In the Line of Fire: Doing Development in Fragile States

Following a recent conference on state fragility, World Vision Canada's head of humanitarian assistance, Michael Weickert, sat down with Governance Village editor Brandon Currie to discuss the numerous challenges his organization faces in operating in fragile states

Currie: What challenges do humanitarian aid workers face when they work in failed or fragile states?

Weickert: There are a lot of them. First and foremost is getting the capacity to do the job - the national staff who do most of the work in [fragile states] tend to be in short supply. Hiring expatriates is also difficult because the work isn't family-friendly and you often get high turnover.

And the quality and quantity of money that we get to do work in fragile states isn't great. The higher-profile natural disasters tend to get a lot of resources dedicated to them. Lower-profile crises that have been going on for a long time... the money can be very irregular and often flows in one-year chunks. This makes it hard to program in a context that's not likely to change in five or even 10 years. Getting money for peacebuilding or capacity building - some of the softer-type things that [World Vision] does - can be really hard.

Another obvious [challenge] is security for aid workers. They're increasingly targeted, increasingly seen to be part of the agenda of ‘The West'. The perception that we're neutral seems to be eroding even though most agencies try very hard.... And it's our national staff that bears the brunt of this, not so much the expatriates. They often go to the hardest places and take the most risk.

In a context such as Afghanistan, where humanitarian assistance is sometimes delivered with military support... has that hindered the ability of NGOs like World Vision to be seen as neutral?

I think most NGOs, including World Vision, have policies around cooperation and coordination with the military. We've thought pretty hard about this and have guidelines that we try to follow on the ground in terms of how closely we work together in certain contexts. In terms of a natural disaster, where the military is there just to help people, the relationship can be more straight-forward. When it comes to something as politicized and militarized as Afghanistan, you have to be very careful to keep your distance; you can't be aligned with one side or another.

We expect the powers-that-be, whether that is a peacekeeping force or a rebel movement - whoever's in charge in that environment - to provide protection for the civilians. We do talk quietly to [non-government actors] about that, but we have to be very careful what we say publicly and certainly do not advocate the use of force. Our engagement isn't just with official militaries or peacekeepers; it's often with police forces, militias or other armed groups and we've had to think through the implications of that.

In some ways it's the same, but you're dealing with people who are less trained and are not used to working with NGOs or may have a malevolent agenda that we're concerned about. Ultimately we're trying to help the people who are most at need... so it's a live issue everyday in these kinds of fragile situations.

You've said that World Vision wants to work in "the most difficult contexts." Why is it important for your organization to take that risk?

We have our core values, and one of those is to be committed to the poor and helping those who are most marginalized and most at-risk. As a Christian organization, I think our faith motivates us to serve the poor regardless of who they are. We don't just want to go to the easy places but go to the ones that are otherwise missed. I'm not going to pretend we always do it perfectly - sometimes the most poor are the most invisible and we miss them- but we do have a commitment to work in those areas and in zones of conflict. But there are many good NGOs that go to the toughest places and do the hardest work because they know that's what should be done.

There is a lot of talk about the ‘whole of government approach' the Canadian government is taking in places like Afghanistan. Does this ‘big tent' approach simplify operations for NGOs trying to deliver aid?

It doesn't provide ‘one-stop shopping' with the government and the UN. It makes sense, in a lot ways, why they're trying to do it. Our concern is always: do the political, military or security agendas override the humanitarian development agenda? The issue for me is asking whether [humanitarian assistance] can be firewalled and kept away from the political agenda. Because I think most governments would agree that humanitarian assistance should be given out on the basis of need only... and should be delivered by civilians, except in the most extreme cases.

The whole-of-government approach is understandable and there are some good things that can come out of it, thinking collectively. But there is this concern that things can get blurry and very legitimate development needs can get set aside or instrumentized as a tool of political agendas.

But being outside the ‘tent' is usually a good thing in our line of work. It means we're not associated with any of the warring parties, and much less likely to become a target. And hopefully that will mean access to affected populations who may be behind one military line or another.