Work in Progress: Subversive humanitarianism. Rethinking refugee solidarity through grassroots initiatives.

Robin Vandevoordt writes:

Across Europe, hundreds of thousands of volunteers have brought food, clothes, medicines and numerous others forms of support to newly arrived refugees. While humanitarian action has always been subversive, I argue that the recent wave of civil actions has pushed its subversive effects one step further. Whereas more modest forms of humanitarian action tend to misrecognise recipients’ social and political subjectivities, their more subversive counterparts can be better understood as enacting a particularist form of solidarity that emphasises precisely those subjectivities. To explore the potential for political innovation in these civil initiatives, I argue that it can be useful to do so through the lens of ‘subversive humanitarianism’.

More concretely, I suggest seven dimensions with which the subversive character of any humanitarian action can be compared across time and space: acts of civil disobedience; the reconstitution of social subjects; contending symbolic spaces; the creation of social spaces and personal bonds; putting minds into motion; and the transformation of individuals‘ life-worlds. I support the argument by drawing upon the recent wave of empirical studies on civil initiatives across the continent, as well as my own ethnographic data on the Brussels-based Plateforme Citoyenne de Soutien aux Réfugiés.

Robin Vandevoordt is Early Career Fellow in Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Robin works on a research project on ‘Civil humanitarianism and the politics of refugee solidarity’ with ethnographic fieldwork with several civil initiatives in Belgium, focusing on their subversive relations with governmental policies, professional NGOs and everyday social life. Robin's work also covers different dimensions of Syrian refugees' lives and status in Belgium. 

The seminar will be at 16.30 on Thursday 28 February, in the Abercrombie Building, Headington Campus, Third Floor, Student Hub, White Space. All welcome. See here for details of all the seminars.

The State of the World’s Humanitarian System, Oxford Launch on the 21^stFebruary 

By Cathrine Brun

The 4^thedition of ALNAP’s The State of the World’s Humanitarian System (SOHS) was published in December 2018. On Thursday the 21^stFebruary, CENDEP and Oxford Brookes University host the Oxford launch of the report.  

Covering three years from 2015 to 2017, the report looks back at the documentation from previous reports (in 2010, 2012 and 2015) and considers in what ways the system has made progress and where there is decline in performance and resources. In this short blog, I reflect on some aspects of the report in preparation for the Oxford launch. At the launch we will have the lead author of the report ALNAP’s Paul Knox Clarke in a panel together with Emma Fanning of Oxfam and Naohiko Omata of the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. I will be chairing the event. 

The report is a formidable achievement, drawing on a comprehensive set of data: It features a synthesis of 120 evaluations and case studies from Bangladesh, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali and Yemen, including interviews in those settings. More than 150 key informant interviews have been conducted, an aid recipient survey was undertaken, together with a global aid practitioner online survey, government questionnaire and a targeted literature review, in addition to data from consultancies and research centres. 

            

The report is certainly an agenda-setter in relation to the humanitarian discourse, the definition of what humanitarianism is, and who is included and who is not included in the system. The humanitarian system is defined as: 

“The network of inter-connected institutional and operational entities that receive funds, directly or indirectly from public donors and private sources, to enhance, support or substitute for in-country responses in the provision of humanitarian assistance and protection to a population in crisis” (p. 32).

This relatively open definition is narrowed down to what is termed the ‘formal system’ and actors such as civil society without an explicit humanitarian function, development actors, diaspora groups, military, media and academia are not directly included in the data used in the report. In this way, we see the more conventional part of the humanitarian system reflected in the report, rather than the new actors that are currently playing an increasing role in assisting in crisis settings (although some reflections on the role of these actors are included). Nevertheless, the report very much helps to capture some of the important changes in the humanitarian field. Importantly, the way the information is presented also points to clear recommendations on how the system can become better. A significant conclusion is that there have been some incremental changes, but that radical transformation is not taking place in the formal humanitarian system. 

Rather than summarising all the important aspects of the report, I will focus on three areas of improvement identified in the report: Coverage, Collective action and Context, seen together with the shifting policy setting that these improvements must be related to.

Coverageis about ensuring that everyone in need can access humanitarian assistance (p. 22). The report indicate that coverage has been in steady decline since 2012 for IDPs outside camps, host communities and people living in conflict-areas where there may be more risk to humanitarian staff.  Additionally,there is a small number of complex crises that received the majority of funding: half of all international humanitarian assistance went to just four crises in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and Iraq. 

The report shows that there is a need for the humanitarian system to improve collective action. There is a lack of effective measures to collaborate and despite much effort to improve coordination, much more work is needed to make this effective, both vertically and horizontally. And while there seem to be improvements in this area, the improvements are slow and confined to some settings such as Somalia and South Sudan. 

