Author: Lutz Drieling

Photo credit: Vardan Papikyan

Date: April, 2023

Raluca Teodor is the Vice-president of the ARCADIA – The Romanian Association for International Cooperation and Development and works for Mercy Corps and the Foundation for Civil Society Development. She was always connected to NGOs and worked for one year on a UN project in Afghanistan.

Please tell us about your role(s) during the humanitarian crisis.

In the first month, my role was to facilitate connections for ARCADIA and other NGOs. I started commuting to the National Intervention Management and Coordination Centre (CNCCI). Here I tried to ensure communication between actors of the civil society and the official authorities. In addition, I tried through ARCADIA to connect Romanian NGOs with International NGOs. We had the opportunity to learn from each other, discuss our responses, and to better tailor our interventions. I also supported missions coming to Romania which came to improve their individual responses to the humanitarian crisis. 

Which were the most difficult moments?

In the beginning, everything was chaotic. Everyone wanted to help but no one knew how. Civil society did not have the information needed, especially in connection with the legal status of refugees. It is still a challenge; we feel a high pressure. We try to do the best we can and to support and protect people, but we also must support communication between the actors and ensure that our resources are not overlapping. That is quite challenging. I wish it were easier, especially since administrative factors are quite a burden. We need more flexibility to reallocate funds in case needed. More flexibility to change the focus of projects would be helpful as well. Sometimes we realise that some projects focus on a service that is surprisingly not needed. It would be great if there is an easier way to change this focus afterward.

Which were the most meaningful moments?

The most meaningful for me is that I can do what I believe in. I find purpose here in my tasks and work. Of course, you can say, ´We reached so many people and packed so many packages, but for me, that is not it. There are many people left alone and many people without support. We must go and reach out. It is helpful to talk to colleagues about issues and work together on solutions and to see that we improve.

Please tell us about your organisation and how it contributes to addressing the humanitarian crisis.

I work for two organisations now.  Mercy Corps develops partnerships for the response to the Ukrainian crisis. We facilitate support through local organisations. We give sub-grants to local organisations and organise through food and non-food items, access to information and social services, and in some countries cash assistance.

The Civil Society Development Foundation, the other organisation I work for, disseminates correct information on the humanitarian crisis, refugees, and several complex areas within the field. It also offers grants for organisations supporting refugees.

What worked well regarding the (Romanian/regional) efforts to address the humanitarian crisis?

The biggest challenge was to address the situations at the border but, the big benefit we had in Romania and in Poland was that we had a system in place that reacted. We had structured collaboration with civil society and authorities. They did not have so much experience in humanitarian crises, but both NGOs and institutions had extensive experience within their fields, which helped. This enabled them to adapt, act, and have an impact. And on top, the authorities were eager to work with civil societies, and that made the response faster, better, and more efficient.

What could have worked better?

I would like better coordination with the first phase of the crisis. It was quite chaotic and more clarity at the level of UN coordination would have been helpful for us in Romania.

What are you focusing on in your work now?

I still work on the Crisis response. I facilitate partnerships and manage grants.

Any other thoughts and suggestions?

I am glad that we are going to develop the Knowledge Hub on the Ukrainian crisis with ARCADIA. It will help to share experiences from the field and gives a new space for debates. There are a lot of experiences to be exchanged. I see the good in the bad and this crisis opened the door for debates and exchanges on how to help and support refugees and act in humanitarian crises. In the end, it hopefully ensures better assistance to refugees in the future and prepares us better for the next situation in which we might find ourselves, whatever it might be.

Region: Central and Eastern Europe

Country/(ies): Ukraine, Romania

Photo credit: Alexandre Debiève

Date: May, 2023

Mihai Lupu is the Advisory to the Secretary of State, Raed Arafat, who is the chairman of the Department of Emergency Situations (DSU) and the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Internal Affairs. His role is instrumental in coordinating the DSU response to the Ukrainian humanitarian crisis. 

Please tell us about your role(s) during the humanitarian crisis. 

