The Humanitarian Country Team Standard Terms of Reference
with ICVA's comments and explanations
Introduction
This page outlines the role and responsibilities of the HCT and its members, as per the standard HCT Terms of Reference (ToR). ICVA’s commentary recognises that some areas of the standard HCT ToR need clarification and identifies practical considerations for the attention of HCT Representatives, in particular NGO representatives.
The views in the commentary are ICVA’s and should not be seen as an official IASC position.
The below text is a copy of the standard IASC HCT Terms of Reference. ICVA’s comments on the blue text can be accessed by clicking on them.
Purpose
The Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) is led and chaired by the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC).
The HCT’s overall goal is to ensure that inter-agency humanitarian action alleviates human suffering and protects the lives, the livelihoods and dignity of people in need.
ICVA Comments:The overarching goal of the HCT is a more efficient humanitarian response that better responds to the needs of the affected populations. As such, HCT discussions should be evidence-based and result-oriented. It is also the role of the HCT to raise the profile of the crises it manages, both within the humanitarian systems and for the public eye, and to ensure the response is properly funded.
As the top inter-agency humanitarian leadership body in a country, the HCT’s primary purpose is to provide strategic direction for collective inter-agency humanitarian response.
The HCT makes decisions to ensure that country-level humanitarian action is well-coordinated, principled, timely, effective and efficient.
ICVA Comments:The HCT should primarily be a strategic decision-making body. While data and information-sharing and robust debates are integral to this, decisions must be taken for the HCT to fulfill its mandate. The lack of decision-making in HCTs is one of the most common complaints raised by NGOs: when engaging with the HC on HCT performance, NGOs should ensure they reference the unambiguous decision-making nature of the structure as per the standards ToRs.
One important output of an HCT should be an action plan. As with all action plans, progress must be regularly reviewed – ideally at the start of every HCT meeting. Actions can be assigned to HCT members, to other IASC country-level structures, or to ad-hoc working groups, but the HCT as a whole remains accountable to overseeing their completion.
A decision-making body can only function if its members hold each other mutually accountable and are willing to commit to implementation once a decision has been reached. Due to the representative nature of NGO participation to the HCT, it can be difficult for NGOs HCT representatives to commit the broader NGO collective to an action plan. Regular back and forth between the HCT representatives and the rest of the NGO community is thus required to ensure NGOs play their part in implementing the action plan. NGO fora play a key role here, ensuring the various debates within the forum result in clear positions that are then articulated in coordination structures, including the HCT; and in reverse, ensuring the decisions taken by the HCT are shared with the NGO community and the actions taken by NGOs are recorded so they can be reported.
It also ensures that adequate prevention, preparedness, risk and security management measures are in place and functioning.
The HCT is ultimately accountable to the people in need. The affected State retains the primary role in the initiation, organisation, coordination, and implementation of humanitarian assistance within its territory. Whenever possible, the HCT operates in support of and in coordination with national and local authorities.
An HCT is established in all countries with an HC position. In countries where there is no HC position, an HCT is established when a humanitarian crisis erupts or a situation of chronic vulnerability sharply deteriorates. An HCT is also established to steer preparedness activities, if no other adequate coordination mechanism exists. In countries where there is no HC position, the decision to establish a HCT is taken by the Resident Coordinator (RC), in consultation with relevant operational agencies and the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC).
The HCT may be disestablished in the transition phase, if and when other coordination mechanisms are considered more effective and appropriate. The decision to disestablish the HCT is taken by the HC or, in the absence of a HC position, the RC, in consultation with the HCT and the ERC.
The HCT is composed of organisations that undertake humanitarian action in-country and that commit to participate in coordination arrangements.
ICVA Comments: According to the ToRs, only organisations that implement the humanitarian response can be members of the HCT. In the case of an NGO forum composed of both humanitarian and development-oriented organisations, care should be taken to ensure the forum HCT representation focuses on the humanitarian priorities of its members (although linkages to development is still part of the humanitarian-development nexus role of the HCT).
Only organisations that commit to participating in coordination arrangements are part of the HCT. As such, NGO representatives are not required to reflect the views of those organisations who have not done so (those who do not share their data, or who are unwilling to participate in work-sharing agreements aimed at avoiding gaps and duplication).
NGO representation may, in some cases, be able to advise the HCT regarding actors that are not participating in coordination arrangements.