Finally, and very much related to the issue of collaboration, is the need to improve how humanitarians deal with context. The humanitarian system still operates on standardised principles and procedures, and seems to have difficulty understanding and translating these principles and standards to the local realities in which they are applied. 

These ‘three Cs’ must be seen in the context of some main policy initiatives that has taken place in the period between 2015 and 2017 and identified in the report. I will mention two main policy-events here. First, the outcomes of the Grand Bargain following the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016 which clearly changed the humanitarian discourse with ‘localisation’ and ‘development’ as buzzwords that now dominate many humanitarian discussions. 

The SOHS shows that ‘localisation’ is not a threat to the enactment of humanitarian principles. But it also shows that the Grand Bargain and localisation have only had modest progress on the ground and rather supported ongoing initiatives than creating something new with the potential to improve coverage, collaboration and contextual operationalisation of humanitarian assistance. In similar vein, the increasing emphasis on the so-called humanitarian-development nexus, not a new discussion in itself, is affecting discussions of the humanitarian system’s role in protracted crises and displacement and other inbetween spaces where humanitarians operate. More discussion, I think, is needed on how we understand development in these spaces. 

The second policy event was the process that led to the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and the two accompanying compacts. In parallel with that process, the report documents and covers a period distinguished by an increasingly hostile world for refugees and displaced populations, particularly associated with the political crisis in Europe since 2015 of receiving migrants and refugees. With less funding and fewer possibilities for solutions for many protracted refugee crises, humanitarian assistance is also more likely to continue to be stretched between different forms of crises and needs. Together with more emphasis on self-reliance and independence of aid, these are themes that we will be reflecting on in our discussion on the 21^stFebruary. 

The report covers much ground and it shows that humanitarian assistance is expanding and becoming more diverse but at the same time concentrating its efforts on fewer crises. How can the humanitarian system continue to improve and adjust to the realities in which it operates? Should we assume that future reports will be more and more challenging to write as the system and its practices on the ground may work more and more with actors not traditionally included in the system? That new policies will evolve that drive humanitarian assistance to finding new approaches? 

There is much more to discuss. We aim to cover more ground and pay justice to many more of the well-researched areas presented in the report in our discussion on the 21^st of February. We look forward to reflect further and discuss with the audience around the insights from the State of the Humanitarian System 2018. 

The event takes place at Oxford Brookes University at 16.30 on Thursday the 21^stFebruary, in the John Henry Brookes Building, room JHB 406. 

Displaced in cities: who are the hosts?

Zoe Jordan writes:

The recent ICRC report, Displaced in Cities, shines a much-needed light on experiences of hosting IDPs in urban centres. This is an increasing area of focus for humanitarian action, but understanding of this phenomenon is sorely lacking. While humanitarian agencies are increasingly considering hosting at the national, regional and city scale, there remains a significant gap in understanding and working with host families—those individuals who share their accommodation and resources with displaced people.

Hosting practices are more diverse than currently portrayed, forging relationships between unrelated individuals and offering protection, belonging and identity, as well as meeting basic needs. To provide better humanitarian support we need to question underlying assumptions about host families and to identify ways to better engage with this vital support system.

Taking the Displaced in Cities report as my starting point, I offer my own reflections on hosting practices for displaced populations. In doing so, I draw on my PhD research around refugee hosting practices in the protracted urban context of Amman, Jordan and experience working with hosts and IDPs in DRC.

Host families in urban environments

ICRC’s report is a valuable contribution, drawing attention to the little understood issue of IDPs in urban areas. In putting people’s own experiences and understandings at the forefront of the report and questioning existing humanitarian approaches and assumptions, it makes a call for humanitarian actors to reconceptualise their work with displaced populations in urban environments.

The recognition of the importance of host families within the report is a welcome inclusion. Though humanitarian agencies are demonstrably aware of the importance of these support networks, I’ve found there is little detailed information available on host families. Where reports and studies mention host families, this is often merely one line, or at best a paragraph. With so little in-depth information available, it’s difficult to put figures on the number of people living in such arrangements. The available evidence suggests hosting practices are widespread and large-scale. In Jordan, CARE found that 23% of Syrian refugee households were sharing accommodation with non-family members in 2017.  I believe rates to be higher among other refugee populations in Amman, who have less access to assistance and do not have access to camps. In DRC, OCHA estimates that 96% of the 16,000 people internally displaced in December 2017 were living with host families.