The DSU is an umbrella organisation that responds to every emergency that may occur at the level of the state in coordination with the affiliated partners. Several institutions are part of the integrated response/ reaction, like the General Inspectorate of Aviation, the Emergency Reception Units (UPU), SMURD, the Romanian General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (IGSU), etc. As an Advisory to the Secretary of State, my area of expertise is in relation to the private sector, non-governmental institutions, and civil society. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I have been the contact person that creates the lines of communication between civil society, NGOs, and the DSU. We started with a Whatsapp group, which has gathered more than 200 members in the first week, as a temporary measure for various organisations to communicate and find solutions. Meanwhile, we looked for alternatives, and contacted the Employers’ Association of the Software and Services Industry (ANIS). We moved our platform to Microsoft Teams. Receiving 1000 licences from Microsoft, we expanded the group and detailed our work. The aim was to systemize all coordination efforts into an interdisciplinary inter-sector platform structured on different areas of crisis response. We, therefore, replaced the old WhatsApp group with a platform where people could easily find the requested information. Within the platform, there are sections related to border patrols, medical services and first aid, legal and psychological assistance, integration at the level of society, and logistics, all offered to the refugees.  Also, there is an infographic detailing the first response process in case of an emergency like the current humanitarian crisis.

Did the use of technology make any difference?

We have established relations with different NGOs and academic structures. I will share a link where you can find more details about the role of technology. Mainly, the role of the DSU is to inform and protect the population, as we are in constant talk with many organisations. Apart from communicating with them, there are general meetings and common exercises to prepare a better response in case of an intervention. It is all about following the standard protocol and organising better. Regarding the digital ecosystem for Ukraine, there are shared practices with 20 organisations, as we want to keep them close and form protocols. Many have been invited to participate in the series of exercises in Targu Mures in May. We are undertaking these actions to calibrate our response. 

Is there any need for better communication?

There is always a need for better communication between organisations. We should do this by engaging in similar projects and learning from each other. It is only natural to take part in concrete actions. For example, if an area from Greece is covered in fire, then through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, Romania can send its help. In that case, you have to react instantly and use the knowledge of our experts from institutions and NGOs.  Another example would be the recent events in Turkey with the earthquakes, as many organisations contacted us via the platform for Ukraine. As these associations did not have any background, we could not provide them with any recommendations. I know it was all the emotional hype back then, but we did not know with whom we were dealing. Besides the communication at the level of our institution, we have to inform our citizens and keep them updated. We launched an app for DSU and a new website called fiipregatit.ro, where people can find all sorts of useful information. We collaborated with CivicNet to create this online platform and continue to work on it. Also, starting from the end of March, the qualified personnel of Fiipregatit and SMURD launched two fully equipped vans where people could learn and simulate different emergent activities. We were able to reach many communities and want to extend the number of vans to four.

Can you tell us a meaningful moment from your experience with addressing the humanitarian crisis? 

An important moment was starting to calibrate our response with the other organisations. It took a while to organise ourselves, but we understood the situation. As we were alone and needed to cooperate. The whole process taught us how to act efficiently. This is what I would call a meaningful moment. 

Can you tell us a difficult moment? 

A difficult moment is happening now. The transition from the 50/20 program was not easy at first. It was introduced as a measure to encourage the Romanian people to accommodate the Ukrainian refugees and to distribute them more easily. Yet, there are no conditions stipulated in the program to start the process of integration for these persons. Right now, they are changing the system, but there will still be a lot of pressure on the reception centres. Many people will potentially get evacuated from their current accommodation. 

Last year was a difficult one for us. We always had to react quickly and adapt to each new challenge.

Region: Central and Eastern Europe

Country/(ies): Ukraine, Romania

Author: Lutz Drieling

Photo credit: Andrew Petrischev

Date: May, 2023

Javier Garcia is the Head of Country Support in Europe and the Americas at ActionAid International. He is a trained economist with 20 years of experience in the development sector. 

Please tell us about your role(s) during the humanitarian crisis. 

In the Humanitarian Crisis in Ukraine, ActionAid is providing support to our members in Europe and the Americas and doing policy work. When the Crisis started ActionAid decided to intervene, even though we don’t have ActionAid members in Ukraine or Romania. We wanted to support our local partners and provide help. I am part of the larger group of ActionAid, but I am not a member of the teams that directly carry out our humanitarian aid, I focus more on policy work.

Which were the most difficult moments?

The beginning was the most challenging. The needs were high, and a lot of people left Ukraine in a short period of time. Help was needed and to respond on short notice with the right services was complicated. We also work with partners who did not work particularly on a humanitarian response before. Suddenly they had to shift their priorities and their way of interacting. No one was prepared and we and our partners had to adapt. It was also hard to bring the right team to the place. Our team members from non-European countries like India could come but getting work permits and visas was challenging. We also had trouble deciding where to start and on what to focus on and then to communicate our strategies.

