 How do you persuade someone to stop bombing civilian areas? Not to recruit children as soldiers or that they shouldn't raid villages to pillage the only food supply. There has never been a greater need for effective advocacy for the protection of civilians in conflict and crisis. But how do we do this protection advocacy? What skills and techniques can we use? How can we identify decision makers? What tactics work? And how can we manage risks? Welcome to the Advocating for Protection podcast where we bring you the real experiences of advocates in conflict and crisis. In each episode you'll hear from those who are lobbying in the corridors of the UN buildings in New York. Those who are face to face with armed actors at the front line of conflict zones and everything in between. They will tell us about their personal experiences, their successes, but also the challenges and how they overcame them. This podcast comes to you from the Global Protection Cluster's advocacy working group. Please be aware that it contains discussions of violence, abuse and exploitation faced by civilians in conflict and crisis. Good afternoon, good morning. This is the Advocacy for Protection podcast. Real stories and experiences of humanitarians who advocate for the protection of civilians. My name is Vittorio Infante and I'm here representing Oxfam who together with Save the Children is co-leading the advocacy working group at the Global Protection Cluster. Today I'm joined by our guest Gemma Davis from the ODI Humanitarian Policy Group. Hi Gemma. Hi Vittorio, nice to be here. Thanks for joining us today. Before we delve into the topic of today's discussion Gemma, I just wondered if you could tell us a little bit more on how you got involved in protection advocacy. So I have been in the humanitarian sector for around 18 years now. First started with Medicine San Frontier on the operational side of things. As you might know MSF have terminiage which is speaking out or bearing witness as a central part of their identity. So I guess from the very outset even though I was in more operational management positions it was sort of part of the culture of the organization that we would bear witness and indeed if we were needing to bear witness and advocate on the behalf of the people that we were working with that we would do so. I guess since then my career developed into doing more on the advocacy agenda as you said working on policy so directly involved in advocacy. And so when I joined the humanitarian policy group part of ODI there was already a project on the role of advocacy to strengthen the protection of civilians and obviously this is quite central to the experience that I had. So we're now sort of three years plus of doing this experience of looking at a wide range of humanitarian actors and what the role is of advocacy and obviously I could bring quite a lot of my own background and experience into that. Fantastic and that's very good to know as well Gemma that throughout your career I guess you also have witnessed somehow protection advocates methodology and ways of working change I mean in 18 years different geopolitical contexts different ways in which humanitarian leverage has been built by different organizations whether at the CSO level or more at the global level. So Gemma last year authored a report called Complementary Approaches Between International and Local Protection Advocacy. Don't speak for me I'll speak for myself. This is a powerful analysis of how protection advocacy often is the result of combined efforts and collision between national protection actors, international humanitarian organizations and civil society actors. How do you think you know now looking back on the sort of advocacy that you've seen taking place how do you think we're faring as protection advocates? That's a really good question. I think there was a certain point of time where it became a lot more prominent to carry out advocacy in attempting to strengthen protection you know we were in the 90s off the back of two genocides Rwanda the former Yugoslavia we then came out of this Relanka conflict and there was the high levels of criticism that the humanitarian sector were more or less silent and did not live up to their obligations to defend the rights of conflict affected civilians during that there was Darfur where advocacy became quite prominent so I think there was sort of a over a few years a bit of a awakening as to the need you know that advocacy is a core component of humanitarian action and we've sort of committed to promote the protection of conflict affected civilians. I think since then I actually think that we've seen quite sadly a demise in that you know the humanitarian sector at large has become really quite risk averse it's become very projectised and in many ways there's been investments in capacities around coordination etc etc that's I hope promising but I think the overall trajectory has unfortunately it seems to have gone a little bit backwards let's hope that these renewed conversations that are happening at the moment and some of the evidence we're bringing in the conversations that we're having with the global protection cluster and others can reignite some of those conversations. But to me I think one of the central ideas that was in several of your reports at HPG that really resonated with me is about you know this tension that we used to see humanitarian advocacy on protection of civilians as being a little bit of a top-down exercise whilst as you highlight a lot of the around humanitarian reform they bring up you know that human element so the capacity and voices and agency and power of the communities that we work with. I think there's growing recognition of the added value and the critical role that local actors, that survivors, that civil society organisations can and should play. And obviously there's been a lot of conversation over the years around the power dynamics of the humanitarian system but I think what is being spoken in the policy domain is still pretty far from what we see unfortunately at the operational level and you know in