It should include UN agencies, OCHA, national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, subject to their individual mandates, components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. […] Representatives of Cluster/Sector Lead Agencies represent their cluster(s)/sector(s) in addition to their organisation.
ICVA Comments:In practice, only operational UN agencies with humanitarian activities should be present. UN agencies represent themselves, but also the cluster(s) they lead, if any, and the same goes for any NGO that is a cluster lead. This may lead to potential conflicts of interests, and it is important to remember the dual nature of this representation and when necessary, request clarity on whether a position is taken in the name of the individual organisation or in the name of the cluster.
NGOs should always represent the wider collective rather than their own organisation. If they have a cluster co-lead role NGOs should also clarify when speaking on behalf of the cluster instead of NGOs more broadly.
The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (either through the ICRC or the IFRC, depending on the context) is usually present and will usually choose to attend on an observer basis only, although this does not preclude their active participation in many cases. It may participate in the debates but is not bound by HCT decisions. MSF is also often invited under the same conditions.
The UNDSS Chief Security Adviser will have a standing invitation as an observer to the HCT.
The size of the HCT is limited, to allow for effective decision-making. Membership criteria are clear, generally accepted and well-known. The main criterion is operational relevance.
ICVA Comments:The HCT remains a working group, and experience shows it must be limited in size to be effective. Twenty members total should be a rough maximum. HCTs that exceed this size are regularly reported as lacking the focus and trust between members needed for strategic discussions and decision making.
The modalities of selecting the NGO representatives should be decided by the NGOs themselves, rather than imposed by the HC or other actors in the system. As much as possible, the modality should be elective, giving all country directors a chance to hold a seat based on merit. Here too, the criteria for selection – as decided by the forum or other NGO collective – should be clear, accepted, and well-known.
The ability and willingness to work on behalf of the entire collective should be a key criterion of selection. Together, NGO representatives should represent as best possible all major sectors of intervention and main geographical areas of operations.
Members are represented at the highest level (Country Representative or equivalent).
ICVA Comments: For NGOs, participation at the HCT should be at Country Director level only. For NGOs, representation should not be delegated to other positions within individual organisations. It is a better practice when electing HCT NGO representatives to also elect alternate Country Directors that can fill seats when needed. For the NGO Forum, given the unique, role participation should be at Director level.
For UN agencies, deputies may be assigned on a temporary basis when the Country Representative is unavailable, as this ensures the agency or sector remains represented. However, this should not be a common occurrence, and any lack of high-level engagement should be discussed with the HCT or HC if it becomes too frequent.
In addition to their own organisation, members may represent one or more organisations that are not members of the HCT, at their request.
ICVA Comments:NGOs should always represent the wider collective rather than their own organisation at HCT. If they have a cluster co-lead role NGOs should also clarify when speaking on behalf of the cluster instead of NGOs more broadly. It should be noted that without this collective representation, they will not be able to commit that collective to any HCT decision, which would significantly lower the impact and effectiveness of NGO participation. The representative nature of NGO participation as well as the modalities to select members should be made clear to other HCT members, OCHA and the HC, and clearly defined in the NGO-led election process for HCT seats.
An appropriate balance should be sought between representation from the UN and NGOs.
ICVA Comments:The number of seats allocated to NGOs should be balanced – but not necessarily equal – to those allocated to UN agencies. Where this is not the case, NGOs should engage in a constructive dialogue with the HC to resolve the situation. As mentioned above, the total size of the HCT should remain reasonable, so some negotiation may be needed. Balance can be achieved through increasing the number of seats for NGOs, or reducing the number of seats for UN agencies, for example with a focus on excluding non-operational agencies.
Maintaining this balance is an important reason regular, consistent attendance is needed for all NGO HCT members. Other HCT members, or the NGO forum, should address repeated non-attendance directly and propose alternative arrangements if needed.
Representation from national NGOs should be particularly encouraged and supported.
ICVA Comments:The current standard HCT Terms of Reference were endorsed in 2017, and the localisation agenda has since become an important priority for humanitarian actors. As such, the participation of national and local actors should now be seen as compulsory, except in extremely specific cases (generally the argument for non-inclusion is in contexts where national and local actors are perceived as deeply involved in the political context and their ability to provide a principled response may be compromised). Where national or local NGOs are not included in the HCT, NGOs should work to ensure the HC and HCT regularly reassess and revalidate this decision.
