GPPi contributes to symposium on international cooperation in conflicts and disasters

At a recent symposium on international cooperation in conflicts and disasters, GPPi Project Manager Andrea Binder and GPPi Fellow Kai Koddenbrock gave a presentation on the conditions and challenges for linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD). Held September 21 in Berlin, the symposium was organized by the Network International Cooperation in Conflicts and Disasters (NICD). The network, which brings together over 70 projects of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), focuses on crisis prevention, civilian peace building and LRRD.

In the presentation, Binder and Koddenbrock talked about how different donors subscribe to different conceptions of LRRD. For example, the United States and Norway hold LRRD to include linking civilian and military measures in conflict situations. In contrast, Germany and the European Commission hold that LRRD includes linking civilian humanitarian and development activities. Furthermore, most donors view LRRD as the use of several tools (for example, humanitarian aid, development aid, stabilization efforts, peace initiatives), all of which should be applied simultaneously and complementarily. In practice, however, most projects are designed in a linear way. That is, they sequence emergency, transition and development. Binder and Koddenbrock stressed that the successful implementation of LRRD projects require consistency on the conceptual and institutional level of both the donor and the implementing agency.

On a practical level, humanitarian and development actors lack a common understanding of the situation and a shared assessment of needs. Furthermore, successful LRRD increases the need for coordination among humanitarian and development actors, donors and the national government. Finally, while humanitarians deliver free goods and services (such as water or vaccinations), development actors focus on sustainable, cost-recovery schemes. These different aid modalities often also challenge effective LRRD.

Binder and Koddenbrock concluded that given the various challenges for successful LRRD, the way forward is to contextualize LRRD approaches as much as possible. In other words, LRRD approaches must be sector-specific. What works in the water sector might not be helpful in the health sector. Furthermore, LRRD should only be a goal in situations where a deviation from principled humanitarianism is possible. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the conflict and the political context is necessary to decide in which situations LRRD is desirable and feasible.