphosis of the humanitarian practitioner: some new colours for an endangered chameleon. Disasters 19, no. 2: 110-126. 1997a. Doing the right thing: relief agencies, moral dilemmas and moral responsibility in political emergencies and war. Disasters 21, no. 3: 244-57. Slim, Hugo. 1997b. Relief agencies and moral standing in war: principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and solidarity. Development in Practice 7, no. 4: 342-51. Slim, Hugo. 1999. To the rescue: radicals or poodles? Currents, no. 21: 4-8. Available at: http://www-ibyr.adm.slu.se/Currents/curr21.PDF. Slim, Hugo. 2000. Dissolving the difference between humanitarianism and development: the mixing of a rights-based solution. Development in Practice 10, no. 3-4. Available at: http://iris.ingentaselect.com/vl=395596/cl=67/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/catchword/carfax/09614524/v10n3/s18/p491. Slim, Hugo. 2001. Military Intervention to Protect Human Rights: The Humanitarian Agency Perspective. Background Paper. Meeting on Military Intervention and Human Rights. International Council on Human Rights Policy. Available at: 322

http://www.ichrp.org/ac/excerpts/71.pdf. Slim, Hugo. 2002. By what authority? The legitimacy and accountability of Non-governmental Organisations. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac./articles/a082.htm. Slim, Hugo. 2003. Humanitarianism with Borders? NGOs, Belligerent Military Forces and Humanitarian Action. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.jha.ac/articles/a118.htm. Smillie, Ian. 1995. The Alms bazaar: altruism under fire - non profit organisations and international development. London: Intermediate Technology. Smillie, Ian. 1998. Relief and development: the struggle for synergy. Occasional Paper, 33. Providence: Brown University. 2001. Patronage or partnership. Local capacity building in humanitarian crisis. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press. Smillie, Ian, and Larry Minear. 2003a. Humanitarian financing: donor behaviour. Some preliminary observation from the Montreux retreat. Tufts university. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/cap/ToTBinder/Hum_Financing_Studies/hum_financing_Donor_Behavior_FEB03.doc. 2003b. The quality of money. Donor behaviour and humanitarian financing. Tufts University. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/LibDocsByKey/LGEL-5N8CP6/$FILE/tuft-donor-apr03.pdf?OpenElement. Smith, David G. 2001. "Kosovo: Applying Geographic Information Systems in an International Humanitarian Crisis. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP937/p937.htm. Smith, Heather A., and James D. McKeen. 2003. Creating and Facilitating Communities of Practice. Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario. Available at: http://business.queensu.ca/kbe/docs/Smith-McKeen%2003-09.pdf. Smutylo, Terry. 2001. Crouching Impact, Hidden Attribution: Overcoming Threats to Learning in Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/evaluation/crouching_impact.pdf. Smyth, Ines. 1999. Slaying the Serpent: Knowledge Management in NGOs. Unpublished. Sommers, Marc. 2000. The dynamics of coordination. Providence: Watson Institute, Brown University. Available at: http://hwproject.tufts.edu/publications/electronic/e_op40.pdf. 2001. Urban refugees in Dar es Salaam. Journal of Refugee Studies 14, no. 4: 347-70. Song, Steve. 1996. "Guidelines on the use of electronic networking to facilitate regional or global research networks. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-33951-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. Sphere Project. 2003. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in disaster response. Geneva: Sphere Project. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/. Sphere Project. no date. "The Sphere Project: history. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/about/hist.htm. Sphere Project Team and Management Committee. 2002. Institutionalising Sphere...A Great Start, Next Steps - Lessons Learned in Sphere Implementation from 2000 - 2002. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/practice/less_learn.htm. Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. 2001. Housing Programme Development Study - Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. Available at: http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/idpSurvey.nsf/BA142B022DDADA8EC1256BED00516DA6/$file/Housing+Programme+December +2001.pdf. Steering Committee. 1996. Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda. The International response to conflict and genocide : lessons from the Rwanda experience - Study 3 : Humanitarian aid and effects. Web page [accessed March 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/nordic/book3/pb022.html. Stephenson, Robin and Anderson, Peter. 1999. Disasters and the Information Technology Revolution, Disasters Vol. 23. Stein, Barry. 1985. "Older refugee settlements in Africa. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www2.hnet.msu.edu/~africa/sources/refugee.html. Stiglitz, Joseph. 1999. Scan Globally, Reinvent Locally: Knowledge Infrastructure and the Localization of Knowledge Keynote Address. First Global Development Network Conference. Available at: 323

