Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
2
Defining the Challenges of Coordination
T
he capacity of technologies to gather, sort, and manage data has
undergone rapid advances. Yet coordination among government and
nongovernment actors in peacebuilding remains a challenge, largely
because of the human factors involved in data sharing. Once shared, data can
no longer be controlled, and so the problem is not technical but a matter of
trust. That trust is based on the capacity to negotiate shared goals, processes,
and values for cooperation. The first session of the workshop discussed the
ethical, cultural, and social obstacles faced by peacebuilding organizations
in adopting technologies to break down the information silos in which they
work.
A CLASH OF CULTURES
Tremendous progress has been achieved over the past 20 years in
improving the sharing of information among organizations involved in
peacebuilding, said Ambassador Robert Loftis, Interagency Professional in
Residence at USIP. But even after a decade of experience in Iraq and Afghani-
stan, and more than two decades of peacebuilding activities since the fall of
the Berlin Wall, challenges of coordination are still prominent.
A major contributor to these challenges, Loftis explained, is that peace-
building is marked by a clash of cultures. Military, civilian government, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) do not have the same immediate
7
OCR for page 8
8 DATA SHARING TO IMPROVE COORDINATION IN PEACEBUILDING
goals and timelines. In many cases, they do not even speak the same language.
For example, to the military, "coordination" means the ability to direct; to
civilian organizations, it means consultation and consensus; and to NGOs, it
means avoid contradictory activities or--more positively--sharing informa-
tion. These differences can be strength, in that different organizations bring
different perspectives to a problem, but unity of effort may be an elusive goal.
Some of these challenges can be addressed by institutionalizing and
formalizing relationships, Loftis said. For example, a mechanism such as the
Civilian Military Relations Working Group in Nonpermissive Environments,
which brings together a variety of organizations for discussions every few
months, can provide a framework for cooperation. But such mechanisms
are means to an end and not ends in themselves. They are typically built on
personal relations that do not necessarily carry over as personnel change.
Personal relations and trust must therefore be continually refreshed and
renewed. A relationship that worked in one context is not guaranteed to work
in another, even with the same individuals. And as great as the challenges
are in a purely American context, they are multiplied many times over in
multinational or multilateral environments.
Data sharing can be useful in building relationships and trust, Loftis
concluded. It can start on a small scale and gradually expand as trust and
experience build. But assumptions and expectations about the use and distri-
bution of data must be made explicit early, some data will be easier to share
than others, systems have to evolve over time to be effective, and data sharing
is no substitute for critical thinking and communication.
DATA SHARING IN CONTEXT
To understand the challenges of information sharing, it needs to be seen
in the context of the broader structure and experience of civilian-military
relations and civilian management of humanitarian, development, and
peacebuilding activities, said Randy Tift, senior policy advisor in the World
Vision US International Programs Group. For NGOs, information sharing
occurs along a spectrum of involvement, from information gathering and
needs assessment to the use of information for the delivery of aid or ser-
vices. As an example of the latter, Tift cited the earthquake in Haiti: NGOs
responded to demands from the UN, the United States, and the host govern-
ment for information and coordination, resulting in a much greater degree
of donor coordination.
OCR for page 9
DEFINING THE CHALLENGES OF COORDINATION 9
Tift focused on two areas: the security of NGO staff and the people they
serve, and community acceptance of NGOs. He noted that information shar-
ing can be a powerful determinant, for better or worse, of security. For that
reason, as spelled out in World Vision's policies on information sharing and
liaison arrangements, the organization actively seeks to sustain open and
direct (or indirect) dialogue with militaries and other armed groups in all
circumstances, always with the objective of protecting civilians and enhanc-
ing mutual understanding of roles and mandates.
World Vision also establishes a mechanism for liaison with military
actors in situations where it shares operational space with such groups.
Liaison may take place through a coalition of NGOs, established lines of
communication maintained by the UN, or direct communication when
appropriate. Liaisons need to be transparent to all stakeholders and maintain
a clear distinction between armed actors and NGO workers.