Which were the most meaningful moments?

After the first three months, we were sitting together to reflect on what we did and what should be done differently, and how we want to go on with the team, and partners. This changed our humanitarian response. We discussed how to set up support in the future, we discussed the leadership, and how to protect our target groups. Overall, it was about what we can do differently and how we can improve, this was meaningful to me.

Please tell us about your organisation and how it contributes to addressing the humanitarian crisis.

ActionAid interacts through members or partners in 70 countries. We provide relief in Europe for the Ukrainian crisis. Considering our long-term relations with our partners, it was our responsibility to act. We were no experts on Eastern Europe and the Eastern neighbourhood, but we could rely on partnerships and their knowledge. We worked on all related sectors like cash support, nonfood items, shelter, protection services, psycho-social support, and livelihood support. We tried to make it accessible to all these displaced people coming at the beginning to Romania, later than also to Moldova and Ukraine. We try to target as many people as possible, but we focus especially on women, youth, and everyone left behind by traditional humanitarian responses like LGBTQI+, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups.

What worked well regarding the (Romanian/regional) efforts to address the humanitarian crisis?

It is interesting that the capacities in Romania adapted and transformed from a development framework to a humanitarian response. This was great. We identified partners, collaborated with them, and empowered them to offer specialised support. It is important to work with youth groups for supporting youth, women groups to support women, etc. They are the best service provider for their individual target groups. We saw that the crisis would last and needed a sustainable response. I was surprised that Youth groups were prepared, and they showed they can have a meaningful role in their response to this humanitarian crisis.

What could have worked better?

We struggled to deploy our staff due to visa restrictions. We can deploy our European staff to the Global South, without any problem but the other way around it is quite challenging. In addition, Information was not spread fast enough. We needed and still need real data and qualified information as examples about women to create appropriate services or inform society how to support and how to not do harm. Professionalization was missing and people drove to the border for taking children and bringing them to safety endangering them to trafficking and abuse. They needed to be educated on how to do humanitarian response and what should not be done.

What are you focusing on in your work now?

We dedicate more capacities and resources to Ukraine and less to Romania, Poland, and Moldova. The most needs are in Ukraine now. The response is the same, Psychosocial support, information, and assistance. Just the focus on the location changed. We also try now to increase our long-term development approach in combination with our humanitarian response.

What needs do you see now that could be addressed better?

Compared to a year ago everything is better already. Access to help is different. We have better-established relations with local organisations. Now the recovery process has started. This is a challenge. We must discuss peace and recovery, but we must do this with civil society organisations and their role is not clear yet. How can you discuss recovery without them? This is something that must be worked on.

Region: Central and Eastern Europe

Country/(ies): Ukraine, Romania

Author: Lutz Drieling

Photo credit: Julie Ricard

Date: May, 2023

Diana Tonea is Interim Ukraine Cash Consortium Director (UCC). She worked for the Appraisal Monitoring and Evaluation, of the Syrian crisis and afterwards for 3 years in Iraq for the Norwegian Refugee Council. She was Head of Mission for IRC in Libya in Tunisia. And then Emergency Response Consortium Director in Colombia for the Mercy Corps. Now, Diana works, among other organizations, for Mercy Corps.

Please tell us about your role(s) during the humanitarian crisis. 

I led a cash assistance response mission for Romania and Moldovan. In addition, I supported setting up cash assistance in Ukraine. I also wrote three papers connected to the Ukrainian crisis and cash response as the interim director of the Ukraine Cash Consortium.

Which were the most difficult moments?

I used to be an international Humanitarian Aid expert, deployed in high-risk areas. I never expected to have a crisis like we have now in my home country. Suddenly international colleagues were deployed to my country. It seemed unreal. They do not speak the language, they need accommodation and support structures and suddenly, as a local, the aid system looked rather colonialist. People come, unable to call themselves a taxi, totally dependent on locals for doing their job. Of course, they bring a lot of expertise, but as a local, I suddenly had a totally different look at the work I did for years. I realised that we need more localization of our work and to advise local societies and small actors on how to offer humanitarian aid rather than deploying experts, with all its costs, to do the work and then go home.

Which were the most meaningful moments?