situations where people are affected by crisis and conflict. I think the power differentials too often remain. I think where there are opportunities to redress this and rebalance this it's often based on individuals rather than a sort of institutional and system wide redress. But saying that we're seeing we are seeing examples of positive change and I think we've seen some really impressive advocacy often not formalised. So one of the examples that we looked at in South Sudan was the role of survivors, civil society working with international humanitarian actors as well as diplomatic actors development actors etc to develop accountability well recognition first off and second of all accountability to the horrific levels of gender based violence in South Sudan one of our interviewees who is both a survivor and a civil society representative saying that actually the role of the international community should not be to represent the voices of survivors and those affected by conflict it should be to provide a platform and too often though there is growing practice of this again it's not it's not systematic it's not standard practice as of yet. That's excellent Gemma and you offered so many points for reflection there I think if you could tell us a little bit more about you know how do we go from something that's completely say spontaneous or you know where the overlap between interests is so what would be one tip you know for any protection advocate whether at the grassroots level or at the regional level or at the global level or how you bring about people with the same set of values but maybe slightly differing interests I think organisations and the structures the humanitarian structures they work within need to get beyond mandate and they need to go beyond their organisational interests you have to get to a point where you agree on what is the area that we're all trying to influence and use that as your starting point what change do you want to achieve and what do we each contribute to that I remember speaking to one interview and that person said to me just get away all the branding get away all of the mandates and then we might work more effectively together some of it will be reactive you might not always know where you're going with your advocacy objective but you're moving towards something so in the situation I just referenced it was this sort of growing sort of set of organisations and individuals that recognise those horrifying levels of gender based violence and wanted to bring visibility to the issue wanted more accountability of the issue and wanted that survivors were brought into that conversation and varying different sets of actors sort of had a role in them that branded towards a certain cluster a certain organisational identity no it was actually sort of really working much more beyond that and I think hearing you speak about that sort of collective effort unbranded going a little bit beyond each agencies mandate two things that sprang to my mind are one example of collaborative advocacy between different agencies under the banner of crisis action which is I think somehow also reflected in your report that we were quoting earlier but then also some of the work that the GPC the global protection cluster itself has been doing I think over the past couple of years as well picking up on certain situations of concerns where you had I don't know like in Afghanistan very restrictive operational environment and through the global protection cluster agencies were able to gather their thoughts you know around to key demands towards the de facto authorities and potentially push forward a more rights based protection agenda can you maybe expand a little bit upon that you know how are these coalitions perceived by say post government authorities or power holes is more general I think it depends on the coalition and it depends on the issue I think though the main thing as you said in in every sort of advocacy initiative there has to be thought as to who has legitimacy who has credibility and how those advocacy positions are then framed often in the humanitarian sector is international actors leading an international let's face it are perceived as global north or western actors they're often framed in international frameworks referencing international humanitarian international refugee law whichever body of law is most relevant but often disconnected from both the context and towards the target and those these days they fall on flat is frankly I mean I think in everything you have to think of as we said who has credibility legitimacy understanding that as you referenced before in the geopolitical environment the global north and the west increasingly less perceived as legitimate actors so there must be consideration and intentional consideration around the diversity of actors that are represented in those voices secondly I think it's who is that advocacy message targeted at what are their interests and where are you going to have leverage with them so you know and where is there going to be acceptance and at times national actors have greater credibility greater acceptance and greater understanding of how to influence national advocacy targets than international actors and I'll give an example following the influx and humanitarian response of Syrian refugees into Jordan back in 2015 Jordanian national actors highlighted how the international humanitarian community came in with those standardized messages you know of upholding XYZ law and said that the international humanitarian communities overreliance on those generalized approaches had a negative impact and rebuked from the Jordanian government and a real risk of closing down dialogue and then you know through the years there was growing collaboration between national and international organizations and national organizations really then worked with international organizations on how to frame those messages grounded in Jordanian culture in language the Jordanian government would have traction with the Jordanian government equally when you're trying to you know change behaviors of