http://orion.forumone.com/gdnet/files.fcgi/226_GDNfinal.PDF. Stockton, Nicholas. 1997. The Role of the Military in Humanitarian Emergencies. Refugee Participation Network, no. 23. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/rpn234.htm. Stockton, Nicholas. 1999. "Performance Standards and Accountability in Realising Rights: The Humanitarian Case. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/speeches/stockton.html. 2001. The need for a system of accreditation for international humanitarian agencies. Enhancing the quality of humanitarian assistance. Available at: http://www.hapgeneva.org/pdf/Nick%20Stockton%20for%20La%20Hague%20Conference.pdf. Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet. 1990. Basics of qualitative analysis: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage. Suhrke, Astri. 2000. From one crisis to Another: organisational learning in UNHCR. Learning in Development Co-operation. Jerker Carlsson, and Lennart Wohlgemuth. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Suhrke, Astri, Michael Barutciski, Peta Sandison, and Rick Garlock. 2000. The Kosovo refugee crisis: An independent evaluation of UNHCRs emergency preparedness and response, EPAU/2000/001. Geneva: UNHCR/EPAU. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/partners/+9wwBme2UcZ_wwwwnwwwwwwwxFqzvxKhsvKxmmFqo7E2RN02IhFqo20I0E2gltFqopwGBDnG5zFqmRbZA Fqo20I0E2glDzmxwwwwwww1FqmRbZ/opendoc.pdf. Sutton, Rebecca. 1999. The policy process: an overview. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/wp118.pdf. Suzuki, Naoki. 1998. Inside NGOs: learning to manage conflicts between headquarters and field offices. London: Intermediate Technology. Talmon-l'Armee, Alexander R. 2001. "The evolution of monitoring systems for housing and infrastructure rehabilitation. Unpublished thesis. Cranfield University. Tanguy, Joelle, and Fiona Terry. 1999. On Humanitarian Responsibility. Ethics & International Affairs 13. Available at: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/other/humanitarian.shtml. Taylor, Jon. 2001. Evaluating the Internet as a Medium for the Dissemination of Development Research. Oxford: INTRAC. Available at: http://www.urbandevelopmentforum.org/WebsiteEvaluation/Home.html. Tearfund. 1999. Techniques for Capturing Learning in Tearfund. Available at: http://mail.bellanet.org/kmdir/upload/TearFund_Learn.doc. Telford, John. 1997. Counting and Identification of Beneficiary Populations in Emergency Operations: Registration and Its Alternatives. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/lib.nsf/LibHome?OpenForm&Count=25. Terry, Fiona. 2000. The limits and risks of regulation mechanisms for humanitarian action. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 17: 20-21. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/documents/humanitarianexchange017.pdf. Thiele, Bret. 2000. Recont Developments in United Nations Policy on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugee Return. Refuge 19, no. 3: 3-7. Available at: http://www.yorku.ca/crs/DMs%20Refuge%20Pages/Vol%2019%20No%203/Thiele.pdf. Tipple, Graham. no date. "Building homes to build local economies. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/HD/hdv5n2/forum1.htm. Topu, Yasemin. 1999. Humanitarian NGO-Networks - Identifying Powerful Political Actors in an International Policy-field, Arbeitsgruppe Internationale Politik, Berlin. Available at: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/1999/p99-302.pdf. Torres, Rosa-Mara. 2001. Knowledge-based international aid. Do we want it? Do we need it? Knowledge, Research and International Cooperation. W Gmelin, K. King, and S McGrath. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 2001. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/pdf/international_aid.pdf. Turner, John F C. 1972. Housing as a Verb. Freedom to Build. John F C Turner, and Robert Fichter. New York: Macmillan. Twigg, John. 2002. Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction and Livelihoods. London: Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London (UCL). Twigg, John, Diane Steiner, Mary Myers, and Charlotte Benson. 2000. A study of International Relief and Development Agencies based in the UK,. London: British Red Cross. Available at: www.redcross.org.uk/dmp. UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. 1991. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment 4. The right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1)). Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm.