In humanitarian operating environments, World Vision and military
or police personnel need to maintain a mutual understanding of objec-
tives, roles, activities, and principles, said Tift. World Vision seeks to engage
in ongoing dialogue with the military and police, with a view to promot-
ing adherence to international humanitarian law and other human rights
instruments and to increasing the military's understanding of the roles of
humanitarian organizations.
World Vision recognizes that in some cases military and international
police actors are in a unique position to provide data about specific humani-
tarian needs. In cases of extremely vulnerable populations for which data are
lacking, World Vision and other organizations have sought out this informa-
tion. However, the information has to be triangulated with that from other
sources to confirm its reliability. The data have to appear, without reason-
able doubt, to address a humanitarian imperative. Military or armed police
contingents should not be able to gain legitimacy simply because they have
a relationship with an international humanitarian organization.
The same considerations apply to data flows in the opposite direction,
Tift said. To maintain credibility with local organizations and individuals,
NGOs cannot appear to be gathering intelligence for the US government
or to be functioning as agents of government security operations. NGOs
depend on being perceived as impartial, independent humanitarian organi-
zations. Moreover, to be effective, it is critical that NGOs be viewed by host
country leaders as trustworthy, above reproach, and committed to addressing
underlying causes of poverty and injustice.
OCR for page 10
10 DATA SHARING TO IMPROVE COORDINATION IN PEACEBUILDING
Coordination with the US military or other armed actors, if performed
on the basis of NGO independence and impartiality, does not necessarily
compromise an NGO's acceptance by local communities, Tift said. Indeed,
it may help to ensure the effective delivery of aid to victims of poverty and
injustice in a complex emergency situation. Enabling NGOs to act indepen-
dently, even when implementing programs funded by the US government,
is not only necessary but makes the achievement of US strategic objectives
much more likely. NGO independence does not bind NGOs operationally to
security imperatives but rather strengthens US security by addressing root
causes of insecurity, according to Tift.
Humanitarian organizations can learn much from each other, Tift con-
cluded. As part of this learning, commitment to better coordination would
bring greater unity to NGO initiatives.
COORDINATION IN PEACEBUILDING
Even with coordination among organizations, peacebuilding can be
effective or ineffective depending on the context and on how coordination is
approached, explained Susanna Campbell, Visiting Scholar at the Saltzman
Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.
Peacebuilding is difficult, she said, and the determinants of peace--even
the definition of peace--are not fully understood. Therefore, simply combin-
ing the hypothesized elements of peace through coordination will not ensure
success. Coordination needs to be aimed at specific problems that stand in
the way of peace.
Campbell described several ways in which coordination can lead to inef-
fective peacebuilding. It can decrease flexibility and the capacity to adapt
strategies and approaches, especially if organizations lose touch with the con-
text in which they are working. It can focus attention on other international
actors rather than peacebuilding problems that must be solved. Where data
are not available on the effects of peacebuilding activities, coordination can
lead to uninformed decisions. Coordination efforts can compete for funding
with other activities, including those more directly focused on peacebuilding,
and can overload organizations' already full agendas.
However, Campbell continued, coordination also can contribute to
effective peacebuilding. It can direct attention to peacebuilding efforts that
emerge from the bottom up rather than from top-down directives, espe-
cially to the extent that such efforts aim to solve immediate problems. It can
serve as a forum for stakeholder dialogue and break down cultural barriers
OCR for page 11
DEFINING THE CHALLENGES OF COORDINATION 11
between organizations. And coordination can allow organizations to work
in a complementary fashion to solve the problems at hand.
Campbell emphasized, as did Loftis, that coordination is a tool, not
the end goal of effective peacebuilding. It therefore needs to be judged by
intermediate measures such as the focus of coordination, who is involved,
and what actions result. At the most basic level, coordination can prevent
duplication of activities. At a more ambitious level, it can enable joint action.
Assessments of the impact of coordination need to keep these different
objectives in mind, and should also take stock of the effects of peacebuilding
on the people who are the subject of those efforts.
As one element of coordination, data sharing can prevent duplication
and increase the participation of stakeholders who are not traditionally
included. Data sharing also can support informed discussions by providing
information about outcomes, thus enabling programs to evolve based on
their impacts. In this way, organizations can see how a situation is changing
and adjust their actions accordingly.