communities for example and then started to see progress on that so one sort of win that they had when advocacy positions were framed in a culturally and context relevant way was progression on for example refugees access to work so quite strong evidence there of you know when grounded and when working strategically in collaboration what can be achieved I wonder to what extent you know is the humanitarian system still thinking for example local actors are great to lead on an operational point of view from an operational point of view whilst you know for the advocacy there's still this doubt or misconception around neutrality impartiality independence and I think we've seen a lot of that coming to the fore with regards to the conversation in Ukraine but I wondered yeah what you thought about that yeah I think it's interesting isn't it I mean I think first of all as you say part of the problem of the humanitarian system is that national actors are still seen as downstream partners to an extent generally practices are still extractives and of course there are a few different conversations on the one side you hear conversations around whether national actors can and do uphold principles and some of the risks involved in involving them with that on the other side we sometimes see this almost paternalistic approach of let's not involve national actors in advocacy at least at the forefront in case of risks with either end of that spectrum it's a little overly simplistic the biggest part for me in that is that these need to be broken down and they need to be broken down while working in an open dialogue and communication with our sort of national regional counterparts so often these perceptions of it might breach neutrality because you know if you're talking to civil society or right groups then we're on the political side well I think frankly the humanitarian community needs to challenge itself as to how neutral the international humanitarian community are quite often the international humanitarian community itself has lost a lot of legitimacy in how neutral they are so let's also be aware of perceptions on ourselves I think also one thing we seem to forget as the humanitarian community is what survivors are asking from us sometimes humanitarian actors take a more reserved position or even a silent position but we've got to remember that silence in the face of atrocities is a position and that also can lead to some perceptions that the international community can be complicit in abuses that's what's just happened in Myanmar it's what happened in Sri Lanka back in 2009 so I think we have to really reckon on how neutral we are I think also we need to remember that neutrality is a tool but also the objective of humanitarian action is humanity and if survivors are asking us to stand with them then maybe that's what we need to do I think from my side when you talk about the kind of requests and support that INGOs can give to survivors of atrocity crimes or human rights violations on a large scale that's for sure that the advocacy and the kind of agenda setting that we could have in certain markets as you want to call them is actually something quite important because we have access to say I don't know the media we have access to donors, diplomatic actors whether it's multilaterals or influential governments bilaterally the question to me is how can we rebalance you know how can we make sure that this kind of sound dynamic that we usually have been operating for decades can be rebalanced how can we build that there needs to be effective collaboration requires trust it requires open dialogue and it requires partnerships that go beyond programs you know when dealing around issues of advocacy it can't only be based on partnerships through programs it has to be a much longer term and policy oriented discussion you know I think recognizing as well that there is naturally power and balance in the system is asking INGOs and international actors we have to be humble we have to listen more and we have to have that open dialogue another interview he said to us through the course of this research that you know trust can take years to build and seconds to destroy which is so true and I'm sure we've all got experiences within that so I think it's you know making sure that that dialogue is there it's taken out of this sort of power imbalance approach and then working on that really a partnership level on what is it we're trying to achieve what platforms do we have open to us what are the most effective ways to make change and then you know coming back to that conversation around risk what is the risk how can we collectively mitigate it where you do have collaborations between national and international actors that in itself can mitigate risk because you know you have a range of actors working towards one advocacy objective or a range of objectives so I think it's redressing some of that and then ensuring that decision making is based on that it sounds simple and straightforward but unfortunately you know a lot of humanitarian organizations and certainly the system is not there yet I couldn't agree with you more in terms of how the system is not really built for that type of consensual collaborative decision making because more often than not these things depend on I don't know political will and the CSO strength so I don't know if this is something that you have thought about whilst you were doing your research I think every advocacy agenda has to be based on what is it you're trying to achieve what's the context you're trying to achieve it in and what are the opportunities open to you know so it's going to be based a little bit on the dynamics that you're finding yourself in you've got to be working a bit with the momentum that there is you need to create momentum where it doesn't exist but I think as you say I think international organizations and INGOs need to recognize that they need to give up space they need to move beyond their own agenda and as you say so they're outside of this projectised approach I think increasingly if we're really wanting to make change