For our second discussion, we’d like to hear your views on what you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the Red Cross Red Crescent Global Response tools?
Please leave a comment (click on “Leave a reply”) to contribute to the conversation!
Red Cross Red Crescent Global Response Tools Review 
Strength definitely is the expertise of HR gathering as FACT, RDRT, NDRT, ERUs for one cause, ERUs deployment is a key component for serving the vulnerable, Role of IFRC for coordinating the FACT, RDRTs, ERUs is also a strength.
Weakness is mainly coordination issues and timely deployments. We as RCRC sometimes go late but remain for long. ICRC response global tools and IFRC response Global tools need to match as interlinked response somewhere. Coordination issues, decision of areas and caseload between ICRC and IFRC + PNSs is challenging and time consuming. It is mainly personality driven not the system driven. Also challenge is way of distribution like in Pakistan super floods 2010, big issue was between all partners as ICRC wanted ”Indirect way of distributions, and IFRC/PNSs were following ” direct way of distribution”. There should be a common approach/SOPs at movement coordination level so that ”TIMELY RESPONSE” to certain disasters can take place.
Bit of challenge is rotation/frequent of ERUs HR, when people get oriented to culture and systems then they have to be rotated. It is bit tough when new personality comes and start working in response with local volunteers.
FACT comes and mostly appeal launching takes time too. So duration/TIMING of response and timely mobilization of the Global tools is very important.
LikeLike
We have had limited number of tools – RDRTs – main issue is that their rules keep changing so even if I am registered RDRT and trained – I cannot follow it – everything in English also. Also ERUs only deployed once in country (a hospital) – good experience but we haven’t had need for such ERUs since.
LikeLike
Like many NS today, we are both receiving help but also providing support to other NS is our region (Asia). Helping close countries make sense – RDRTs should be reinforced rather than using ERUs. we need IM and mapping (assessment) capacity for NS.
LikeLike
One small weakness is that we do not have the same name for all locally recruited. Why not take the opportunity to harmonise the RDRT and RITs names? We have so many teams that it becomes confusing.
LikeLike
Strengths: Rapid (sometime not), diverse, adaptable, cheap, worldwide…The system conects different cultures, different capacities under the same phylosophy, same principles and values. Is the best humanitarian coordinated system worldwide.
Weaknesses: Remain as a foreing product, under foreing policies and funding that gives few decisiton capacity to the HNS.
Lack of interest from some PNS to non fashionated emergencies like Ebola. Tools should be available for the Mouvement always and not under PNS criteria. More responsability is required.
LikeLike
Our tools are: 1) fragmented (ie PNS deploy ERUs and may be less accountable; we often do not aggregate how many tools deployed; our rosters don’t match in terms of skills across NSs); 2) focused on moving objects (ie relief packages) rather than on ensuring immediate strategic thinking to scale up NS activities and scale them back down; and we 3) miss out on quality in our tools such as accountability for social inclusion, for protection principles, for data and for speediness. We need: clearer and more relevant mandate, fewer international resources and more usage of the local and greater focus on ensuring we are elastic.
LikeLike
Maybe I am missing something but is this the official global tools list and, if so, how does a tool get onto the list or get bumped off or revised in a global consultation?
The pilot version of the IFRC Minimum Standard Commitments to Gender and Diversity in Emergency Programming (the MSCs) bring together the existing international norms and standards from Sphere, and the Humanitarian Accountability projects and a number of RCRC and IASC guidance. It’s also accompanied by a great training resource (‘Seven Moves to Gender and Diversity in Emergency Programming’). It should be used in 2016 and beyond to inform staff prior to deployment, and monitoring of its implementation by the global tools teams will be important. In the end, the MSCs help us to improve responses and demonstrate our impact in these important areas of humanitarian assistance.
LikeLike
our strength is our global network which is able to be leveraged in major disasters (or anytime we want to). Our tools are excellent and for the most part deliver what they were intended to do. I think you only have to work with Non RCRC orgs in a time of disaster to understand this. This doesn’t mean they cannot be tweaked, or redesigned where they need to be. Perhaps some of the ERUs are too large and unwieldly. The FACT teams could use different sort of profiles (HD, Social Inclusion and Protection, Anthropologists etc.) in addition to the standard DM, Shelter, Health etc. Overall the bigget weakness of our system is the politics that surrounds most decisions and weak leadership that does not address issues quickly or early enough and allows the system to become less effective.
LikeLike
One of our greatest strengths in ensuring that a ‘human centered’ approach is fundamental to our emergency response comes from the Minimum Standard Commitments to Gender and Diversity in emergency programming and the IFRC 7 Moves to Gender and diversity in emergency programming training. It would be important to utilize this existing, valuable resource through its incorporation within any basic training undertaken by RDRT/ERU/FACT teams before they are deployed. In terms of our strengths that can contribute to the Global Tools review process – we should build of the great work undertaken in Nepal, and TC Pam to standardize NDRT/RDRT/ERT approaches. From these, we can already see great results and lessons learned which should be considered and support this current GT review process.
LikeLike
Strength is that tools can be deployed quickly and are equipped with the right skillset. The RDRT system worked very well in the Nepal EQ, and they were already so familiar with the region’s context, culture and language to a certain extent, that there was smooth transition and assimilation. Not too sure about the ERUs though as there was feedback about cultural differences not being respected.
A weakness is that during a major disaster there are so many different teams on ground that it becomes extremely challenging to keep track and coordinate. Also, another major weakness is that once again, the more human, quality side of things gets missed out in the scope of the global tools, which focus on technical/sectoral areas and do not sufficiently address or integrate cross cutting priorities such as accountability to beneficiaries/communities, gender and protection, environmental concerns, building local capacities, etc.
LikeLike
Strengths and Weaknesses of the GRTs are as follows:
Strenghts:
* GRTs are a predictable, standardized, and scalable resource that are directly supported and hosted by PNSs in support of our Federation global response readiness. This capacity represents in many cases, expensive ‘insurance policies’ for response to medium-to-large scale events; both financed and resourced (personnel and equipment) outside of the IFRC Emergency Appeal (EA) process.
Weaknesses: (or opportunities):
* continue to advocate for, incorporate and mainstream Cash programming across other technical sectors; beyond Relief.
*require tweaking to adjust for current response contexts (urban, complex emergencies).
* triggered on a reactionary basis. Could in some cases be mobilized in a more proactive, pre-emptive manner especially in situations where the event is predicted ahead of time.
* incorporate the use of more technology-based solutions more deliberately and proactively into response operations.
* standardize response functions/roles, trainings, preparedness for all levels of Surge tools.
* need to articulate widely the decentralized Federation structures, and acknowledge and recognize the implications for the use of the GRTs.
* identify options to leverage more local resources in lieu of Global Response Tools.
* institutionalize approaches to integrated programming through shared business processes, resources and consistent methodologies and practices for or (baseline) assessments and implementation.
* determine more effective manner of incorporating regional personnel and knowledge into globally managed operations.
* need for improvements to Real-Time Evaluations (to inform adjustments to response strategy, response options etc) and not conducted towards the end of an operation.
LikeLike