DISCUSSION
During the discussion period, the three speakers and other workshop
participants explored the varied challenges to data sharing and coordination
in peacebuilding. Tift reiterated that some forms of coordination can actu-
ally lead to conflict, such as when they create a perception of alliance with
a belligerent party. Some forms of data sharing or other kinds of collabora-
tion with the military or other government agencies can be appropriate, Tift
acknowledged, but not if they undermine humanitarian objectives. As an
example, he cited a case in Afghanistan where World Vision was asked, as
part of a US government grant, to retarget the beneficiaries of its aid to serve
counterinsurgency objectives. World Vision refused to do so, as did several
other NGOs, which led to a dialogue that ultimately changed the policy.
Campbell observed that even when data sharing is beneficial, it can be
difficult to do systematically. For example, NGOs are more effective if they
share data among themselves, and they can do so through such means as the
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). But once
peacebuilding starts, OCHA tends to recede into the background, and no
single organization is charged with collecting and disseminating informa-
tion. Even when data are shared, she continued, the level of detail often is not
sufficient to achieve effective coordination. Furthermore, data on impacts or
outcomes are exceedingly scarce.
OCR for page 12
12 DATA SHARING TO IMPROVE COORDINATION IN PEACEBUILDING
To deal with these problems, Campbell suggested that much more
analysis be done of the institutions that are the focus of change. Who are
the key players, what needs to happen, and what systems need to change?
Once this analysis has been done, incentives and motivations need to be
created to foster change. Then the effectiveness of these interventions needs
to be measured. "Was this the right approach? If not, what approach might
work better?" Military culture is more amenable to evaluation than is the
development community, said Campbell, but in either case representative
stakeholder dialogue focused on outcomes can yield the information needed
to adapt and learn.
Tift identified another missing ingredient: effective policy dialogue
among organizations, especially between NGOs and civilian agencies in the
US government. He cited several cases in which policies with a major effect
on NGOs were disseminated by US government agencies without consulta-
tion with the groups most affected by those policies.
Loftis pointed to some of the deeper problems with measuring impacts.
Individuals and organizations want to have an impact and often interpret
change as a direct consequence of their activities. However, they cannot know
all the factors that came into play. In complex and quickly changing environ-
ments, it can be very difficult to determine causality--that a particular action
had a particular outcome. Establishing a track record over time can point
toward effective action, but evaluation remains a difficult task.
Kevin Brownawell, interagency professional in residence at USIP,
observed that organizations often have different ideas of what data to collect.
Even different agencies in the US government focus on different aspects of
conflict situations and may request different kinds of information from the
NGOs with which they work. Conflicts can be avoided by planning for data
collection at the beginning.
Gregor Bailar, retired chief information officer for Capital One Financial
Corporation, commented on the similarities between the problems discussed
in the workshop and the challenges facing large and innovative companies.
They, too, encounter problems caused by rigid strategies, lack of coordina-
tion, and false confidence in strategic planning, and they, too, benefit from
stakeholder dialogue, bottom-up coordination, and organizational integra-
tion. Agile approaches to planning and problem solving work well in both
the private and public sectors, he said.
Campbell noted that all organizations have difficulty with behavior
change, in part because they learn through re-established routines--
"Organizations learn what they already know." Therefore, one way to change
OCR for page 13
DEFINING THE CHALLENGES OF COORDINATION 13
what institutions learn is to change what they know. If the military wants to
engage in peacebuilding, it needs to bring in people who are familiar with
peacebuilding activities and make peacebuilding a priority in the military
culture. In this way organizations can adapt based on what they learn, though
this typically works best in smaller and more agile organizations. In larger
organizations, change can occur in pockets of the organization that encour-
age adaptation and learning.
Finally, Sheldon Himelfarb, director of the Center of Innovation for
Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at USIP, asked about the benefits of
transparency. In the Facebook era, an emerging paradigm may be to default
to the release of information so it can be used by others. Campbell responded
that transparency would be "a huge step forward" but does not necessarily
address the full range of problems.
Loftis also cited the problem of too much information. Part of the chal-
lenge, he said, is to filter meaningful from meaningless information and to
synthesize information in ways that are useful.
OCR for page 14