we as we being the international humanitarian community need to perceive ourselves as playing a facilitation role that can be allowing local organization survivors facilitating access to international platforms it can be also things that seem quite simple but really are quite complex such as working around navigating the complex structures at regional mechanisms such as the AU at the security council etc these are very complex spaces they're places where it's national organizations and survivors civil society might not have had exposure to before so it's really sort of giving that role a little bit more but I think it then really has to be based on the circumstance the situation as you say sort of what is going on what can every actor involved in this from survivor to national to international actor bring what are the opportunities what are the risks and then sort of really working in a truly collaborative but also iterative way you know but just to say you know I can't emphasize enough how much I think international actors just really have to consider their role as giving a platform and facilitating and you know when we say capacity building it's not that it's more sort of working with organizations and with individuals on how to navigate these incredibly complex regional international mechanisms where you may be able to affect change that's excellent to hear in terms of also how renewed role for an NGO could look like I think again there's been no shortage in policy papers and you know donors initiative around humanitarian system reform but I think what you're suggesting Gemma brings it down to the nitty-gritty and some real concrete operational asks that we could implement within each agency coming back to what you were saying as well or one of the advantages for the collaboration between different humanitarian stakeholders risk management I think is one that has drawn our attention quite a lot of late I think we're a little bit on the back foot as humanitarians on how to collaborate say with civil society activists when they face backlash but I also had any insights on how risk is being managed at the moment what could we do to make sure that when someone speaks up to raise the issue of protection of civilians and the rights of civilians in conflict they're not facing unmanageable unintended consequences so I think it's a really important point as I said before we face this dichotomy where either national actors or survivors can be you know the risks are not being adequately assessed even though they often face much more risks and far fewer options to manage them than international actors or just paternalistic role that international actors sometimes play in saying okay let's not put national actors at risk so let's exclude them from a process but again this is where collaborations can be highly effective so for example there was another situation also in South Sudan but different to the sort of GBV situation where a range of international and national actors were working together including international humanitarian human rights and national civil society collaborated so then when human rights actors are much better equipped by the nature of their work but working with human rights defenders and then you know trying to help them manage risks as and when they play out including through trying to get them to a safer area out of the country if that's necessary and so we did see the situation in South Sudan play out and by nature of that sort of informal coalition it meant that there was some support that could be given for the national civil society actor and the individuals that were then targeted and we anticipate this so that if and when these risks do play out they can be acted on because often they can escalate quite quickly so you need to be prepared and ready to respond but again I think all of this speaks to the necessity of working in coalitions and with a range of actors be on the humanitarian community Yeah and I think I'm packing a little bit that point in terms of how you build bridges for example with human rights actor somehow human rights defenders even when it comes to I don't know information security management they seem to be a little bit more proactive whilst for humanitarians the understanding of risk is often you know very much dictated by the context and reactive so thinking going to operate in such and such environment so I will sort of future proof my operations in a certain way whilst I think deliberately human rights defenders sometimes think a bit more carefully on ways in which information could be transmitted the course of the politics behind it I don't know what could be done to ensure that different humanitarians consult and collaborate with their human rights counterpart but I also know that this is another topic that you have explored extensively throughout your time at HPG and also before but I think sometimes I am left wondering whether we can learn something from other organizations that deal with information security like tactical tech and others who do for instance training to human rights defenders on how to create information how do you build bridges without experts in those kind of realms sometimes this maybe should be the role of the UN country teams on making sure that those dynamics happen but I think more often than not it's down to INGO's and CSO's activists isn't it? Yeah and I think look there's always been there's been this long-standing discussion on the extent to which humanitarian and human rights actors should and could collaborate and the barriers going back into issues around principles predominantly and the fear of retaliation and we know that the fear of risks associated in carrying out advocacy is a major barrier for organizations and humanitarian organizations to more strategically use advocacy as a tool to strengthen protection but when a situation escalates particularly from a security perspective the first thing that closes down from humanitarian actors international humanitarian actors specifically is a de-prioritization of protection a de-prioritization of raising