The prioritisation challenge in focus: ICRC

In this episode of A Matter of Priorities, we explore the significant budget cuts faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and their far-reaching consequences. Established in 1863, the ICRC provides critical protection and assistance to people affected by armed conflict. However, in 2023, the organisation announced cuts amounting to 440 million Swiss francs, a drastic 16% reduction in its budget. 

Alice speaks with Olivier Ray, ICRC’s Director of Mobilisation, Movement, and Partnership, about the challenges of implementing such cuts, the ethical dilemmas involved, and the impact on both ICRC staff and the communities they serve. The interview was done in March 2024. 

Guest:
Olivier Ray, Director of Mobilisation, Movement, and Partnership at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 

Host: 
Alice Obrecht, Head of Research & Impact, ALNAP 

ALNAP’s A Matter of Priorities: a podcast on tough choices in humanitarian funding 

Join our WhatsApp channel

Transcript

Alice Obrecht: Welcome back to A Matter of Priorities. I'm Alice Obrecht.

For the next two episodes, we're going to hear about the difficult realities that the current funding cliff is creating for humanitarian aid agencies, focusing on two of the largest and longest serving organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Food Program.

The ICRC has been operational since 1863, and it exists to provide protection and assistance to people affected by armed conflict. Resource prioritisation came into sharp focus for the ICRC last year in 2023, when its Director General Robert Mardini announced that the organisation would have to find cuts of around 440 million Swiss francs from their annual budget, which was an equivalent of around 16%. Such severe cuts would be a shock to any organisation, and the impact was felt not only by ICRC staff, but also by the communities that they work alongside.

Su ch severe cuts would be a shock to any organization, and the impact was felt not only by ICRC staff, but also by the communities that they work alongside.

This was a very real example of how a humanitarian organization had to quickly react to make prioritization decisions that would have deep impacts on the people that they exist to serve. To explore these issues, these prioritization decisions, and the implications that they've had, we talked to Olivier Ray, ICRC's Director of Mobilization Movement and Partnership, back in March. I began by asking him how ICRC got to this point in such a seemingly sudden way, and what was it like to be part of such a significant change?

Olivier Ray: I think it's fair to say that last year was an incredibly painful and difficult year for the whole of the organisation, of over 20,000 very dedicated staff. We've had to cut some of the human and budgetary resources and the programs while responding to a number of crises in Ethiopia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Sudan, Libya, or Gaza.

The year gave the impression that we had to both hit the brakes for the reasons that we'll get into, but also press the accelerator on a number of areas where the ICRC was expected to deliver its role to respond to crises. And I have to share my admiration for the staff of the ICRC, who has done this, basically, responding for the populations in need while undergoing a very painful exercise of cuts and readjustments. Over the course of the year, over 3,400 valued colleagues have lost their jobs at the ICRC, whether in Geneva or in the field. And that, indeed, represents 16% of our global workforce. So this, obviously, has had an impact in our capacity to deliver for the populations most affected by armed conflicts and violence. Whereas other organizations work through implementing partners, the ICRC tends to deliver a lot of its work directly through a number of colleagues working in the field, often very close to the populations most affected, very close to the front lines, and hand-in-hand with our partners of the Red Cross Red Crescent movement. And so what was extremely difficult for colleagues in delegations and sub-delegations in South Sudan, in Iraq, in Nigeria, which are just three examples of delegations that were very strongly hit by these cuts that we've had to make, was to have to let go of staff who themselves are part of the communities that are affected by armed conflict and who have families to support. And there is a social contract, in a way, between the organization, the ICRC, and the communities that we support. And having to scale back so suddenly on some of the lifesaving programs that we give was extremely painful for the whole of the organization.

So as I look ahead, I'm concerned for the whole of the humanitarian sector. And fundamentally, the ICRC needs partners such as MSF, the UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF to be optimally resourced to deliver on our complementary mandates. Because the realities in the field, close to the front lines, are realities of collaboration. Because we know we need WFP to do its part of the work. We work hand-in-hand with MSF in so many areas. And they are concerned-- when we have financial challenges, we are concerned when they don't have the means to deliver on their missions. And this is why it's so critical to be reflecting on the system as a whole and what this funding shortfall means, because it's the systems that's at stake.