The participation of national and local actors does not necessarily increase the total number of seats allocated to NGOs. As such, in HCTs where the representation is already balanced between UN and NGOs, including national actors might require some international NGOs to forgo seats. This is in line with the commitment of international NGOs to support localisation.
Representatives of Cluster/Sector Lead Agencies represent their cluster(s)/sector(s) in addition to their organisation.
When appropriate, other institutions and agencies may be invited to participate in HCT meetings.
ICVA Comments: It should be noted that donors’ participation in HCTs is not guaranteed and the decision to invite them ultimately lies with the HC. NGOs are often keen to have the donors present, as they are seen as “allies” in settings where it is felt the NGO voice is not sufficiently heard by the UN. This stance by NGOs should not ignore the fact that donors will have their own agenda, which may not be fully aligned with that of the NGOs.
The HCT remains an operational, if high-level, meeting. As such, it is vital that all members are able to express themselves freely on topics such as operational challenges, delays in implementation, or sector prioritisation. As such, donors’ presence may unduly impact the debates rather than promoting healthier, more transparent exchanges.
HCs are aware of the impact of donors’ presence on the HCT, particularly UN agencies, and their opinions also seem to vary. Because the ERC and OCHA have been reluctant to move to formally exclude donors from HCTs, and the IASC provides little guidance on the topic, the final decision lays with the HC alone. This can be a key leadership decision, particularly for new HCs, and often puts them squarely between agencies that resent having donors ‘looking over their shoulders’ during HCTs, and those that see donors as valued contributors who should keep their seats.
It is important for NGOs to recognise these complex dynamics, clearly consider the implications of their own advocacy, and maintain a positive dialogue with the HC on this topic. Alternative options could be to restrict donor presence to those HCT meetings where it is most relevant, for example when the HRP is being validated, or to have regular HCT+ (HCT plus Donor) meetings, rather than advocate for permanent donor seats. In rare cases, we see cases where the private sector, intergovernmental bodies, or other stakeholders may be invited to join the HCT.
The HCT function is guided by international humanitarian and human rights law, the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, and the Principles of Partnership.
ICVA Comments:As the highest in-country humanitarian coordination structure, the HCT is expected to promote a principled approach throughout the humanitarian response. The HCT should therefore be regularly raising issues related to a principled approach and respect for international humanitarian and human rights law, and the challenges associated with these, and NGO representatives should come prepared to engage fully in these debates.
The Principles of Partnership are specifically stated as being the modus operandi of the HCT. Often referenced but not so widely used, these can be a powerful tool to call for all HCT members to build meaningful partnership and to promote a balanced leadership approach in the coordination. Following through on these should put humanitarian actors on a more equal basis and constitute a framework for quality partnerships, notably between national and international humanitarian actors:
The Five Principles of Partnership:
Equality of the organisations – equal footing irrespective of size and power.
Transparency through dialogue, which increases the level of trust.
Result-oriented approach for effective humanitarian action.
Responsibility – ethical obligation to each other when committing to deliver activities.
Complementarity – the diversity of the humanitarian community is an asset notably local capacity.
Working in support of the HC, the HCT has the following responsibilities:
(a) Provide a shared strategic vision for collective humanitarian action in-country which is set out in a common strategic plan (the Humanitarian Response Plan or equivalent).
ICVA Comments: While the HCT has the responsibility for the final HRP document, in practice it validates decisions that have been taken at other levels: at the need assessment stage, at each cluster level, where the initial needs overview has been developed as well as the initial targeting; and at the ICCG, where the data has been collated and prioritisation has been applied to provide a cross-sectorial answer. As such, effective NGO participation in the process needs to start at the cluster and ICCG levels (see “Understanding and Influencing the IASC system at Country Level”).
It should be noted that while the HRP is meant to provide a collective vision for a strategic response, in practice, it more often represents a patchwork of activities resulting from individual mandates and interests. The IASC system is currently heavily engaged in processes to clarify needs and define boundaries on the humanitarian response planning.
The plan should be based on documented needs and integrate cross-cutting issues (for example age, gender, diversity, human rights, HIV/AIDS and the environment) as well as activities in support of preparedness and early recovery. The HCT should:
Agree on the most effective division of labor to support implementation of the strategic plan, including through an appropriate cluster and cluster leadership arrangements.
