SUPPORTING HUMANITARIAN INNOVATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Although innovations in the humanitarian sector are not entirely new[1], there seems to be a need for the sector to become more adaptive to new processes and technologies, and reflect learning from past mistakes. “Transformation through Innovation” was one of the four key themes discussed during the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit because “it has been increasingly recognized that humanitarian action must keep pace with a rapidly changing world in order to effectively meet the needs of people (UN OCHA).”

It is important to note that the widely celebrated innovations[2] come from humanitarian organizations and the well-to-do private sector, and not much from the vulnerable and affected communities. We recognize these game-changing innovations but we believe that people who experience the impact of disasters firsthand should have more opportunities to innovate for themselves and inspire innovation.

Our project, the Philippines TUKLAS Innovation Labs (see website, FB page, and Twitter account), share this perspective and is supporting innovations that come directly from the disaster affected communities and the organizations working closely with them. TUKLAS is part of the Disasters and Emergencies Preparedness Programme (DEPP) Innovation Labs which is also being implemented in Bangladesh, Kenya, and Jordan.

I am a humanitarian/development worker and was only introduced to the innovation sector late last year because of the project. In the past, I have considered myself as an innovator in the humanitarian sector. I didn’t know that innovation has its own school of thought which make it, in a way, sophisticated and perhaps even alienating for some. Although it is like exploring unchartered waters, my colleagues and I have had the chance to talk and partner with leaders and pioneers in the Philippine innovation sector and discuss about the buzzwords and terminologies widely used (such as pivoting, scaling, human centered design, and design thinking). For me, the real challenge is not how to make the innovation process less sophisticated but how to help the most vulnerable and marginalized become the trailblazers and drivers of it. I would say the same for the development sector which is also full of jargons and hard-to-translate concepts.

To add, our teams realized that the more that we are trying to understand the innovation concepts, the more that we find it similar to humanitarian/development concepts. Are these two sectors really different from one another? Is implementing a humanitarian/development project different from testing and refining an innovation project? I will try to answer these questions by exploring two comparisons: 1) humanitarian/development project vs. innovation project and 2) innovation work done by TUKLAS vs. innovation work done by other non-humanitarian innovation hubs. Feel free to challenge our thoughts by using the comment section below or sending me an email at enanmelencio@gmail.com. Your inputs will help us understand our work better.

1. A Humanitarian/Development Project vs. An Innovation Project

We find significant similarities with the Human Centered Design framework and the Design Thinking methodology widely used in the innovation sector with the Project Management Cycle[3] commonly used in the development and humanitarian sector. They follow a logical sequence but they are not linear; one phase can go ahead of another or multiple phases can happen simultaneously. For example, the situational analysis in the Project Management Cycle is an ongoing process because of the fact that contexts and situations change constantly during emergencies. The same with the Design Thinking methodology that empathizing can happen again after the testing phase.

Also, they all highlight the importance of using participatory approaches in:

• understanding the current situation and context of the “users” or community members;
• defining the problems, issues, needs, and solutions with the “users” or community members; and
• constantly gathering suggestions and feedback from the “users” or community members to improve the program/project as they are being implemented.

The observed differences:

• The ultimate objective. At the end, a development/humanitarian project aims to help alleviate poverty or support in alleviating human suffering. On the other hand, an innovation project aims to be able to prove that the idea can help alleviate poverty or support in alleviating human suffering.
• For innovation projects, assessments (tests) are done more rapidly and therefore there is a high possibility that the design changes more frequently than development projects. Hence, the former may be seen to be more flexible than the latter.
• Development projects facilitate community empowerment which is not always the case for innovation projects. However, for TUKLAS, we’d like all the disaster preparedness innovation projects we are supporting to build on people’s capacities and ensure their meaningful participation in all stages. They should test and refine “with their communities” and not just “to their communities”.

2. Innovation work done by TUKLAS vs. innovation work done by other non-humanitarian innovation hubs

A lot of the innovation labs in the Philippines have more experience in supporting innovative ideas and we continue to learn from them as we now proceed to the testing and refining stage. We replicated their good practices hence the following observed similarities:

• Providing administrative (e.g. co-working spaces), financial (e.g. seed funding), and technical support (e.g. mentorship and coaching) to the selected innovation teams.
• Both are partnership heavy. There is an apparent need to build a wide range of partnerships, much more than what a normal development project would, for different kinds of support from the technical aspects of each project to marketing and community engagement components.
• Promoting sustainability of the projects through profitability; although we are also looking at other means of facilitating sustainability which I will mention below with the differences.