324

UNDRO. 1982. Shelter after Disaster, Guidelines for Assistance New York: UN. UN/EU. 2003. Guidelines on The Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets To Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies. Available at: http://coe-dmha.org/Media/Guidance/3MCDAGuidelines.pdf. UN-Habitat. 2003. "United Nations Housing Rights Programme. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/housingrights/default.asp. UN-OCHA. "Project on Emergency Telecommunications with and in the Field. Web page [accessed 26 October 1999]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/intro/ocha.html. 1999. Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. New York: United Nations. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900SID/LGEL-5RMG68?OpenDocument. 2002. Symposium on best practices in the Humanitarian Information Exchange. Geneva: UN-OCHA. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/symposium/. UNCHS (Habitat). 2001. Guidelines for operational programme formulation in post disaster situations - A resource guide. Nairobi: UNHCS (Habitat) - Risk and Disaster Management Unit. Available at: http://hq.unhabitat.org/cdrom/governance/html/yellop10.htm. UNEP. 2000. Environmental Impact of Refugees in Guinea. UNEP. Available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch/guinea/report.html. UNHCHR. 1998. "Housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/7a2fba9e1a992754802566730034f4f1?Opendocument. UNHCR. 1994. Registration: a practical guide for field staff. UNHCR. Available at: http://www.the-ecentre.net/resources/e_library/doc/6REGIST.PDF. UNHCR. 1995. "UNHCR's Policy and Practice Regarding Urban Refugees, A Discussion Paper. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+4wwBmedVqX_wwwwrwwwwwwwhFqo20I0E2gltFqoGn5nwGqrAFqo20I0E2glcFqew84cAioMoCaYwMxoweuGY nrnaro5BdGOadhawa51qqn55h1caGnh1tnna5nBBcnMnDBe5W3qmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm. 1996a. A camp is born. Refugees, no. 105. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+GwwBmedf7V_wwwwnwwwwwwwhFqhT0yfEtFqnp1xcAFqhT0yfEcFq3EaqwMpao5axdGDaaDzmxwwwwwww/o pendoc.htm. 1996b. Environmental guidelines. Geneva: UNCHR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+YwwBmeHA_w_wwwwnwwwwwwwhFqA72ZR0gRfZNtFqrpGdBnqBAFqA72ZR0gRfZNcFq1nDVoGdDMnDBwca oMpwqBDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf. 1998. Refugee operation and environmental management - Key principles for decision making. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id=3b03b24d4. UNHCR. 1999a. Handbook for emergencies. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PUBL&id=3bb2fa26b. 1999b. Protecting refugees: a field guide for NGOs. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/partners/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PARTNERS&id=3bb9794e4. UNHCR. 1999c. Return, local integration and property rights. Sarajevo: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.crpc.org.ba/new/download/en/crpcstudies/EXECUTIV_.pdf. UNHCR. 1999d. Kosovo Rapid Village Assessment (form). Available at: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/files/rvaform.pdf. UNHCR. 2000. The state of the world's refugees. Oxford: OUP. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/pubs/sowr2000/sowr2000toc.htm. 2001. Refugees operation and Environmental management - Selected lessons learned. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id=3b03b2754. UNHCR. 2002a. Statistical yearbook 2001. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/template?page=statistics&src=static/statistical_yearbook/2001/toc.htm. UNHCR. 2002b. Local integration. Global consultations on international protection. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/prexcom/standocs/english/gc02_6e.pdf.