Ensure the principled, timely, effective and efficient implementation of the strategic plan, including through strategic oversight of needs assessment and monitoring and evaluation.
Lead efforts to ensure that the strategic plan is sufficiently funded in a timely manner, with the HC and HCT members promoting and contributing to inclusive resource mobilisation.
Provide clear direction on key in-country humanitarian concerns that require common positions in the HCT.
Monitor implementation of the strategic objectives and ensure corrective action is taken when required.
(b) Oversee the Inter-Cluster Coordination Group (ICCG), sub-national coordination bodies and other groups that are part of the inter-agency coordination architecture in-country.
ICVA Comments: The HCT, as the lead IASC structure in-country, oversees all other IASC coordination structures. It has the power to mandate those structures, but in return should be ready to provide guidance and support when requested. The HCT also shapes and formalises the subnational structures – there are no standard terms of reference for structures at the subnational level – and it is important for all HCT members to clearly define how the roles and responsibilities are to be divided between the national and the sub-national level, how the structures will communicate, and how they will function (for example, sectoral coordination versus area-based).
This overseeing function is not formalised in a hierarchical link: the HCT does not manage the other structures as a body. Instead, decisions and feedback are often passed through OCHA, as the agency in charge of all coordinating structures. As such, it is important for each member to ensure their own organisation communicates internally on the decisions taken. Where OCHA might instruct their head of field office following an HCT decision, it is important for NGOs to similarly instruct their area managers, and vice versa for field offices wishing to bring topics to the attention of the HCT.
The ICCG, as an advisory body to the HCT and the link between the operational coordination provided by the clusters and the strategic decision-making of the HCT, is a key coordination mechanism, yet NGO involvement is usually limited to the cluster co-leads. The actual shape and function of the ICCG is decided by the HCT in collaboration with OCHA, and NGOs are encouraged to ensure they participate fully to this process and secure at least one seat for the NGO forum.
This responsibility includes oversight of the implementation of the strategic plan, encouraging jointanalysis and inter-sectorial outcome-based programming, ensuring implementation of the response, endorsing in-country positions and responding to requests from these bodies. As appropriate, the HCT will encourage and support decentralisation to the sub-national level, including by facilitating two-way information exchange and communication.
(c) Support efforts led by the HC to obtain free, timely, safe and unimpeded access by humanitarian organisations to populations in need.
ICVA Comments: Efforts to secure access and overcome Bureaucratic and Administrative Impediments (BAIs) are led by the HC but remain a collective responsibility. This remains true for negotiation efforts with host governments: while the HC, through their position and their ambassadorial status, have increased access to the higher levels of government, such negotiations should remain a collective and coordinated effort, each HCT member participating through their own networks of relationships. This responsibility also implies engaging – or supervising the engagement – with non-state actors for the purpose of securing access, and HCT members should be ready to support this engagement within the framework of the humanitarian principles and IHL.
While the HC has a specific responsibility for alleviating BAI, individual mandates should also be recognised, including the dual role of HC and RC. The RC/HC might not be able to carry advocacy message strongly critical of the government, especially publicly, as they must balance their two roles. It is important to understand this limitation when attempting to leverage the direct access to the higher levels of government the HC has and craft advocacy messages accordingly.
Engage in coordinated negotiations with relevant parties, including non-state actors where appropriate.
Promote respect for international humanitarian and human rights laws by all parties, including contributing to private and/or public advocacy as appropriate.
Support the efforts of the HC to influence Member States, regional organisations, UN entities, civil society, the private sector, the media and other relevant actors.
(d) Ensure that preparedness and response efforts are inclusive and coordinated.
ICVA Comments: Early warning and preparedness are one of the key functions of HCTs. It is the responsibility of the HCT to ensure local and national actors are included in these efforts, which might include conducting training exercises and capacity building to ensure those actors are ready to respond to upcoming crises.
The HCT should strengthen early warning and preparedness capacity, and enhance synergies and relationships with national and local authorities. These efforts should build on the interface between the HCT and UNCT. Clearly defined commitments and support for engagement of local and national NGOs as strategic and equal partners should also be a priority.
(e) Ensure that the international humanitarian response is coordinated with national, sub- national and local level authorities, including crisis management agencies, as appropriate..