protection risks i.e. advocacy in any and all forms but I would argue that that's exactly the point that you need collaboration with human rights actors it doesn't need to be visible a lot of what we do is behind closed doors but it's exactly then that you should be looking at where do we have leverage and where can we collectively push because in these situations human rights actors can be prepared to say more they will only do so with evidence which by the way most humanitarian actors cannot give them they will always have to go and verify but they can do more about this so when humanitarian actors feel they can't there's a space for them to fill so I think we've really got to be a lot more strategic a lot more cognizant and frankly a lot less reactive the reactive and go to point seems to be close it down do not collaborate we've got to think about this and again always bring it back to what to effective people need from us I could bring an example if you wanted to I personally would love to hear this one example you know as we know in Tigray when you know the violence escalated there and obviously that situation in terms of the human rights and humanitarian violations escalated dramatically and the levels of abuses were huge I spoke to a human rights actor who was there just after the violation of Tigray who said that trying to have any information sharing from humanitarians was first of all very very difficult we know this between human rights and humanitarian actors as I say particularly where humanitarian actors feel like there could be retaliation or their position could be jeopardized or their reparations could be jeopardized but second of all the information that they were given was actually quite a lot perception based rather than the evidence base that person and that felt strongly that if they were to bring out the evidence and work a lot more collaboratively and a lot quicker they could have done a lot more in terms of advocacy rather than waiting until there was retaliation on the humanitarian community by which time the leverage of the international community was perceived to have minimized rather than doing this at the height so I think again thinking around when could we have leverage which is the comparative advantage of each of our organization and how do we all work towards an objective of trying to strengthen the protection of civilians right I think always keeping that in our mind. Indeed and I think if I'm taking something out of this conversation in addition to all the sort of suggestion that you've done and given to INGOs on how to be more equitable in their partnership more humble as well on how we navigate some of the protection advocacy spaces it's actually that around you know thinking in clear terms what the comparative advantage of each protection actor is how to use the information and when and where the pressure points are so I think this example that you just gave Gemma encapsulates that very neatly and the final question for me if we may is about looking a little bit at how protection advocacy sometimes is challenging it's a very slow trek sometimes you go one step forward and two steps backwards what would you say is something that motivates you to keep going what gives you hope for the future in carrying out this important and crucial work. Thanks and I think this is too often the issue isn't it I think first of all as you say sort of to change in the face of sort of such intractable difficult complex issues will never happen overnight so there's a need for us to be persistent as an international humanitarian community collaborating with others we need to take the long view it needs multi-year engagement build the evidence base but sustain investments and I think this is also too often where humanitarian organizations fall short with our short-term program cycles but really if we want to create change we have to take that long view and we have to keep trying but I think also adaptability to flex approaches according to external events according to external moments continue persisting in the face of obstacles but I think also being realistic of the change that you're trying to be make be prepared for setbacks believing that change is possible and then celebrating with small wins I think just always keeping that in front of you and often that can be support from leadership but often you can also achieve that by working in collaboration and in coalitions and even if that is that one small step forward that one small step forward can often mean a much greater leap further down the road. Those are very very encouraging words Gemma and thanks for sharing them with us I'm sure a lot of our listeners engaged with protection advocacy will agree with you and I certainly agree with you on that front in particular because often when we're looking at advocacy strategies one approach that some of my colleagues and I are trying to go for is not looking at you know very ambitious and bold objectives that would take us I don't know three years to achieve but trying to break it down into smaller steps that would ultimately contribute to the greater good so that resonates quite a lot with our experience both at Oxon and at the Global Protection Cluster Advocacy Working Group. I think we wrap up the first episode of our podcast now thanks again Gemma for sharing your insights and your expertise on such a sensitive and fascinating topic such as protection advocacy and multi-stakeholder collaboration. We look forward to having you back on the podcast thank you very much. Great, thanks Antonio. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Advocating for Protection podcast. It's produced by the Global Protection Clusters Advocacy Working Group which is co-led by Save the Children in Oxfam and includes members from national and international NGOs and UN agencies. You can find out more information about the Advocacy Working Group on globalprotectioncluster.org Look out for the Protection Advocacy Toolkit whilst on this website and if you have feedback or suggestions for future episodes email us at protectionteamatoxfam.org