Issue 29 of Forced Migration Review (http://www.fmreview.org) – to be published
in October 2007 – will include a feature section on
The implications of humanitarian reform
There is currently much debate within the international community about the
proposed reforms to the humanitarian architecture (see
http://www.humanitarianreform.org) and the proposed introduction of the ‘One
UN’ approach. To what extent will these reforms help ensure more effective
international responses to forced migration? The FMR editors would welcome
practice-oriented submissions, reflecting a diverse range of opinions, which
address questions such as the following:
- Is the objective of improving humanitarian response enhanced or endangered by
the ‘One UN’ proposal?
- What are the implications for principles of impartiality and neutrality?
- What does partnership between UN and non-UN humanitarian agencies mean in
practice for refugees and IDPs?
- What are the potential implications of the 'One UN' pilots on humanitarian
space?
- To what extent will the proposed reforms help plug the gap in terms of
protection of and assistance to IDPs?
- Is the pooling of humanitarian funds under the Central Emergency Response
Fund (CERF) proving effective?
- Do newly prominent, non-traditional donors - those outside OECD/DAC - have a
sufficient voice in humanitarian decision-making processes?
- What lessons are being learned from the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD)
initiative pilots?
- Given that GHD's Principle 6 stresses allocation of funding on the basis of
need, how can humanitarian organisations and donors work together to ensure
this Principle is realised and better humanitarian outcomes are achieved?
- What is the likely impact of the Global Humanitarian Platform (GHP) and
proposed Principles of Partnership (PoP)?
- Given that some UN agencies have shown greater willingness and/or capacity
than others to cooperate with NGOs, can there be consistency in approaches to
partnership?
- How can humanitarian organisations ensure that their responses are motivated
by the humanitarian imperative and that humanitarian principles guide their
work?
- How far can humanitarian organisations cooperate and coordinate with
political and/or military actors without their motivations being called into
question?
- How can organisations ensure they are viewed as independent and impartial,
particularly in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan?
- How can we avoid the ‘command and control’ approach to coordination,
especially when there is a large number of local, national and international
humanitarian actors?
- To what extent have the views of civil society and refugees/IDPs themselves
been taken into account in developing proposals for humanitarian reform? Do the
proposals reflect their needs and wishes?
- What role should the private sector play in contributing to humanitarian
responses?
- What is the impact of recent reforms on the selection and training of UN
humanitarian personnel?
Deadline for final submission of articles: 1st September 2007.
Information for FMR authors is at: http://www.fmreview.org/writing.htm. Please
write to us at [log in to unmask] as soon as possible if you are interested in
contributing or have suggestions of colleagues who may be able to.
Apologies for any cross-posting.
Best wishes
Marion Couldrey & Tim Morris
Editors
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: The material contained in this communication comes to you from the
Forced Migration Discussion List which is moderated by the Refugee Studies
Centre (RSC), University of Oxford. It does not necessarily reflect the
views of the RSC or the University. If you re-print, copy, archive or
re-post this message please retain this disclaimer. Quotations or extracts
should include attribution to the original sources.
List archives are available at:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/forced-migration.html
|
