Q&A: Yves Daccord reflects on 3 decades in the aid sector

BELFAST, Northern Ireland — Humanitarians need to recognize that emergencies last, says Yves Daccord, former director-general at the International Committee of the Red Cross. For humanitarian organizations, “It's easy to be relevant in the short emergency because your mandate is clear and people understand that. What’s complex is when you have to be relevant over time and you have to stay with the population affected. It’s a big challenge,” he said, adding that a long-term approach is especially relevant, given the current crisis. “If you want to be serious about COVID-19, you’ll have to again look at mid- to long-term [work] because it will affect all public health, security, and the social fabric,” he said. After 10 years at the helm of ICRC — and almost 30 years with the organization in total — Daccord left at the end of March, in the middle of the pandemic. While he’ll remain on hand to help his successor, Robert Mardini, Daccord plans to take up a new role in political research at Harvard later this year. Speaking to Devex, he shared his lasting message for the humanitarian sector, thoughts on how to overcome the biggest challenges, and advice for the leaders who will have to tackle them. “You could have a major withdrawal of support diplomatically, politically, and financially from international humanitarian action.” --— Yves Daccord, former director-general, ICRC This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Having had to leave ICRC in the midst of the pandemic, do you envision serious changes happening at the organization in response to COVID-19? To be honest, I think it's unknown. ... What we don't know is how much some of the countries will be affected by COVID-19. I'm thinking about the Sahel, Syria, Yemen. ... We already see the consequences, but they’re very direct. What we don't know is what this means over time for populations affected by the crisis. We don't know what will happen in the political arena [either]. … A lot of people think that after we get through, we’ll find our society very similar. ... I’m of the opinion that there’s another scenario where you might see more authoritarian responses in some parts of the world. It’ll also shift and change the way we operate, the way we engage stakeholders, and where the relevance is. Maybe our relevance will have to be challenged or [change] over the coming years. Last but not least, there’s funding. If you bring all of that together, yes, there’s a fair chance that the ICRC — like all international humanitarian organizations — might be, and already is, seriously challenged over the coming months and years. We'll have to rethink some of the programming, footprint, and collaboration. Obviously, COVID-19 is one big challenge. What are some of the others you see the sector facing? One is relevance, as always. We’re living in a time where being a humanitarian is not new. You have to prove your relevance, specifically when you’re in complex humanitarian areas, in protracted crises where you have conflict, where sometimes the local government is not able to provide basic services to its population. That's what’s changed over the last few years: the recognition that protracted conflict and crises are at the core [of what we do]. And we, as humanitarians, need to recognize that emergency lasts. The second-biggest challenge will be to get the necessary support. Finance and diplomatic support are a big unknown right now. Are we going into a time where we [see] more international humanitarian actions in specific places? That's an option. Or we might find when COVID-19 starts to go down … that big countries say: “Sorry, we’re focusing on the recovery in our own society, and we’ve closed the border. We're not interested about what happened outside.” You could have a major withdrawal of support diplomatically, politically, and financially from international humanitarian action. Do you think the aid landscape and some of these challenges have changed over the last decade? There’s one part of the humanitarian sector which has changed dramatically, and that is the part related to natural disaster. Not everywhere, but in quite a lot of countries, local authorities, national authorities, national nongovernmental organizations, and local NGOs have improved the response to natural disasters in a significant way over the last 15 years. It's quite remarkable. The driving seats now are clearly owned and controlled by local actors, and that’s good news in most cases. Local actors are really making a huge difference, but at the same time, we as a collective still need to work through the international dimensions. We still need to influence the development world, which has a tendency to think only through government. Do you remain positive that these challenges can be overcome? Yes, I remain positive [about humanitarian work specifically]. … What makes me worry is the lack of consensus that should happen between countries when it comes to political crises. If you look at the United Nations Security Council, for example, over the last few years, they talk about a lot of issues — Syria is a good example — but with very limited impact on the ground. … I'm positive about the fact that, for the first time, the development and humanitarian sectors are really talking to each other and trying to find solutions. I'm slightly more worried about the international political landscape. These famous “protracted crises” don't really help us to create the conditions that will allow communities to just manage their own survival. Do you have any advice for other humanitarian leaders for the next couple of years? I would have maybe three reflections. The first one is just to take your time and maintain the energy of the organization, to look at the relevance of your response and make sure that it builds at the global level — in terms of principle and frame — and at the same time at front-line level. That means at the level where your teams are discussing and engaging with people affected. Make sure that the people who are able to engage and discuss have enough power to commit the organization at that level. My point [No.] 2 would be about the organization's health and inclusion and diversity. Try to reflect not just intellectually but symbolically and emotionally, and try to really make sure that the “us” is lived by people as much as possible. We’ve had the tendency to think of “us” symbolically, as a small group of international staff being supported by locally hired staff. In the last 10 years, I had a very clear idea that it was not possible anymore. But the journey to become an “us” where every single person in the organization believes and feels that they are part of the same organization and that there are no differences based on contract — only those related to competencies, to what people are providing — is a huge shift. I think the humanitarian world still has a long way to go to be much more open and reflect about “us” and integrate much more diversity. Maybe the third one is to continue to fight for common grammar: international humanitarian law. It will be more important than ever to have an understanding — despite our different cultures, views, and political systems — and that we’re able to read that common grammar. We all have a role to play in contributing to reinforce, or at least defend, international norms. As you prepare to leave aid, what would your lasting message to this sector be? There are really two principles that I cherish. One is humanity. The coming months and years will be very difficult. ... It's useful to remember what’s really uniting us all, and it's the principle of humanity. The second principle is impartiality. ... You have to think about the fact that humanitarian aid is not given based on the fact that it's my own people or community, but it's also the people off the grid. If I look around us — including in Europe — I think the social impact of COVID-19 will be huge. We’ll have to think about how we reflect about impartiality, where aid needs to go, who the people are that we help. The people off the grid, the people nobody sees, the so-called invisible, will be the people that we’ll need to focus on.