Tell me about the Red Cross

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the Red Cross

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

The Red Cross, and international humanitarian aid generally, is an absolute clusterfuck. Have a look at disaster relief efforts in Haiti for confirmation. They are massively disorganized, accountable to no one (and in fact have protected themselves from ever being held accountable by refusing to take on the responsibility of provider of last resort), and have made no efforts to address or acknowledge the political roots of their inherent impotence (imperialism, the proliferation of thousands of independent for-profit NGOs with no universal standards or common agenda - and thus no cooperation or coordination). Instead, they have focused on adopting business efficiencies in order to try to streamline relief organization and implementation, which (surprise) has failed monumentally and disastrously.

The Red Cross likely wasted $500 million in Haiti and have nothing to show for it. The UN and NGOs are responsible for crippling Haiti by following their own practices - which is basically to replace the state's infrastructure with their own instead of helping them to rebuild themselves. The thing to keep in mind when thinking about how lovely the Red Cross is, is that these organizations (The big names like the Red Cross, Unicef, Who) are supposed to work in concert with each other through the UN, but they have competing agendas. Then you have thousands of much smaller agencies who do not have UN certification, but are allowed to administer aid (think about the potentially disastrous effects of this, they do not have to show that they are competent or capable in any way) because anyone is allowed to "help" as long as the receiving state approves it. So, in short, the Red Cross is poo poo but so is everyone else.

IASC and the UN developed a new strategy called the "cluster approach" to disaster relief, in which a cluster of agencies (Red Cross, WHO, Unicef, WFP, Save the Children, etc) are supposed each to take responsibility for a given sector on the ground (nutrition, protection, shelter, etc). But think about the logistics of this when none of these agencies have any degree of cooperation, communication, or interest in working together. You get an absolutely massive waste of resources, redundancy, a complete inability to engage in large projects that require input from multiple agencies. The Red Cross has refused to take on the responsibility of provider of last resort (POLR), which according to the UN, is critical to the success of the cluster approach. This means that they will not agree to be held responsible if no one else succeeds in providing the help that is needed. There are no consequences for their failures. The money you donate to them is pissed away, and they do not have to answer to you for it.

Here's what Chelsea Clinton said about the situation in Haiti following the earthquake (from leaked Clinton e-mails):

Chelsea Clinton posted:

The incompetence is mind numbing...If we do not quickly change the organization, management, accountability and delivery paradigm on the ground, we could quite conceivably confront tens of thousands of children's deaths by diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid and other water-related diseases in the near future...This disorganization across the UN/ INGOs has had a variety of effects on the Haitian government, including that it has now visibly distanced itself from the UN Cluster process (e.g., instead of going to a meeting a day the Haitian Minister of Health is now going once a week - because it was "such a waste of time" and he said that is representative of the government's current modus operandi); though we heard the cluster process was improving - when I asked for a concrete example of how, I was told meetings were "more efficient." This lack of efficiency - not to mention lack of visible consistent progress - has also lead to a further distrust of the UN/ INGOs by the Haitian government and Haitian people in the settlements. The former feels like it shows up to no effect - and the latter feels like very few actor(s) reliably show up. Again, the UN seemed at best chaotic and at worst absent as I travelled around in an action-oriented sense.

And here is an excerpt from a research paper that I wrote on the cluster approach last year:

The Doctor posted:

In 2005, IASC launched the cluster approach as a part of the larger Humanitarian Reform Agenda. Specifically, the new approach was intended to improve upon the �collaborative approach� implemented in Darfur in 2004 and 2005 (2007). According to OCHA, the purpose of the cluster approach is to �strengthen predictability, response capacity, coordination and accountability by strengthening partnerships in key sectors of humanitarian response, and by formalising the lead role of particular agencies/organisations in these sectors� (2007). It represents a new strategy by introducing the concept of sector clusters and cluster leads. Sector clusters refer to groupings of agencies at the global, country, and field levels which are responsible for providing aid in one of the eleven key sectors (e.g Emergency Shelter, Health, Water, Sanitation and hygiene, etc.)" (HR, n.d).

