Flip-flop funding follies - streaming on Geneva week
In the spirit of free flow blogging.... here are some streamed unedited thoughts....
So I went to Geneva/ Archamps wondering how much of Mark's $800K unallocated pie I could carve for ECB3, and ended up trying to justify keeping all of the ECB3 funds within ECB3 when are spending levels are so low!
Personal Pluses:
- Welcomed the open discussion amongst several stakeholder groups
- An honest and open discussion about budget and expenditures issues
- Maybe the beginnings of a support group for relationships broken during the course of this project!
- Really nice to have most of the staff together again
- The invitation to the Project Director and Managers to join the CARE Int ECB team was one of the highlights. With the CARE team meeting together for the first time, Joy new to her Focal Point position, and Paul and Kiki brought into the fold, it was remarkable how open the discussions were within the two hours of our time together.
- Great that the staff had some time off to make some external contacts.
- Michel, our intrepid taxi driver
Personal Negatives:
- As at least a couple of folks mentioned independently, being "ejected" from the Phase II presentation felt a bit like being a beneficiary (and I speak as a former "beneficiary" of American Red Cross aid following a hurricane!). Focal Points were ejected a little later also. It could have been done a lot more openly.
- Not sure if I actually contributed anything much during the joint Focal Point-staff meeting, and thus not sure if it was worth me being there
- I appreciated Adriaan presenting to the staff the suggested model for Phase II, but felt that the discussion was superficial, and that our opinions were not being seriously considered - I know as staff, we often have a different position
- I feel strongly that the lack of a high level component in the Phase II design being focussed on "risk reduction", "development relief", "linking relief to development", or at the very least putting emergency/ humanitarian work in a context of an underlying development or vulnerability framework, is a major missed opportunity. It is not enough to leave this large area to develop independently within Phase II pilot countries. Had this been a brand new project, I could understand much easier the reticence to address such issues at an HQ level. However, the IWG made a pretty unique and innovative delve into the DRR arena for the 2 years of Phase I, and despite the inherent problems of managing this initiative. With the donor environment shifting to address these issues (look at USAID/FFP, DFID, and ECHO), for the ECB project to not address this at a collective policy and/or strategic level is really a missed opportunity. I personally believe, as Rigo also stated, that it is probably not appropriate for ECB3 to continue in to Phase II with the continued structure built upon 7 emergency directors. But I would have liked to have seen the start of a specific resource plan to take forward risk reduction at another level, i.e. a couple of agencies willing to lead this challenge, and agree to come up with a plan for a funded collaborative project within say 6 months. With no resources attached, at a time when all efforts of the 7 agencies will be directed towards ECB Phase II for the next 5 years, to leave it hanging could be to miss the boat completely. And this with at least 3 of the IWG agencies independently developing their own internal strategies to address this DRR/ development relief sector. But this is just my opinion. The only other views I have heard that challenge the absence of ECB3 in the Phase II design are from one staff member and 2 ECB3 advisors.
- The crappy internet access at the hotel (but it was fun insisting to the droll manager that in the absence of the 24 internet card, he should give me at the same price 100 of the 15 minutes cards still available!)
Funnies:
- "What is SharePoint?" from a senior member who shall remain nameless!
- The artful dodger kids who stormed into the vestibule area outside the groud level IEH2 meeting rooms, nominally trying to sell New Testaments, but eyeing up the luggage and the freebies, tucking with bravado into the orange juice, croissant and other refreshments lying there just waiting to get consumed. Despite getting chased away, they returned within the hour. So much for security in a UN building in Geneva; and this with a Geneva terror alert in action.
Regards, Warner
So I went to Geneva/ Archamps wondering how much of Mark's $800K unallocated pie I could carve for ECB3, and ended up trying to justify keeping all of the ECB3 funds within ECB3 when are spending levels are so low!
Personal Pluses:
- Welcomed the open discussion amongst several stakeholder groups
- An honest and open discussion about budget and expenditures issues
- Maybe the beginnings of a support group for relationships broken during the course of this project!
- Really nice to have most of the staff together again
- The invitation to the Project Director and Managers to join the CARE Int ECB team was one of the highlights. With the CARE team meeting together for the first time, Joy new to her Focal Point position, and Paul and Kiki brought into the fold, it was remarkable how open the discussions were within the two hours of our time together.
- Great that the staff had some time off to make some external contacts.
- Michel, our intrepid taxi driver
Personal Negatives:
- As at least a couple of folks mentioned independently, being "ejected" from the Phase II presentation felt a bit like being a beneficiary (and I speak as a former "beneficiary" of American Red Cross aid following a hurricane!). Focal Points were ejected a little later also. It could have been done a lot more openly.
- Not sure if I actually contributed anything much during the joint Focal Point-staff meeting, and thus not sure if it was worth me being there
- I appreciated Adriaan presenting to the staff the suggested model for Phase II, but felt that the discussion was superficial, and that our opinions were not being seriously considered - I know as staff, we often have a different position
- I feel strongly that the lack of a high level component in the Phase II design being focussed on "risk reduction", "development relief", "linking relief to development", or at the very least putting emergency/ humanitarian work in a context of an underlying development or vulnerability framework, is a major missed opportunity. It is not enough to leave this large area to develop independently within Phase II pilot countries. Had this been a brand new project, I could understand much easier the reticence to address such issues at an HQ level. However, the IWG made a pretty unique and innovative delve into the DRR arena for the 2 years of Phase I, and despite the inherent problems of managing this initiative. With the donor environment shifting to address these issues (look at USAID/FFP, DFID, and ECHO), for the ECB project to not address this at a collective policy and/or strategic level is really a missed opportunity. I personally believe, as Rigo also stated, that it is probably not appropriate for ECB3 to continue in to Phase II with the continued structure built upon 7 emergency directors. But I would have liked to have seen the start of a specific resource plan to take forward risk reduction at another level, i.e. a couple of agencies willing to lead this challenge, and agree to come up with a plan for a funded collaborative project within say 6 months. With no resources attached, at a time when all efforts of the 7 agencies will be directed towards ECB Phase II for the next 5 years, to leave it hanging could be to miss the boat completely. And this with at least 3 of the IWG agencies independently developing their own internal strategies to address this DRR/ development relief sector. But this is just my opinion. The only other views I have heard that challenge the absence of ECB3 in the Phase II design are from one staff member and 2 ECB3 advisors.
- The crappy internet access at the hotel (but it was fun insisting to the droll manager that in the absence of the 24 internet card, he should give me at the same price 100 of the 15 minutes cards still available!)
Funnies:
- "What is SharePoint?" from a senior member who shall remain nameless!
- The artful dodger kids who stormed into the vestibule area outside the groud level IEH2 meeting rooms, nominally trying to sell New Testaments, but eyeing up the luggage and the freebies, tucking with bravado into the orange juice, croissant and other refreshments lying there just waiting to get consumed. Despite getting chased away, they returned within the hour. So much for security in a UN building in Geneva; and this with a Geneva terror alert in action.
Regards, Warner
posted by Warner Passanisi at 6:09 PM
3 Comments:
Agreed Matt. But with the concentrated coalescence of efforts required to get the Phase II proposal completed in time, and the heavy investment from all present in Geneva to get this started as well as complete Phase I, who will take this forward and when? It's much tougher to do this down the road, than to continue to invest in a hook now upon which to hang the collective DRR umbrella.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Warner, I couldn't agree more about the missed opportunity around DRR. I think that if the IWG agencies don't really focus on this, we're wasting our time - not only is it far more cost-effective mode of delivery, but it presents a substantive means of linking relief and development, which is something agencies are still struggling with.
Post a Comment
<< Home