That I could bring in my experience from my work in Colombia to create partnerships, consortiums, and cooperation for targeting the Ukrainian crisis. I could follow a vision and think big and finally implement all the ideas. Our work took over as soon as authorities and societies were exhausted and went back to their normal operation. With the Ukraine Cash Consortium (UCC) we created a 100 mil. USD emergency response portfolio. To succeed with something like that, together with a like-minded team just feels great.

Please tell us about your organisation and how it contributes to addressing the humanitarian crisis.

Mercy Corps was the last organisation I worked for. In the Ukrainian response, we have projects in Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. Here, at Mercy Corps, I work with local partners and implement cashed-based assistance.

What worked well regarding the (Romanian/regional) efforts to address the humanitarian crisis?

The initial response of the civil society and its eagerness to help was something I never saw in Romania. It was impressive how everybody mobilised and tried to do something. The enthusiasm was stunning.

What could have worked better?

Of course, there were gaps in the response of the people. Border points became “markets” offer-driven rather than driven by demand. We have to offer services people need. This was often a transportation opportunity to Italy rather than a Teddy bear. We must think about what people need, what they get on the market, and what they do not get. What they do not get on the market is what we have to offer.  No one from the people, eager trying to help, knew the principle of offering support without doing harm, to understanding the specific vulnerabilities of women and children to Human trafficking or abuse.  Accommodations must be divided by gender. The authorities tried to coordinate this help after some time. But they must learn how to adapt and how to coordinate support. The architecture of humanitarian aid in Romania must be improved.  We must use existing and functioning support architectures. There is a way to do Humanitarian Aid. I would have preferred if the Romanian authorities would have cooperated with the UN agencies rather than trying to keep control. I feel we could have done more by partnering up with local actors, to teach them how to do Humanitarian Aid. To exchange knowledge of local and international actors and how to support each other. 

What are you focusing on in your work now?

I am collaborating with Mercy Corps on the response in Ukraine and for the Ukraine cash consortium as a director.

What needs do you see now that could be addressed better?

Financial assistance and humanitarian cash. Our markets work, people have access to it and that should be used. People lost their jobs, are displaced, and had to rebuild everything. By now they used their savings and are unemployed. They are in a tricky situation, and they need access to meet their basic needs but also opportunities to rebuild their lives. And of course, to link them to a social protection system. The Ukrainian system is quite strong and supports the most vulnerable. People who are now displaced still need this access to a similar net of social safety. We must map new vulnerabilities and act on them. Also, people at the frontline need support, they lack access to the market. The number one priority must be their safety.

Region: Central and Eastern Europe

Country/(ies): Ukraine, Romania

Author: Mihaela Steliana Munteanu

Photo credit: Kiran CK

Mihaela Steliana Munteanu is the director of communication and advocacy for the Federation of Non-governmental Organisations for Social Services (FONSS).

Can you tell us about your role and the role of your organisation during the humanitarian crisis?

FONSS is a social services provider for vulnerable groups. We offered help to the people affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and started working with refugees once the war in Ukraine began. We tried to create a mechanism of contact between the authorities and the NGOs, and for civil society as well. Through our role, we wanted to connect state institutions with the members of communities so that the latter could benefit from social and medical assistance. These were the most crucial needs required at that moment. Based on our agenda and expertise, while stating our help for the vulnerable communities, we could not draw from any major social crisis. We thought acting from the beginning was the natural thing to do. Also, we believed we could pass on our experience as many of our affiliated organisations are licensed service providers, considering how disorganised the area of action for supporting refugees was. You know how well the people reacted, though there was no proper structure. Apart from food and shelter, we believed they should have received financial support to adapt to a foreign country and its rules. The first step was to reactivate the Social Emergency Centre (CUS), but then we thought the name would not fit well with the problem of the refugees. After it, the Iasi Municipality proposed to us a partnership to deliver services at a refugee center. It was a big step for us, considering the impact of the crisis. For instance, we mainly worked with colleagues from other organisations during the pandemic. That is how we got a more direct approach to offering help to the refugees. 

What were the most meaningful moments in your work with the Ukrainian refugees?

Perhaps when we grouped ourselves with the associations of Afterhills, ParentIS, and Grupul Zambetul Nostru, to work on the partnership with the Iasi Municipality. It was challenging to collaborate under the same management. We had not worked with them before. But it was an important moment for us once we reached one year together. We could not have imagined it would last that long. We thought it would only go for two or three months, and after that, the state would take over from there. But in reality, it never happened, and we had to intervene in the place of the national institutions many times. It was also special because we had the chance to work with the High Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Romania. Another meaningful moment was when we engaged in dialogue with the Department of Emergency Situations (DSU). With their help, we could capitalize on information and distribute it more easily. There were moments when we cooperated with representatives of the government. Again, one of my colleagues in Bucharest held a training about the importance of social services for the specialists of the UNHCR

Which were the most difficult moments?