Alice Obrecht: Just to flag, MSF was really vocal. A lot of people were concerned, but MSF in particular, about the impacts that these cuts were going to have on people in conflict zones and areas where really only ICRC and MSF are the only international agencies present.

 How did you weigh those decisions?

Olivier Ray: These were extremely difficult decisions to make, obviously, because we know that at the end of these decisions are the populations that we serve and programs that are life-saving. The ICRC is a neutral, impartial humanitarian actor. A life in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, in the Central African Republic, has the same value. We therefore had to take the difficult decision in the course of 2022 when we saw that all of our contacts, all of our operations outside of Ukraine were significantly underfunded. We have had to draw on our reserves in order for the life-saving programs in Somalia and Afghanistan, in Haiti and elsewhere, not to be reduced from one day to the next. But there's a limit to which the ICRC can compensate for that contrast between where we need the resources and where the earmarking is taking place. And so taking the decision to reduce or cut programs that we know are saving lives is full of ethical dilemmas that you can well imagine. But we know that it's also our colleagues' own means of living that are at stake, and that has generated important conversations in the institution, because there is a social contract with the communities that we support, but also a social contract with the people who have worked with us for a number of years in very dangerous situations. Working for the ICRC is not just a job. It's putting your own life in harm's way to deliver humanitarian impact. And so none of the decisions that we've taken to reduce programs have been taken lightly. And as you say, the proximity to the populations that we support is part of the ICRC's nachte fabric, part of our identity. So that has been a parameter to factor in when you do not have the critical mass of resources to stay relevant to the populations that you're here to support. But that's been a critical element of our decision.

It's essential that we maintain a critical mass of capacity to be relevant to the populations that we support. If I'm saying this, perhaps just another remark, it is essential as a way to remain engaged with the armed groups. The ICRC is engaging over 300 armed groups throughout the world. That's part of the way we access these 195 million people that are living under the control of armed groups. In the decisions that we've made to reduce our programs, one of the parameters was to remain as much as we can in these areas where we know that the populations need us because we are the only ones that have access to them. And so that has been one of the guiding principles. Yes, we've withdrawn from a number of contexts, but we've preserved our presence with the critical mass of activities where we are the only ones present. For example, in South Sudan, we've scaled back our programs because we were in situations where the acuteness of the crisis and the conflict had reduced from the moments where we had to step up our operations. And we felt that these were areas where we could and should scale back the footprint of the ICRC. But we can't lie to ourselves and think that the populations that we used to support would magically be supported by another partner or peer agency. We've worked on these handovers as much as we could, but in an environment where the humanitarian sector as a whole was having financial challenges, there's a limit to the capacity to hand over these programs. And we've also stepped out of countries.

We had a presence in Greece. We had a presence in Mauritania. We've closed down these delegations and found other alternative ways to remain engaged with the authorities. We've also, in parallel to these reductions, decided to actually increase our spending in areas such as Haiti, where the situation was deteriorating. We were seeing that the skill sets of the ICRC in terms of capacity to negotiate with extremely violent armed groups was necessary for the rest of the humanitarian community to be able to deliver as well in areas such as Cite du Soleil. It's been a subtle decision-making process to reduce by 23% our budget from one year to the next.

Alice Obrecht: Yeah, and as you mentioned, extremely difficult cuts as well and very difficult decisions to make. So I was wondering what role, if any, did communities themselves play in some of those discussions or local actors who frequently don't play a significant role in resource distribution decisions?

Olivier Ray: Yeah. In these decisions, the accountability to affected populations, but also the dialogue with the people that we support was at the centre of our demarche, although I have to say, honestly, doing it perfectly was just not an option because of how quickly we had to adjust. And so I'm certainly not saying that we did it perfectly, far from it. When you need to make sudden decisions to reduce your programs, the capacity to build into these decisions, the sort of conversations that we need to have with the populations affected is intrinsically limited.