By organizing agencies into clusters, the approach seeks to fill sectoral gaps and minimize overlap in the services provided. Depending on the scale of a disaster, upwards of 1000 independent NGO�s may respond from all over the world. These can include established international leaders as well as fledgling agencies with no experience or reputation at all - with few limitations. In short, �NGOs, as private entities, are permitted by law to offer victims humanitarian assistance� (Stoeffels 2004). All that is required is the authorization of the receiving state. In order to address the tremendous organizational challenges which have arisen as the scale and scope of aid efforts have increased, OCHA has introduced the concept of cluster leads. The role of the cluster lead is �to ensure adequate response and high standards of predictability, accountability and partnership� within a given sector (IASC 2007). Cluster leads thus facilitate communication and cooperation between agencies within a given sector, and take on the role of �Provider of Last Resort� (POLR) (IASC 2008). This means that when other agencies are unable to fill critical gaps in aid services, it is the responsibility of the cluster lead to do so. According to the IASC, POLR is �critical to the cluster approach� and without it �the element of predictability is lost� (IASC 2008).

In 2007, OCHA released an official report on the cluster approach in which they determined that it represented a moderate improvement over past strategies. OCHA argued that the cluster approach successfully filled gaps in aid services, strengthened communication and cooperation, and addressed a chronic lack of accountability by establishing strong leaders with clear responsibilities. In principle, these changes should have translated into improved outcomes for aid implementation on the ground: that means less human suffering and more lives saved. Yet recent reports from Haiti suggest that far from improving outcomes, the cluster approach turned into a disaster in and of itself. In a series of leaked e-mails, Chelsea Clinton described what she perceived as a �malpractice continuum� in Haiti in which �the UN seemed at best chaotic and at worst absent� and �the British Red Cross should know better� (Wikileaks). She warned that if the situation were not immediately remedied �we could quite conceivably confront tens of thousands of children�s deaths by diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid and other water-related diseases in the near future� (Wikileaks). A number of news outlets, including TIME, NPR, and The Huffington Post, published articles in which they accused the Red Cross of squandering $500 million in donations.

The reality is that the cluster approach fails to address the broader political and ideological problems which are at the root of major complications in aid implementation. It is an aspirational strategy: it assumes that the diversity of political actors - including the IFRC, hundreds of independent NGOs, and the states in which it is implemented - will adopt it and do their best to implement it. This has not happened. The majority of IASC members, including the IFRC and the ICRC, as well as the Haitian government, have actively resisted the new approach. It is therefore not simply an absence of leadership, but actors� refusal to lead and be led, which has created a scenario in which cooperation and coordination remain out of reach. An IFRC review (2007) reveals a lack of consensus about the project amongst non-UN members, who feel that it was �pushed through without adequate time for consultation...Most IASC members...have yet to formalize the cluster approach within their own corporate governance and policies� and �member states were inadequately briefed, resulting in more resistance than might otherwise have been the case� (p. 7). This means that the majority of agencies have not actually made any efforts to adopt the new strategy, and states are actively resisting it. What this tells us is that, ultimately, it does not matter if the cluster approach represents a strategic improvement over past initiatives. The majority of political actors are not using it, and thus it cannot change things.