Every decision that was taken at the level of the refugee centre was difficult. The most problematic one was the inventory part and keeping evidence of the offered financial support. Unfortunately, the financing of the refugees was for a short period. That is why the relationship with the benefactor is essential. It has way more value than the usual bureaucratic obstacles.

What worked well in regard to the (Romanian/regional) efforts to address the humanitarian crisis? 

From the beginning, there was effective communication between the NGOs. Everyone was ready to act depending on what the problem was. There were also donation programs in case any organisations were missing some goods. For me, it was an extremely positive moment when we were all ready to assist each other and share our resources. Another thing would be how the national institutions tried to create a line of communication with us. Though I often tend to criticize them, I cannot overlook their implication this time. When things were getting worse, they remembered what they had learned before during the Covid-19 pandemic, which was the usefulness of the NGOs. They understood how well this method could work to form new partnerships with us. The process did not occur everywhere, but they still learned something from past experiences. Even the DSU, which I mentioned earlier, applied the same thing and gathered many organisations to react to the crisis. The relationship with our donors went well, but we had not interacted with them before. They were not our traditional partners, to say. But in general, it is challenging to attract any financial support. Although they told us the process would be easy, it became very complicated over time. Still, somehow things worked well in the end.

What could have worked better in the relationship with the institutions? 

They should have trusted the NGOs more that work directly with the beneficiary. For example, when they created the program for assisting the upcoming refugees, we talked to them about how to avoid fraud or not to overuse our resources. Right after Emergency Ordinance No. 15/2022, we told them which were the weak points from our perspective. They communicated with us to a certain extent, but then they interrupted any communication. They did not listen anymore to our opinions and became distant again. I have a feeling that while some authorities start to communicate, they immediately close the door on it as if something wrong has happened. This is a matter of education in our relationship with the state institutions if we want to achieve open and sincere communication. This is where we need to work more. I would like us not just to operate during emergency cases and collaborate more, even in peaceful times.

What could have worked better in the relationship with the institutions? 

My priority is to build on the mechanism of emergency assistance during social crises. The pandemic and the Ukrainian crisis showed us that we do not possess readable mechanisms of intervention. We have the Romanian General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (ISU) that can respond immediately, but most of its connections do not rely on civil society or the average citizen. The thing is that we do not know how to react properly in case of emergencies.

Region: Central and Eastern Europe

Country/(ies): Ukraine, Romania

“The core objective of the Kalshoven-Gieskes Forum is to provide a neutral platform for the research, teaching and further dissemination of International Humanitarian Law. By doing this, it aims to create better protection and assistance for victims of war and more respect for humanity in armed conflicts and crisis situations. The Forum aims to help alleviate the suffering of individuals in armed conflicts and to bring more humanity to these special situations of violence.”

http://kalshovengieskesforum.com/

HelpAge is a global network of organisations which are focusing on the support of elderly which are affected by humanitarian crises and stand up for their needs and rights.

https://www.helpage.org/

Newsletter: https://www.helpage.org/newsroom/latest-news/

Pax for Peace is a peace organisation in the Netherlands. The organisation focuses on protecting civilians against acts of war, ending armed conflicts, and building sustainable peace.

https://paxforpeace.nl/

Newsletter: https://paxforpeace.nl/news/1

Global shelter cluster is offering information concerning Humanitarian Aid specialised for the shelter sector. The webpage offers next to ressources the opportunity to connect with other organisations which are operating shelters during emergency and recovery phases.

https://sheltercluster.org/

Newsletter: https://sheltercluster.org/about-us/pages/subscribe-our-newsletter

redruk is a training and support provider for NGOs, aid workers and communities which are responding to humanitarian crises. Upcoming trainings can be found under:

https://www.redr.org.uk/Training-Learning/Events. 

It also offers trainings directly connected to the Humanitarian Crisis in Ukraine:

https://www.redr.org.uk/Training-Learning/Ukraine-Humanitarian-Response-(1)

https://www.redr.org.uk/Training-Learning/Ukraine-LNA   

https://www.redr.org.uk/ , 

Newsletter: https://www.redr.org.uk/News