But that dialogue was an essential feature of the acceptance, basically when you are reducing programs in an area which is affected by armed violence. If the populations, the leaders, whoever they are, do not understand what is happening, the reasons why you have to scale back your programs, then there's a real risk of misunderstanding and then the security risk comes quickly thereafter. And so that has been a constant priority of our delegations and our sub-delegations as we were planning for the reductions, is to explain the wider context, the reasons why the ICRC needed to reduce some programs so that the communities, but also the arms-bearers, understood why our capacities would be reduced. And that dialogue also took place with our partners from the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, with whom we often deliver hand in hand. And it was essential that national societies, Red Cross Red Crescent societies, who often work through ICRC resources, also understood the broader transformation of the humanitarian funding landscape and the reasons why we were reducing some of our programs.

Now, in making all these decisions, especially in preparing the budget for 2024, we've made a priority to build, consolidate our crisis response, including preparedness. This is an area where we've actually invested in order to adapt to that more volatile context that we've seen. We've also taken a look at how we operate and what is it that we conduct in terms of activities in protracted situations of violence, with that logic of responsibility ending over when we can and to seeing how we can crowd in development actors when they can come back. We've also prioritized our work in promoting and disseminating international humanitarian law, because respect for IHL is the best tool of prevention we have, and we've decided to retain a diplomatic footprint and a capacity to remain engaged to enable that meaningful engagement with the actors of influence on conflicts worldwide.

Alice Obrecht: And what do you think have been the lessons learned for you through this very painful year and a half? What's the advice that you would offer to the wider sector based on your experiences in your process?

Olivier Ray: It's not easy to share lessons when you don't have the feeling that you've done things perfectly. So it's with a lot of humility that I can share. Indeed, our lessons learned and sometimes learned the hard way through that very painful trajectory. The first comes back to our previous point on populations affected. First, focus on the populations that we support and how to best accompany them in what for us is a process of difficult decisions. For us can be life and death consequences, and they also need to adapt. And so that transparency and dialogue with populations affected so that they understand what is happening needs to be the first reflex.

Secondly, obviously, if cuts are needed, making decisions around objective and widely communicated criteria, it's important for colleagues in-house to understand why we are taking the decisions that we are taking. And it is fundamental to be extremely transparent with the donor community. We are partners in what is it that we're trying to deliver. And I think we've heard a lot from our donor community that they were grateful that we chose to be extremely transparent throughout the process because that has allowed us to understand the underpinnings, but also the rationale for the decision. And this has allowed them to meet us halfway in a way to land that difficult financial year 2023 and to fully fund the revised 2023 budget. So transparency with the donors, making sure that we are together in the same boat, addressing a common challenge has been critical. And lastly, very important, care for the colleagues, as you would for the populations affected by humanitarian crises, because our colleagues are often the population, populations themselves affected by crisis and conflict. And I'm happy we've managed to make an agreement with another humanitarian actor who is actually interested to receive recommendations from a number of colleagues who were leaving the ICRC. And that has allowed us to transfer a number of colleagues to other organizations. And that's a win-win-win. The ICRC responsibly accompanies colleagues out of the organization for a certain period. The host humanitarian agency is very glad to receive experts who have a long experience at the ICRC. And obviously, our colleagues have a continuity in their career and will be able to come back to us hopefully one day when the situation changes.

Alice Obrecht: So Olivier has shared what has been an extremely difficult process of change for ICRC in its approach to having to reduce reach and assistance in response to cuts in funding and the imperative of trying to maintain operations where ICRC considers their work as best placed and most needed.

 What we've heard from Olivier is that some of the key lessons coming from this process for ICRC were the need for transparency with communities who are affected by these changes, transparency with donors both on how they got there but also what's needed to move forward, and a duty of care towards colleagues, particularly those who are living and working alongside crisis-affected communities, which is included where possible, working with other humanitarian agencies to try to hand over programs and staff.

 Will we see similar themes with the World Food Program or a different way of thinking about balancing their multiple priorities? Join us in our next episode where we speak with WFP's Valerie Guinieri as well as researchers who have looked into the recent impacts of WFP's food ration cuts for refugees in Uganda.

 Thank you for listening to Matter of Priorities, a podcast by LNAP. For resources and links related to what we've talked about in today's episode, please check out the description.

 For more information on ALNAP, please visit our website, www.alnap.org. And if you enjoyed this episode, please hit subscribe to our series, wherever you get your podcasts.