Those actors who have adopted the new approach have done so with major stipulations. The result is that now, as before, it is impossible to hold anyone accountable �for presence or performance� (Stoddard, 2007, p. 5). The IFRC has agreed to take on the position of co-lead of the Emergency Shelter sector with UNHCR on the condition that �the Federation will not accept accountability obligations beyond those defined in its Constitution and own policies� and �Neither the Federation nor the National Societies shall be held responsible for meeting the emergency shelter needs of affected persons when these are not being met by other agencies� ( This means that the responsibility of POLR, which IASC describes as �critical to the cluster approach� does not apply to IFRC, and the IFRC is in no way accountable to the UN (IFRC, 2011). Both the IFRC and the ICRC, the two leading bodies in the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, have expressed apprehensions about a closer relationship with the UN. In 2009, the IFRC released its official �Review of the International Federation�s Shelter Cluster Commitment�, in which those apprehensions, among other complications in implementing the approach, were voiced. Within the IFRC as a whole the review concludes that the cluster approach was �neither universally understood nor universally popular� (Davidson and Price, 2010, p. 39). IFRC members found that while adopting the role of cluster lead had positively impacted the Federation�s image as �an expert in shelter� within the humanitarian community, it had undermined their international reputation as a neutral and independent body (p. 40). �When deployed in conflict affected-countries [it] generated confusion with the ONS, the Authorities and other humanitarian actors and tension with the ICRC� (p. 41). Concerns about maintaining independence and neutrality have resulted in a lack of consensus, and therefore uneven implementation of the cluster approach within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement as a whole. While the IFRC had a responsibility to adopt the approach as a member of the IASC, the ICRC remains an independent institution, and there is confusion within the 190 Societies as to who must take on a leadership role at the country, regional, and field levels. Matters of consensus aside, the review also announced that �at the time of writing, cluster funding has ceased and the Federation, like other cluster lead agencies, is struggling to finance its commitment� (p. 7).

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 13:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 17:34

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

Heath posted:

Is that why the Red Cross was set to build houses in Haiti? The Red Cross has never been in the business of building houses before to my knowledge. Was it a matter of being appointed to do so by the UN, or did they jump up and say that they were going to do so, or was it both?

I'm not sure I understand the POLR thing. It sounds like if the IFRC had accepted the position of being POLR, all it would have done is made them accountable for failures of humanitarian aid generally rather than just for failures of their own organization, and with hundreds of competing groups on the ground, I can see why they would have refused that provision, because it makes them responsible for everyone's fuckups.

I don't think the UN has the power to "appoint" any of these organizations to do anything, I'm assuming there would be consultations across all of them to discuss the roles which would be most appropriate. The only thing the UN could possibly hold over them would be their certification - which only indicates that the organization is supported by the UN, and is not necessary to administer aid.

I am not sure for how long the IFRC has been building homes, but I would think that it would be part of the shift from immediate post-disaster relief to long-term support which is being seen across all of the major organizations.

The IFRC did not accept the position of POLR. They accepted the position of cluster lead, on the condition that they had no obligations of POLR.

The Doctor posted:

The IFRC has agreed to take on the position of co-lead of the Emergency Shelter sector with UNHCR on the condition that �the Federation will not accept accountability obligations beyond those defined in its Constitution and own policies� and �Neither the Federation nor the National Societies shall be held responsible for meeting the emergency shelter needs of affected persons when these are not being met by other agencies�

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 19:18

The Doctor: Jul 8, 2007; Fallen Rib

Heath posted:

That's where I'm confused, because it seems to me like taking the position of POLR is kind of a no-win thing -- if none of these organizations are accountable to the UN, they're not accountable to the IFRC either, and being cluster lead in that sector with no ability to enforce or ensure that other orgs within the cluster carry their weight makes the IFRC responsible for the glut of NGOs not following through on things. I hope I don't sound argumentative because I don't mean to be, it's just that the further I dig into this the more complicated it gets, and it seems like the IFRC (and especially the ARC, because nobody seems to distinguish them in this country anyway) is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame for failed humanitarian aid when it sounds like it was just loving broken at every conceivable level from the get-go, and I am concerned about repeat squanderings from the recent disasters and the inevitable future ones.

That it is complicated does not mean that wrong or harm is not being done. The Red Cross takes the brunt of the blame because they are one of (if not the most) wealthiest humanitarian aid agencies in the world. They receive billions of dollars in donations every year. They hold massive power. POLR is not about enforcing or ensuring the behaviour of other organizations, it's about agreeing to take on the responsibility when no one else does. The very idea of humanitarian aid is based on the principle of a responsibility to protect (R2P). It is a bit pointless when no one is ever actually held responsible, isn't it?

The major organizations are the ones who must be held responsible to provide aid. They have the most resources, and they have the global presence, voice, power, and, whether or not they deserve it - trust.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 20:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me about the Red Cross