EADI 1st International Summer School: Graduate Institute of Development Studies (IUED), Geneva 29 September – 4 October 2003
Thanks to the strong commitment of the organisers – Michel Carton , Kenneth King , Joy Clancy –, as well as to the interest and contributions of all those directly or indirectly involved – speakers, students, and IUED staff –, this first EADI Summer School was a true success.
The general theme New Perspectives on Development and Humanitarian Aid: The European Response attracted a very diverse constituency of M.A. and Ph.D. students currently in Europe, stemming from different personal and academic backgrounds. It also brought together distinguished members of the European development community, scholars as well as practitioners, whose common denominator was the generous willingness to share their own experience and instigate the debate on development and humanitarian aid. The quite informal format of the Summer School allowed, indeed, a very enriching interdisciplinary exchange between and among participants and speakers to take place.
EADI President Louk de la Rive Box and ICRC Vice-President Jacques Forster set the introductory debate on Monday 29th by discussing the evolving relationship between development aid and humanitarian action. The speakers also proposed and analysed possible taxonomy to differentiate and express the linkages between the two forms of aid/action. All in all, both agreed on the need to reduce the “grey zone” between development and humanitarian aid (Mr. Box) by stressing the fact that they are not only overlapping but also mutually reinforcing (Mr. Forster), and should therefore be dealt with together and conducted simultaneously.
The following session addressed the issue of development thought and practice in a very polemical fashion through Swiss scholar Gilbert Rist’s (IUED) presentation of two contradictory dimensions of development: what it is in reality (the development of the capitalist society) and what it is as an idea or a promise (welfare for all). Having set this as a basis, he questioned the very desirability of development, as the promise seems to be but a myth and the generalisation of Western living standards encloses dooming side effects. Ph.D. candidate Stamatios Vlachos, appointed as a discussant, presented a linguistic approach to development discourse in order to foster the debate. Further discussion by the entire group addressed the need for an alternative to the official catch-up vision of development. The political dimension of development policy and humanitarian action was certainly the underlying theme of the first day of EADI Summer School.
The Tuesday 30th session was led by Paul Engel and discussed by Ph.D. candidate Udan Fernando. They provided some European perspectives to the debate on Official Development Assistance (ODA): what is has been, is likely to become, and should be like. Mr. Engel tackled the different factors likely to determine and challenge the future of European development assistance: the global context, the internal dynamics and diversity, the (lack of) changes within the European Union and more particularly in the architecture of the EU’s ODA.
During the second half of the day, students gathered in small groups to discuss three general topics identified as being of their common interest, namely discourse, the role of non-state actors, and ethics. Some of the main questions raised and discussed were: What are the motivations of those who provide development aid and humanitarian relief? Is donor coordination always positive? Should one condemn any type of aid conditionality? Is there a comprehensive definition/classification of non-state actors?
Aid to education and training was the topic of the sessions held on Wednesday 1st. Roy Carr-Hill and Kenneth King brought into the debate North-South relations and how significant the issue of education is in order to improve such relations and to build a more egalitarian international system. The question of ownership of one society’s education system and curriculum, and the role of global NGOs were the main themes of the subsequent discussion. Claire Morel (European Training Foundation), presented a case study on the topic “Between Transition and Development”: the European Community’s Tacis Programme for technical cooperation with so-called transition countries, particularly in Tajikistan, and its linkages with local development. She emphasised the controversial role of private consultants in the implementation of such programmes and the corruption it involves, the tie in aid, the role of NGOs, and the danger of their action when local structures are ignored – more particularly, the need for sustainable local training institutions. An interesting account of the dark side of European aid. Then, a very instructive session took place at the ICRC Museum, where a lively guided tour contributed to the students’ reflection on humanitarian action instigated through various presentations.
The morning session of Thursday 2nd was devoted to the analysis of NGO relations with donors and how these relations influence their action. EADI Secretary General Thomas Lawo stressed the limited participation of NGOs in the design of poverty-reduction policies, although they have been quite present in the needs assessment phase of policy-making. He elucidated concepts such as self-reliance, participatory development, and sustainability, and provided a classification of donor-NGO relations, thus adding some theoretical elements to the debate. Andy Mold contributed to the latter through his account of Spanish development cooperation and how NGOs participate in the design of policies – either as an opposition force or collaborating with the government. In a particularly lengthy discussion, the participants addressed the difficulties associated with classifying the different types of NGOs and identifying the most effective or legitimate modalities of operation for such actors.
Later on, Charlotte Martin attempted to demystify the gender and development slogan through the example of the European Community’s integration of gender in its development policy. She showed how gender mainstreaming has become a target in itself without true reflection on how this can actually change gender relations and foster gender research. Moreover, Ms. Martin claimed that the purpose of addressing gender is not to assert sameness, but to acknowledge the differences and to attempt to achieve equality of opportunities in difference.
Friday 3rd’s four case studies brought together a wide range of experts, who provided valuable examples of the continuum between humanitarian action and development. Pierre Harrisson (UNMIK) extensively described the role of international organisations in Kosovo and presented successes and enduring obstacles to its reconstruction: tax revenue has become the main component of the government budget but unemployment is extremely high and civil society quite weak, for instance. Jude Murison presented the complex situation in the Great Lakes region, particularly the difficulties and limitation of humanitarian action in a multinational civil conflict context with massive forced migration and little strategic interest. Jean-Pierre Gontard (IUED) shed some light on this case study by comparing it with the Bangladeshi independence war case and by presenting two opposed media analyses of the current situation in the DRC . As for Gianni Vaggi’s presentation on Iraq, it focused on the consequences of 12 years of embargo, particularly the socio-economic difficulties in rebuilding social capital and peace due to the virtual annihilation of the Iraqi middle class. The fourth case study, presented by Alessandro Monsutti (IUED), was a more precise example of vulnerable populations and their ability to cope with hardship and war: the Hazara of Afghanistan, and their emigration as a means of maintaining social ties through the “hawâla” transnational money transfer system. A very important lesson from these studies is the need to understand the particularities and local structures in each case in order to help and not harm even more the very peoples one wants to assist.
As a concluding remark, Mr. Gontard suggested three questions one should bear in mind when tackling humanitarian assistance: 1) who really needs help; 2) who is going to pay for it; 3) how to make humanitarian programmes more efficient and with less side effects, i.e. long enough to be effective, but short enough to avoid donor-dependence. Far from providing a solution, this conclusion reflects the spirit as well as the success of the school, which stems from the multiplicity of questions raised with no single or simple answers possible.
An ongoing evaluation process started on Saturday 4th, involving participants and organisers, and it includes a form carefully filled out by the students. A synthesis of comments and suggestions - as well as other relevant documents - will be soon made available on EADI’s website. They will be a valuable resource for the organisers of the forthcoming EADI Summer Schools, expected to take place at Twente, the Netherlands and Prague, Czech Republic, inter alia.
One thing is certain: the high level set by this first Summer School will be a motivation as well as a challenge for the ones to come.