325

 2002c. Voluntary repatriation. Global consultations on international protection. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+FwwBmIePCMpwwwwnwwwwwwwhFqA72ZR0gRfZNtFqrpGdBnqBAFqA72ZR0gRfZNcFqMGnpwBGowBodDDz mxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf. UNHCR. 2003a. "Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit. Web page [accessed July 2003]. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/research/+RwwFqzvx89Xqs66xFqzvx89Xqs66hFqhT0NuItFqoGn5nwGqrzFqo20I0E2glAFqwDzmwwwwwwww1Fqo20I0 E2gl. 2003b. Partnership: a programme management handbook for UNHCR's partners. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900SID/LGEL-5L7CQ5?OpenDocument. no date. Social and economic impact of large refugee populations on host developing countries. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/+VwwBmdeDEudwwww3wwwwwwwhFqh0kgZTtFqnnLnqAFqh0kgZTcFq1nDVoGdDMnDBwcaoMpwqBMzm1ww wwwwwDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm. UNHRP. 2002. Housing rights legislation - Review of international and national legal instruments. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT - OHCHR. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/housingrights/documents/HS-638x.pdf. UNICEF. 1999. Humanitarian Principles Training: a Child Rights Protection Approach to Complex Emergencies. New York: UNICEF. Available at: http://coe-dmha.org/unicef/unicef2fs.htm. 2003. M&E training modules. New York: UNICEF. UNMIK. 2000a. "UNMIK Department of Reconstruction - Housing Directorate. Web page [accessed May 2003]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/hcic/departaments/reconstruction/housin_recon/. 2000b. Housing and property rights in Kosovo - Collection of basic texts. Pristina: UNCHS (Habitat). Available at: http://www.grid.unep.ch/btf/missions/habitat/compendiumeng.html. US Army. 1993. A leader's guide to After Action Review. Washington: Headquarters Department of the Army. Available at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_25-20/guide.htm. USAID/OFDA. 1998. Field Operations Guide for Disaster Assessment and Response. USAID. Available at: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/resources/pdf/fog_v3.pdf. USAID/OFDA. 2002. Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting. Washington : USAID. Available at: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/resources/pdf/guidelines_2002.pdf. USCR. 2001. Afghan refugees: shunned and scorned. USCR. Available at: http://www.refugees.org/downloads/Pakistan.pdf. UW DMC (University of Wisconsin-Disaster Management Center). 1996. Emergency Settlement Conference. Available at: http://dmc.engr.wisc.edu/es96/Precis.html. Van Brabant, Koenraad. 1997. Organisational and institutional learning in the humanitarian sector - opening the dialogue.. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/alnap/pubs/pdfs/kvblearn.pdf. 1999. Opening the black box: an outline of a framework to understand, promote and evaluate humanitarian coordination. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.oneworld.org/odi/hpg/papers/kvbcord.pdf. Van Brabant, Koenraad. 2000. Regaining perspective: the debate over quality assurance and accountability. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 17: 22-24. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. 2003. Benchmarks and yardsticks for humanitarian action: broadening the picture. Forced Migration Review, no. 17: 43-45. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org. Van del Velden, Maja. 2002. The end of diversity? - Knowledge, ICTs and the Development Gateway. Third International Conference on Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication. Available at: http://www.dgroups.org/groups/OKN/docs/ACF20CE.pdf?ois=no. van den Berg, Rob, and Niels Dabelstein. 2003. Iraq and Rehabilitation, Lessons from Previous Evaluations. London: ALNAP. Available at: http://www.alnap.org/pubs/pdfs/iraq_evaluation_lessons.pdf. Van Landewijk, Jan and Shordt eds. 1988. Settlements and Disasters Amsterdam: Proceedings of Workshop June 1988. . van Mierop, Schenkenberg. 2002. Band-aids for humanitarian workers. ICVA - Talk Back 4, no. 1. Web page [accessed June 2003]. 326

Available at: http://www.icva.ch/cgi-bin/browse.pl?doc=doc00000591. van Winkelen, C. 2003. " Inter-Organizational Communities of Practice. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/doc.php?id=1483&lng=1&doclng=1. Vann, Beth. 2002. Gender-Based Violence: Emerging Issues in Programs Serving Displaced Populations. Arlington: The Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium. Available at: http://www.rhrc.org/pdf/gbv_vann.pdf. Verboom, D. B. 2002. The humanitarian approach. Qualityworld : 32-34. Available at: http://www.medair.org/press/verboom.pdf. VITA. 2003. "Volunteers in Technical Assistance. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.vita.org/. Vogel, Isabel. 2001. An online impact assessment tool for research information. Information Development 17, no. 2. Available at: http://www.bellanet.org/leap/docs/p111_Vogel_article_(1).pdf?OutsideInServer=no. Wageningen Disaster Studies. 1999. Evaluating Humanitarian Aid: policies, perspectives and practices. Wageningen: Wageningen Disaster Studies. Walkup, Mark. 1997. Policy dysfunction in humanitarian organizations: the role of coping strategies, institutions, and organizational culture. Journal of Refugee Studies 10, no. 1: 37-60. Wallace, Tina. 2000. Development and Management: Experiences in Value-based Conflict. Web page [accessed June 2003]. Available at: http://www.developmentinpractice.org/readers/management/wallace.htm. Warner, Daniel. 1999. The politics of the political/humanitarian divide. International Review of the Red Cross, no. 833: 109-18. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList172/D54715110BDDA79EC1256B66005CFE77. Waters, Tony. 2003. Refugee camps and the problem of ethnic extremism. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 23: 41-42. Available at: http://odihpn.org/. Watkins, Ben. 2001. Information exchange for humanitarian coordination in the Horn of Africa. Humanitarian Exchange, no. 19: 47-49. Available at: http://odihpn.org/documents/humanitarianexchange019.pdf. Webster, Frank. 1995. Theories of the information society. New York: Routledge. Weiss, C. 1998. Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation 19, no. 1: 21-33. Wenger, Etienne. 1998a. "Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. 1998b. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. Supporting Communities of Practice. A survey of community oriented technology. Available at: http://www.ewenger.com/. Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard Business School Press. Whaites, Alan. 2000. NGOs, disasters, and advocacy: caught between the Prophet and the Shepherd Boy. Development in Practice 10, no. 3-4. Whiffen, Paul. 2001. Seizing learning opportunities at Tearfund - Improving disaster relief and development efforts. Knowledge Management Review 4, no. 5: 18-21. White, Nancy. 2002. "Networks, Groups and Catalysts: The Sweet Spot for Forming Online Learning Communities. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.fullcirc.com/community/networkscatalystscommunity.htm. White, P., and L. Cliffe. 2000. Matching response to context in complex emergencies: relief, development, peace building or something in between?. Disasters 24, no. 4: 314-42. Available at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/... WHO. 2000. "Occupational Health of Field Personnel in Complex Emergencies: Report of a Pilot Study. Web page [accessed January 2003]. Available at: http://www.who.int/disasters/resource/pubs/131098.htm. Wiest, Raymond E., Jane S. P. Mocellin, and D. Thandiwe Motsisi. 1994. The needs of women in disasters and emergencies. Winnipeg: The university of Manitoba. Available at: http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/gdn/resources/women-in-disasteremergency.pdf. Wikipedia. "Not invented here. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here.

