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