In the opening pages of the Displaced in Cities report, the authors rightly note that there has, as yet, been little focus on the experiences of IDPs in urban environments. They also point out that IDPs in different cities will face their own political, economic, social and legal constraints, in ways that differentiate their experiences from those of refugees and non-displaced city residents. To me, this gap in the analysis also applies to hosting arrangements for both refugee and IDP populations living in cities.

One of the key recommendations outlined in the report is the need for responses to be built upon reliable data and analysis, rather than generalisations and assumptions. In my experience, despite frequent references to host communities and host families there is little insight into who hosts are, what the experience of hosting and being hosted is like, and how humanitarian agencies influence these relationships.

Are people better off being hosted?

I find that it is often assumed that displaced populations living in cities are better off than those in camps. In addition to increased economic opportunity and freedom of movement, the possibility of living with a host family is often cited as an explanation of why cities can be a better option. While hosting can present many benefits and is largely seen as a positive coping mechanism, it is also often the only option for those who do not have access to camps. With high rental costs, many urban refugees and IDPs have little choice but to live with others.

Hosting can provide shelter, access to food, water and sanitation facilities, connections to work, safety and protection, and psychosocial support and advice. My research suggests it can also contribute to a sense of belonging, by maintaining or restoring someone’s identity and sense of connection to their culture, history and place of origin, and to beginning a process of integration in their place of displacement. Hosting can also present a danger—overcrowding, poor living conditions, ill-health, stress and a lack of privacy, exploitation and abuse. With so much at stake, I think it’s essential that humanitarian actors better understand how hosting works and the impact their policies can have.

Who are the hosts?

The hosting relationship is often seen in terms of securing access to resources to meet basic needs and described as a burden on hosts or exploitative of guests. It is also assumed to take place between family/kin, and between citizen-hosts and displaced-guests. To me, this misunderstands the basis of many hosting relationships and the decision-making processes and expectations involved. Thus, it misunderstands which factors may influence the experience of being hosted and the ‘terms of agreement’. It avoids engaging in the complex societal and personal relations and norms around hosting. Furthermore, it fails to recognise the huge role hosting relationships play in the lives of displaced persons and hosts, beyond the provision of shelter and basic assistance.

While in many cases displaced people are hosted by family, or draw on pre-existing relations to find a host, this is by no means universal. In Jordan, I found that hosting arrangements between non-family members is common, especially in non-Syrian and non-Iraqi refugee populations, and particularly among young men. In many cases, single people join together to share accommodation, or un-related families form a new household. Importantly, these relationships aren’t just about sharing rental costs but are a vital safety net in a context of uncertain informal employment and low levels of humanitarian assistance.

Unlike the increasingly-popular refugee hosting programmes in Europe, in many places in the global South host families are not organised by an NGO or another organisation. Rather, they are formed by the people involved, sometimes with the support of their church or mosque, a community leader, or a community group.

In all of the hosting arrangements that I encountered in Amman, refugees were not being hosted by Jordanians, but rather by other refugees, normally of the same nationality. While Syrian and Iraqi refugees were often hosted by family relations, normally those who had arrived in Jordan a few years or months earlier, Sudanese and Somali refugees rarely had these options, and usually arrived in Jordan without knowing anyone. Instead, they created hosting relations based on ideas of sharing and solidarity (for a brief discussion of the motivations to host, please visit the CENDEP blog).

What is the role of humanitarian actors?

Humanitarian actors have a great influence over hosting arrangements. Most obviously, in situations where humanitarian agencies have the capacity to distribute cash grants and offer rental support, this assistance plays a major role in influencing people’s housing decisions and their experience of hosting. For example, Waseem, a young man with a serious injury that prevented him from working was at risk of having to leave his hosting arrangement because he could not contribute to the rent costs. Recognising this, Waseem did all the cooking and cleaning at home as his contribution towards the household. Though most of the nine men he shared with were happy with this arrangement, several of them weren’t, creating tensions and arguments at home. Waseem told us that once he started receiving monthly cash assistance, the situation at home stabilised and he no longer felt under threat.

Some NGOs have run pilot projects working with landlords to offer secure space to refugees in return for home improvements. Interventions aimed at improving tenure security are welcome, with the recognition that many hosting arrangements are informal and that for many their flexibility is desirable, though risky.

Other impacts of humanitarian assistance are subtler. For example, many of the men I worked with in my research met each other during activities run by NGO community centres—English classes, football matches and dance showcases. In places where public space is limited or inaccessible (either due to cost barriers or fears of harassment), community centres become vital spaces to develop relationships. Similarly, workplaces become crucial sites for solidifying existing relationships. Though NGOs may have limited influence in these sites, a recognition that work is providing more than an income is important

Recommendations

As recommended in the Displaced in Cities report, we need further and better analysis of the situations of host families in order to capture the impact of displacement on them and to understand how they support displaced persons. Doing so would provide us with greater insight into how humanitarian action already influences such practices and what we as humanitarian actors can do better. This would allow us to support positive aspects of hosting while minimising the risks and protection concerns of everyone involved in the hosting relationship.