Because of consortium’s humanitarian nature, we implemented what we thought would be inclusive and empowering approaches. Based on our discussions with the innovation teams we are working with and also with the innovation leaders in the country, we have identified the following differences:

• Existing innovation hubs put special emphasis on looking for certain characteristics in teams and their members which would help them evaluate whether a project is feasible or not. This is something we can learn from and we can try to integrate this in our review process.
• The inclusive ideation process affected how we implemented our call for ideas and other activities. Aside from posting online on various media platforms, we conducted 50 information sessions nationwide to be able to reach as many people and communities as possible. We also conducted writing workshops to help interested individuals and teams refine their ideas and write proposals. The innovators appreciate the extensive support provided and they added that they also learned from their fellow innovators through the peer-to-peer discussions TUKLAS facilitated.
• The selection process involved various groups of individuals – peer innovators, community representatives from various sectors and regions in the country, subject matter experts, innovation experts, government, private sector, and the TUKLAS consortium.
• Aside from promoting sustainability of the projects through profitability, we will also support the innovators work with local government units which may potentially adapt successful pilots and scale-ups.
• The innovators expressed difficulty in accomplishing the TUKLAS proposal form, but expressed gratitude that because of it they were able to reflect on certain aspects of their project such as community engagement, sustainability, and inclusion.

Anything else to add?

[1] Examples: Innovations in International Humanitarian Action which is a study published on 2009, Elrha’s Humanitarian Innovation Fund which was launched on 2010, humanitarian innovators during the Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) Response from 2013, and 2016 notable humanitarian innovations.

[2] Such as cash programming, reducing bureaucracy, use of digital data collection apps, use of drones for damage assessments, and setting up of solar-powered water filtration systems.

[3] There are a lot of samples and variations on the internet such as Plan International’s PALS and WWF’s Programme Standards, but generally it covers Situational Analysis, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation, ensuring that communities are involved in all stages and feedback mechanisms are established as part of the real-time evaluation.

AFTER THE QUAKES: LEARNING FROM THE NEPALESE PEOPLE

Post also in RAPPLER: #PROJECTAGOS

It has been almost 4 weeks now since Plan International deployed me to Nepal to support the earthquake response operations. I was helping Plan’s recovery and rehabilitation efforts for Typhoon Yolanda-affected communities in the Philippines when the 7.8 earthquake hit Nepal last April 25. As a member of Plan’s emergency roster, I was immediately sent to Kathmandu to assist in relief activities.

A selfie during tea break with the Sindhupalchok Team.

I work with an amazing team of people from different parts of the globe who kindly share their rich experiences and diverse expertise. I am continually impressed by the dedication shown by our colleagues here, most especially our Nepalese staff who are earthquake survivors themselves but still continue to work for affected children and communities.

Life has not been easy in many parts of the country since the earthquake hit. Houses were destroyed and families have been sleeping under tarpaulins or tents, fearing for their lives every time the ground shakes. Markets and stores are still closed and getting access to food has been a great challenge. Children are afraid of aftershocks and are still unable to go back to school. Poor road conditions and Nepal’s mountainous terrain have made it even harder to deliver aid to communities.

Sindhupalchok’s District Development Committee Office (equivalent to our Municipal Hall) in Chautara.

The constant aftershocks have made the situation even worse. The continuous stress has made it difficult for people to get back on their feet and rebuild their lives. When I visited a community in Dolakha, a girl told me that whenever she feels a tremor, her mind empties and she can only think of one thing – “I want to live.”

The regular shakes have also made work more demanding for aid workers. We stop whatever we are doing and go to safer grounds every time there is a tremor. Aftershocks happen even during the wee hours and the strong ones wake us up in the middle of the night.

Delivering aid has been challenging because of Nepal’s rough roads and mountainous terrain.

Second quake

When another strong earthquake (magnitude 7.3) hit last May 12, I was with our team in the district of Sindhupalchok and was bound for one of its remote villages to distribute shelter kits. Our driver managed to evade a landslide that was about to possibly fall on us. We were then caught between two landslides. We immediately ran out of our vehicle, jumped down the rice terraces, and the local people helped to bring us to safer grounds.

Spent the night in a makeshift tent because of the 2nd earthquake. It was not safe for us to travel due to the strong aftershocks and blocked roads.

The shakes went on for around two hours. People were shouting, and the women and children were crying. I was scared too but managed to hide it. I had to be strong and calm for the team and the people in the community.

Amid these difficulties, I am constantly inspired by stories of families helping one another and doing whatever they can to rebuild their lives. Nepalese culture and social structures are diverse and colorful, but the people are generally kind and humble, and are at the same time strong and cohesive.

People help each other build temporary shelters and do farm activities. They even go as far as trekking for hours to carry relief items to their neighbors. In the absence of electricity and mobile networks, community members and leaders share information about relief distributions through word of mouth.

 

Aid response

Plan has been helping deliver food packs and shelter items since April 28. It has committed to helping children and families in Dolakha, Sindhupalchok, and other previously cut-off communities, meeting urgent needs on shelter, water and sanitation, education, health, and child protection.

Engaging communities in humanitarian work is crucial for people’s dignified survival. We have helped establish accountability mechanisms based on existing community practices to support the humanitarian community in gathering and addressing feedbacks, and improving programs and projects based on the perspectives of both adults and children.

A colleague checking if the community partners know how to use the water kits.

In the past few weeks, we have been in constant communication with communities, finding ways to better understand each other. In the coming weeks, we will help them organize self-help groups.