ICVA Comments: While the level of coordination and collaboration between each individual organisation and the host government will vary, the IASC recognises that “the Affected States retains the primary role in the initiation, organisation, coordination, and implementation of humanitarian assistance within its territory.” As such, it remains the responsibility of the HCT as a whole to ensure all coordination structures, including the HCT itself, operate in coordination and in support of the national and local authorities wherever possible.
(f) Support and contribute to efforts to address the humanitarian-development nexus.
ICVA Comments: Since the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, international humanitarian organisations have committed to supporting stronger links between humanitarian and development action. The HCT has a formal role in supporting those efforts, however, the HCT should remain a forum dedicated to humanitarian action. Its role is to support efforts linking humanitarian-development action, not necessarily implement them. For example, this could involve developing a strategy to promote such links, or setting up a separate structure where humanitarian and development actors can dialogue.
The HCT should endeavour to coordinate with development platforms to develop a shared understanding of sustainability, risk and vulnerability, achieve a shared vision for outcomes and facilitate shared analysis and multi-year planning and financing as appropriate.
The HC and the HCT are ultimately accountable to the people in need. The HC leads and chairs the HCT and reports directly to the ERC, forming an annual Compact. HCT membership is conditional on a commitment to mutual accountability among the members.
Individual HCT Members and their respective organisations, make a commitment to contribute to the HCT as a collective, and to pursue collective outcomes.
ICVA Comments: Each HCT member is expected to put their experience and expertise in service to the collective response. By nature, topics brought up in an HCT might concern sectors or geographical areas that are of less interest to some individual organisations; nevertheless, all members should endeavor to contribute on behalf of a larger constituency, find solutions and bring about a more efficient response.
Similarly, the HCT’s work must be able to respond to the specific concerns and issues that could affect organisations with quite different mandates and operational modalities. As such, NGOs should have some understanding of the specific limitations and challenges faced by their UN colleagues; when in doubt, it is reasonable to ask for clarification to better understand how the system may constrain UN agencies. In reverse, NGO-specific issues should be clearly laid out, without assuming UN colleagues fully understand the inner workings of NGOs.
In the end, the goal of the HCT should remain the pursuit of collective outcomes: a collective decision is only meaningful if followed by collective action. As mentioned above, it can be difficult for NGO representatives to commit the whole NGO collective without prior discussions. The best practice is to have those inter-NGO discussions before the HCT proper, once the agenda has been finalised. Where that is not feasible, NGOs should make clear in HCT that they will have to go back to the collective before fully committing to a decision.
This contribution should be considered a key component of the responsibilities and performance of country-level operational leadership of each member agency.
ICVA Comments: Country Directors, when acting as members of the HCT, if not at all times, are expected to use this membership to contribute to the collective, not to advance their individual organisations’ mandates and interests. Technically, the ToRs would call for these contributions to then be reflected in a country director’s performance review, but most organisations would be unable to assess this appropriately.
Members of the HCT outline specific mutual responsibilities, in an annual HCT Compact, that is developed in country and provides the basis for periodic review of the performance of the HCT.
ICVA Comments:The HCT Compact is a document that clearly outlines the important actions the HCT will undertake to fulfill the roles and responsibilities outlined above (plus 4 additional mandatory areas of responsibilities outlined below). The document should be produced at least once a year, although a shorter period can be agreed upon where necessary. At the end of the implementation period, it should be reviewed and performance self-assessed by HCT members.
The HCT Compact is the main tool to ensure HCT accountability and is mandated by the IASC. However, many HCTs either do not implement it, or implement it partially (the performance review, usually achieved during the annual HCT retreat, can often be notably lacking). Where it is not implemented, NGOs are strongly encouraged to engage with the HC to resolve the situation, with a reminder that the HCT compact and its accompanying performance review process are mandated by the IASC.
The Compact should set out the important actions required to collectively achieve the ”role and responsibilities” mentioned above, as prioritised by the HCT, as well as four mandatory responsibilities:
1. A collective approach for ensuring that protection is central to humanitarian action, including developing and implementing an common HCT strategy on protection. 2. A collective approach to Accountability to Affected People (AAP) for engaging with, ensuring feedback to and adjusting the response based on the views of affected people. 3. A collective mechanism and approach to Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by humanitarian workers, including a Code of Conduct, aligned with any other mechanisms in place to deal with this issue. 4. A collective approach to addressing Sexual and Gender based Violence.
ICVA Comments: While the Terms of Reference defines six roles and responsibilities for the HCT, it (confusingly) further defines an additional “four mandatory responsibilities” in the Accountability section. This is sometimes referred to the “6+4” responsibilities of HCTs.
