A ripple in development? - Channel Research

Providing support to local individuals and organisations requires
an approach with a flexible and long funding timeframe. Organisations
that have been able to provide support successfully to local capacities
are seen to be distinct from “service delivery” agents, and integrate their
plans into national programmes. For example in Indonesia, IFRC efforts
in supporting health and pandemic preparedness in the area are in line
with the government emphasis on appropriate technology use. Health
care support was identified by IFRC as one of four key goals in Indonesia.
By the end of 2008, over 184 hospitals and clinics were rehabilitated
and operational 93 . However, emergency medicine remains an area
where more government and civil society capacity can be built. Health
system recovery and epidemic prevention are priorities identified in
Indonesia’s Master Plan for Rehabilitation 94 .
Such a harmonious relationship naturally depends on an able local
coordination. The alignment between the UN, NGOs and the government
has benefited from BRR work and operations and has built capacity
in the sector to promote effective community participation. Alignment
with development strategies was more difficult in the eastern Sri
Lanka conflict areas. CADREP played an active role in aligning support
with the local partner capacities. UNDP pointed out that, “CADREP
acted as a bridge between the CSO and GO” to unfold recovery actions,
but CADREP performance was dependent on the local administration’s
capacity specific to district and sector.
Some of the largest capacity support efforts of the international
community, such as CADREP, have been successful at developing
national policies and authorities, but have been less successful in sparking
local preparedness plans and effective grassroots emphasis on risk
reduction. The result can be that when care is not taken these large
programmes detract from support to smaller initiatives—including
those that address gender issues—at district and subsidiary levels.
Furthermore, there is not an agreed international system available
for promoting capacity to respond to and recover from large-scale disasters.
Most standards and quality assurance measures are aimed at delivering
water, sanitation, shelter, and now livelihood and installing complaints
mechanisms. Even if participation is mentioned across the
Sphere standards (Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Disaster Response), there are no standards for supporting local capacity
to manage water, sanitation, or shelter recovery needs, especially through
development stages. Donor priorities are low on this agenda, even if
Principle 8 of the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative indicates
that donors should “strengthen the capacity of affected countries and
local communities to prevent, prepare for, mitigate and respond to
humanitarian crises…” Capacity development continues to mean many
93
IFRC (2008a)
94
Republic of Indonesia (2005, p. IV–7)
102