Eugen Bogdan Preda is the National Integration Coordinator at the Romanian National Council for Refugees, where he spearheaded efforts to integrate displaced individuals, particularly in response to the Ukrainian conflict. With over a decade of experience in refugee assistance, Eugen’s leadership as Head of the National Integration Department underscores his unwavering commitment to aiding those in need.

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

I will briefly tell you what happened. In February 2022, I got an urgent call from my coordinator saying that war had broken out in Ukraine, and I needed to head to the border. We had this Integration Department set up under UNHCR funding, where I usually worked as an integration counselor. But given the chaos unfolding, they thought I should check out the border situation for a few days.

At first, like everyone else, I thought the war might end soon. But as days passed, it became clear this was serious. We had dealt with regional issues before, like in Moldova and eastern Ukraine, but nothing on this scale. So, on the 25th of February, I hit the road and got to the border.

When I arrived, my initial job was to provide legal counsel on asylum and help people access basic services as they arrived. Then I visited several ad hoc refugee camps in schools and hospitals etc., and supported them with counselling. I was there for about three weeks until I finally made it back to Bucharest on the 18th of March. It was intense, but every moment reminded me why I got into this line of work in the first place – to help those who need it most, no matter how tough the going gets.

Which were the most difficult moments?

The most difficult moments were mainly logistical challenges. The weather, particularly in the northern part of Romania, was cold, especially at night. Initially, there was a lack of coordination among organizations, causing chaos. Language barriers also posed challenges, although volunteers from the border region, including ethnic Ukrainians and Romanian speakers, helped mitigate this. Finding accommodation was tough due to full hotels and houses. However, solutions were found for specific cases. Another challenge was explaining asylum procedures to refugees, especially those without proper documentation, which could be daunting for them. Overall, navigating these challenges over the three-week period was tough but essential in providing assistance.

Which were the most meaningful moments?

The most meaningful moments for me were when refugees expressed gratitude for the counseling and understanding they gained. It was touching to hear them say, “Now I understand what I need to do,” or “I have a plan for the future.” Particularly moving were interactions with mothers and children, as many men could not leave the country. Seeing them gain clarity and hope after our discussions was incredibly fulfilling. Providing guidance and clarity in uncertain times was the most impactful aspect of my work.

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

Our organization, the Romanian National Council for Refugees, was established in the late 1990s, in 1998. Since then, we have been recognized as a public utility organization, operating under a special status granted by the Romanian authorities. Initially focused on providing legal assistance and counseling to asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, we have expanded our scope over the years. 

With the onset of the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, our efforts intensified. We extended our services to all border points with Ukraine and Moldova, as well as key cities for integration. Despite downsizing after the conclusion of certain projects in 2023, such as our partnership with the UN, we remain committed to our mission. We continue to operate a national hotline and provide counseling services, adapting to evolving needs and challenges. Presently, we are focusing on supporting approximately seventy-seven thousand individuals in various aspects of their integration journey.

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

The collaboration between non-governmental organizations and the government worked well in addressing the humanitarian crisis. The government recognized our resources and manpower, appreciating our contributions. In return, they cooperated with us openly, which was crucial. For instance, they modified legislation to provide adequate assistance to beneficiaries of the conflict in Ukraine. Despite the challenges, such as the high number of medical cases, the government continued to support free medical care and financial schemes for accommodation and food. This sustained assistance, including emergency financial aid programs, demonstrates a commitment to supporting those in need. Overall, this collaboration has been instrumental in providing sustained assistance to affected individuals, ensuring their needs are met both practically and financially.

What could have worked better?

It is hard to say but I am giving you my perspective. Our response was somewhat caught off guard by the crisis, particularly in regions unaccustomed to such humanitarian emergencies. The absence of a comprehensive plan tailored to handle sudden influxes of refugees, especially in northern Romania, meant we had to improvise on a large scale.

Ideally, Romania should have had a more robust framework ready to address mass migrations. Moreover, the crisis occurring so close to our borders, despite Romania’s EU membership, highlighted the importance of proactive planning and risk assessment. Despite Europe’s history with crises in regions like Gaza and Afghanistan, we seemed unprepared for such events hitting so close to home. Normally the large distance delays the influx of refugees and gives one time to prepare.

Looking back, a more proactive approach to risk assessment and contingency planning would have better equipped us to respond effectively. This would have required not only improved coordination among governmental agencies but also a deeper understanding of the potential risks posed by conflicts in neighboring regions. 

What are you focusing on in your work now?

Currently, our focus lies primarily on integration, counseling for access to social and economic opportunities, and community empowerment. We are also heavily engaged in monitoring legislation and advocating for refugee rights. Our work involves providing feedback on policy changes, such as the format of protection documents, and addressing issues of discrimination and extremist speech. As we enter the third year of the conflict in Ukraine, we’re closely watching for any indications from the European Union regarding the future of temporary protection measures. With elections looming, we are particularly attuned to potential shifts in migration policies and their impact on refugees. These ongoing concerns shape our efforts to ensure the well-being and rights of those we serve.

Any other thoughts and suggestions?

In addition to our focus on integration, we are encountering increasingly complex cases, especially involving vulnerable groups. While we are familiar with women and children refugees, we are also seeing a rise in cases involving patients with disabilities or the elderly. Responding to these diverse needs has become a priority. Medical cases and access to education are emerging challenges, as well as facilitating refugees’ participation in the labor market. Many are questioning their eligibility for citizenship, and signaling by this a desire to settle and integrate long-term. For those from regions like eastern Ukraine, where infrastructure has been decimated, returning is not an option. Their inquiries about citizenship procedures suggest a commitment to building a future in Romania.

Interview by Lutz Drieling
Photo by Clay Banks

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

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