Working with the affected people is both challenging and fulfilling. We’re learning from them in the process of supporting them. There is more work to be done as significant needs remain very high. Together, we hope to make a difference to the lives of children and communities affected by the devastating earthquakes.

Discussing community feedbacks gathered using Poimapper (an app for data collection) with the Dolakha Team.

7 EXAMPLES OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS IN AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Photo from http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/ketsana_09_30/k27_20545709.jpg.

But first, why bother with gathering feedback during emergencies?

Humanitarian organizations and volunteer groups should understand that aid work is crucial to people’s dignified survival. Without proper consultation, we might think that we are doing the right things but actually doing more harm – from donating used underwear to unsystematically airdropping relief items to affected communities. It is therefore important that, even during crisis, aid agencies and individuals strive to enhance the quality of their life-saving efforts and that they strengthen their accountability towards those who they seek to help.

Feedbacks are considered to be contributory to “real-time” evaluation as people are able to influence approaches and strategies while the program is being implemented. Specifically, feedback mechanisms are established to:

• Gauge and improve quality and effectiveness of response efforts,
• Strengthen accountability of aid groups and its partners,
• Encourage meaningful participation from the affected men and women, and boys and girls, and
• Establish stronger relationships with the communities we are working with.

Gathering feedback, therefore, is empowering and should not be considered as just an icing on the cake. It is as important as delivering goods and services to the affected populations.

There are various methods and communication mediums to gather and respond to feedback from partners and stakeholders. In accordance to Sphere (Core Standard 1: People-Centred Humanitarian Response and Core Standard 2: Performance, Transparency, and Learning) and Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP; “Participation” and “Handling complaints” benchmarks) standards, we must ensure that the program participants, who usually belong to marginalized and minority groups, have the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Below are seven examples of feedback mechanisms in an emergency response (the pictures are taken by me and my colleagues in Plan International in various emergency responses in the Philippines. The credits for the photos go to Plan.):

1. Regular community visits – The approach of working closely with the people provides opportunity for the communities to regularly give feedback to the organization’s activities. Aid agencies should work with existing social structures to exact accountability to state actors and strengthen community groups. We should recognize that establishing good relations is key in getting meaningful feedback.

Plan International visits a Mangguangan mother and daughter in Compostela Valley during its TY Bopha Emergency Response. Photo by me (Enan).

2. Barangay Feedback Committees – As development workers, we believe that humanitarian agencies should not compromise the people’s capacity to help themselves. We support self-help initiatives by helping the affected communities organize barangay feedback committees that will manage feedbacks and provide responses. The committees may be composed of recognized village leaders, sectoral representatives, health workers, program recipients, and other stakeholders as the community may deem necessary.

A Higaonon Tribal Chieftain in Iligan City shares feedback gathered to his barangay’s feedback committee during Plan International’s TS Washi Emergency Response. Photo by Jani Jumaway.

3. Helpdesks – Helpdesks, complaints desks, or feedback desks should be set-up during distributions and orientations as a regular practice. These provide the affected populations the opportunity to clarify project details that may be unclear to them and immediately address issues specific to the distribution (e.g. poor quality of items, missing items, unclear beneficiary selection criteria, etc.).

Plan International’s helpdesk in the distribution of WASH kits in Compostela Valley during Plan’s TY Bopha Emergency Response. Photo by Glynn Rosales.

4. Suggestion boxes – Feedback desks may have suggestion boxes where people are able to voice out suggestions and comments regarding how your organization conducts orientations, distributions, and even community work.

5. Feedback Surveys – A survey form may ensure that affected populations are involved in improving distribution processes. Disaster-affected children and families may be asked if they have received the right amount of goods, if they feel safe and secure, and if they found difficulty in accessing the distribution sites, among others.

A Plan staff gathers feedback from community partners using a feedback survey uploaded in an android device (using Poimapper) in Eastern Samar during Plan’s TY Haiyan Emergency Response. Photo by Mike Reynaldo.

6. SMS and Feedback E-mail Address – We should assume that some of the people in the communities may actually be too afraid or hesitant to approach NGOs in public or the established barangay feedback committees. Since mobile phones and the internet are effective in conveying messages and other information, these may be included in your feedback mechanisms.

Plan International and World Food Program’s Cash-for-Work brochure during their TY Bopha Emergency Response. Brochure designed by Leslie Lao-Francisco (Plan).

7. Project-end Participatory Evaluations – Adapted from the regular exercise of Plan International in its regular program units, participatory assessments check the relevance and effectiveness of the programs against the objectives. A series of community-based reviews may be conducted in partner villages and may be validated and analyzed at the municipal/city and provincial-level. Community and local government partners, including the disaster-affected men, women, boys, and girls assess the programs, identify achievements and failures, and present necessary improvements or adaptations. We understand that community members know what systems are effective for their context.

A PWD leader in Cagayan de Oro City shares her insights in Plan International’s Area-level Synthesis and Analysis as part of the Project-End Participatory Review during its TS Washi Emergency Response. Photo by me (Enan).

Featured image may be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152095233491584&set=pb.305413276583.-2207520000.1389319943.&type=3&theater.