While the initial six responsibilities define broad areas the HCT must cover, the latter four are more specific, defining both necessary goals and the accompanying structures that must be put in place in each country to ensure accountability in the response. These include an HCT strategy for ensuring the centrality of protection, an HCT collective approach for AAP, and an HCT collective approach for GBV.
These documents should include concrete action points and will need regular revision to remain relevant to the context.
In addition, the HCT must ensure their country has a PSEA network, a collective code of conduct (this is separate from individual organisations’ internal code) and a collective reporting system. The actual implementation of these strategies can be delegated to dedicated working groups, often composed of a mix of HCT members and specialists from each field, but the HCT and the HC remain ultimately accountable for their implementation.
The modus operandi of the HCT is governed by the Principles of Partnership. The HCT should be chaired in a consensual and facilitative manner. Membership should be collaborative and constructive.
Meetings are strategic in purpose, focused on clear objectives, action-oriented and produce realistic decisions with clear and agreed follow up.
HCT interface with Member States, Regional Bodies and in-country coordination mechanisms
While representatives of Member States and regional bodies, including donors, are not members of HCTs, the HC/HCT should ensure regular, consistent engagement with these representatives. It is especially important to ensure proactive engagement in planning, information exchange and strategic discussions with Member State and regional body representatives who do or could provide financial and strategic support for the inter-agency response. A fortnightly, monthly or quarterly HCT-donor meeting is advisable. The frequency will depend on the crisis and HCs/HCTs are encouraged to ensure regular ad hoc engagement as required.
The HC or, in the absence of an HC position, the RC, is responsible for ensuring complementarity between the HCT and UNCT.
Building on complementarities is particularly important in the areas of preparedness, early recovery and strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus.
Where a UN Disaster Management Team (DMT) exists at the level of Country Representative, the HC, or in the absence of the HC, the RC is responsible for ensuring complementarity with the HCT.
Where possible, the HCT complements government-led coordination structures and response. The HCT interfaces with the UN Security Management Team (SMT) as appropriate, with the Chief Security Adviser having a standing invitation to participate in the HCT as an observer.
When a decision has been taken to phase out the HCT, the HC, or in the absence of an HC position, the RC is responsible for ensuring transition of responsibilities to other coordination mechanisms in the country.
An additional note on NGO representation at the HCT
NGOs at HCTs represent the wider humanitarian NGO community, not just their own organisations. This collective voice ensures the interests of national and international NGOs are reflected.
Where they exist, NGO representation should be selected and managed through the NGO fora: these structures have been set up specifically to establish a chain of feedback and accountability from the HCT representatives to the wider NGO membership.
It should be noted that appropriate representation of the humanitarian NGO community does not imply a comprehensive membership that encompasses all potential NGO constituents. There are many reasons why individual NGOs might not want or be eligible to join a forum, and this in itself does not undermine the representativity of the forum:
A forum is representative as long as it is able to convey a consensus that is in line with the various positions of its wider potential constituents, not just that of its membership. A varied forum membership is thus usually able to adequately represent the equally varied positions of the wider NGO community.
Coordination, HCT decision-making and collective action are undermined when NGO representatives do not represent the positions held by a large number of the forum potential constituents: the position is common enough that it would be the consensus should all potential constituents be members, but are not represented through the actual membership. In those situations, the forum should strive to expand its membership.
However, it should be noted that Fora positions are usually developed through coalitions of the willing: in any collective endeavour, a smaller group usually produces most of the effort and defines the collective positions. This is a normal process of consensus-building, giving more weight to the positions of organisations willing to spend time and effort in developing these positions and convincing their peers. As such, it is important to not overestimate the voices of organisations choosing to remain outside of the forum. Organising a wider consultation and debate beyond the existing membership should be preferred to simply adopting those external positions.
ICVA is a global network of non-governmental organisations whose mission is to make humanitarian action more principled and effective by working collectively and independently to influence policy and practice.
Contact
International Council of Voluntary Agencies
NGO Humanitarian Hub,
La Voie-Creuse 16, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland
Email: secretariat@icvanetwork.org
Subscribe to ICVA Bulletin
A curation of monthly updates, latest news, tools, and events around forced migration, coordination, financing, and cross cutting issues all sent straight to your inbox.