By placing people at the centre of response and focusing on dignity and resilience, we can enhance and promote existing support mechanisms—such as hosting—and prioritise the choices and preferences of people affected by displacement. In this regard, the 2016 localisation agenda emerging from the World Humanitarian Summit is a positive development. Beyond just looking at increasing and improving equal partnership with local organisations, we need to maintain this energy to look at what people are doing for themselves. In particular, we need to look at the ways that refugees are helping other refugees, acknowledging that the main source of assistance is frequently not citizens of the host country nor governments or humanitarian actors, but rather other migrants, displaced populations and refugees.

Humanitarian actors are still learning how to work in urban environments. In doing so, we need to make sure that we’re taking a step back and looking at the whole urban environment, rather than working in sectoral silos or focusing on humanitarian action to the detriment of medium and long-term development. As part of that, we need to pay more attention to which spaces and services are accessible to refugees. We should see how refugees are creating, using, and perhaps changing them in ways we have not considered. This includes looking beyond the places we’re used to working in—NGO offices, community centres, and schools—and focusing also on workplaces, public places, and homes (with appropriate privacy and safeguarding protections).

Host families play a critical role throughout displacement. They are not only the first responders, but also a vital connection to the urban environment, sharing resources, knowledge and experiences. As summed up by S, a young Sudanese man living in Amman, ‘if someone comes, maybe I can allow him to live at my house. I’ll welcome him. Why would I not help him, of course I’m going to help him…It doesn’t depend on my situation, it just depends on my humanity. I am a human being, like him. He is Sudanese, and I know this country. It is difficult here.’

This is cross-posted from the blog of the International Committee of the Red Cross 

For further reading

• ICRC Report – Displaced in Cities: Experiencing and responding to urban internal displacement outside camps, 2018
• Blog post – Internal displacement: Some reflections on cracking the urban challenge, Catherine Lune-Grayson, 23 September 2018

Work in progress: photovoice in research on life after immigration detention

This week's Work in Progress seminar is presented by Dr Sarah Turnbull, Lecturer in Criminology at the School of Law, Birkbeck, University of London. She is currently completing a study of immigration detention and deportation in the United Kingdom and describes the topic of her talk:

This presentation offers a critical reflection on my failed attempt to incorporate visual methods in follow-up research on immigration detention and deportation in Britain. In particular, it considers the uses and limits of participant-generated visuals, and the specific method of photovoice, which were originally conceived as an additional means to explore themes of home, identity, and belonging in and through practices of detention and release or expulsion. Using the notion of a ‘research failure’ as a jumping off point, this presentation highlights the challenges and limitations of photovoice in follow-up research with individuals who were detained and/or deported, pointing to various methodological, logistical, ethical, and political issues pertaining to the method itself and the use of the visual in criminological research. As researchers are increasingly encouraged by funders and others to be ‘creative’ and ‘innovative’ in their methodologies, there has been a turn to the visual and the power of photographic images within criminological research. This shift towards the examination, as well as integration, of images raises a number of important methodological and ethical questions worthy of consideration, including instances where visual methods like photovoice are unsuccessful in a research project.

The seminar will be at 16.30 on Thursday 14 February, in the Abercrombie Building, Headington Campus, Third Floor, Student Hub, White Space. All welcome. See here for details of all the seminars.

Mobilising home for protracted displacement

This week's Work in Progress seminar will be given by Anita H. Fábos, Department of International Development, Community, and Environment, Clark University and Cathrine Brun, CENDEP, Oxford Brookes University. They explain the topic:

 

Despite the contemporary rise of long-term refugee displacement, policies in place to manage it are based on remarkably static notions of home. In our talk, we use a feminist analysis of ‘home’ to critique binary policies of “home” and “not-home.” Instead, we propose that refugees themselves link different temporal and spatial dimentions of home into fluid constellations of home, and maintain these constellations through their mobile homekeeping practices. The multi-dimensional homes that refugees make through their daily house-keeping activities, networking and memory-work, and navigation through the international humanitarian system are recognizable as the shared human experience of home and a basis for improved and inclusive policies.

The seminar will be at 17.00 in the Abercrombie Building, Headington Campus, Third Floor, Stdent Hub, White Space. All welcome. See here for details of all the seminars.