327

Wisner, B., and J. Adams. 2002. Shelter and emergency settlements, in: Environmental health in emergencies and disasters: A Practical Guide.Geneva: WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/emergencies2002/en/. Witzig Davidson, Lisa, Margaret Daly Hayes, and James J. Landon. 1996. Humanitarian and Peace Operations: NGOs and the Military in the Interagency Process, NDU Press Book. Available at: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20%201996/Humanitarian%20and%20Peace%20Ops%20-%20Dec%2096/index.html. Wood, Adrian, Raymond Apthorpe, and John Borton. 2001. Evaluating International Humanitarian Action - Reflections from practitioners. London: Zed Books. Wood, Mark. 1996. "Disaster Communication. Web page [accessed 26 October 1999]. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/library/dc1/dcc1.html. World Bank. 1998. World Development Report 1998/99: knowledge for development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Bank. 2003. "Knowledge Sharing at the World Bank. Web page [accessed December 2003]. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/. World Bank. No date. Communities of practice. Questions and answers. Washington: World bank. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ks/MSfiles/CoP_QA.doc. Young, John. 2003. The role of research. Does Evidence Matter? ODI Lunchtime Meeting Series London: ODI. Web page [accessed October 2003]. Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Meetings/Presentation_6/Young.html. Zehnder, Reto. 2003. Learning Support Office Malawi - Real Time Evaluation. Zetter, Roger. 1991. Labelling Refugees: forming and transforming a bureaucratic identity. Journal of Refugee Studies 4, no. 1: 39-62. Zetter, Roger. 1992. Refugees and forced migrants as development resources: the Greek Cypriot refugees from 1974. The Cyprus Review 4, no. 1: http://www.um.dk/udenrigspolitik/udviklingspolitik/evaluering/eval-gui/index.html. Zetter, Roger. 1993. Aid, non-governmental agencies and refugee livelihood. Oxford: Refugee Studies Programme. 1995a. Shelter provision and settlement policy for refugees: a state of the art review. Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Available at: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/dfm/pdf/zetter-shelter.pdf. 1995b. Enhancing the capacity of local NGOs in refugee assistance: experience from Malawi & Zimbabwe. Refugee Participation Network 19. Available at: http://www.fmreview.org/rpn197.htm. 1996. Indigenous NGOs and refugee assistance: some lessons from Malawi and Zimbabwe. Development in Practice 6, no. 1: 3749. 1999. International perspectives on refugee assistance. Refugees: contemporary perspectives on the experience of forced migration. Ed. Alastair Ager, 46-82. New York: Cassel. Zetter, Roger. 2000. From complex emergencies to complex recovery: mobilising relevant resources for recovery and development. Recovery and development after conflict. Zetter, Roger, Silva Ferretti, and Nabeel Hamdi. 2002. From roofs to reintegration: project to enhance competences in housing and settlement programmes for returnees. Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation. Zetter, Roger, David Griffiths, Silva Ferretti, and Martin Pearl. 2001. An assessment of the impact of asylum policies in Europe: feasibility study. London: Home office. Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors259.pdf. Zetter, Roger, David Griffiths, Silva Ferretti, Nando Sigona, and Kate Romer. 2003. Asylum policy and process in Europe: an in-depth analysis of current practices for the reception of asylum seekers. London: Home office.

328