Growing up as an only child, Olha Gez always dreamed of having a big family of her own one day. Now, she runs a family-type orphanage in Dnipropetrovsk oblast — providing a safe haven for some of the most vulnerable children experiencing the war in Ukraine.

“My childhood dream came true when I brought these children home,” the foster mother says. “… They slept and snored so sweetly.”

Currently, Olha and her husband foster 11 children, ranging in age from 5 to 16 years old. To support the family, Olha’s husband had to take a job as a construction worker in another region of Ukraine. Although the state’s social assistance funds are sufficient to cover food expenses, Olha mentions that meeting the rest of their needs has been difficult, especially during the ongoing war.

“We live in a remote place where almost no one comes to visit us,” she says. “That is why we are very happy and grateful for any help.”

Supporting foster families during the war is a crucial but often overlooked aspect of humanitarian work. These families are responsible not only for the welfare, upbringing and development of many children from vulnerable backgrounds but also for ensuring that the children feel safe, even when fighting is happening right next door. In recent weeks, Dnipropetrovsk oblast has had more than 10 air raids a day with the frontline just 3 miles from the Russian border.

Recognizing this challenge, Global Communities partnered with Maximum Charitable Foundation, a civil society organization that supports children in difficult life circumstances, including those in orphanages and foster families. Under the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, Maximum received funding from the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA) to set up a mobile team that travels to remote and hard-to-reach locations.

“Some foster families live more than 30 kilometers from each other, and the roads are often broken, so it is not easy for the state services to get to these families,” says Olga Glushkova, a Maximum case manager. “Our team reaches the most inaccessible places or families who do not have access to social institutions and provides case management services — social and psychological support to children and their families.”

Since partnering with the CLEAR program, Maximum has been able to provide a range of support to 77 families in Dnipropetrovsk oblast, including the Gez family. In addition to hygiene kits, the foundation supplies children in frontline territories with emergency backpacks that contain items they might need while staying in a bomb shelter during an air raid: a thermos, blanket, flashlight, whistle and anti-stress toy. The mobile team also conducts home visits to provide psychosocial support sessions. A social worker and psychologist organize joint activities to benefit both the caregivers and children.

According to Anna Sulima, a psychologist at Maximum, these visits are essential for families adapting to difficult life circumstances or in unique arrangements such as family-type orphanages. Mothers and other caregivers are given an opportunity to share their experiences and discuss any issues they might be having, while children participate in art therapy. Activities with modeling clay and other forms of play help them become more open, overcome their fears and anxiety, and share their innermost feelings in creative ways.

After a recent session, Solomon, one of Olha’s sons, expressed his hopes for the future as conflict continues close to the family’s home: “I dream that the war ends, that a peaceful, calm, free life finally comes to our family, and we live in peace together.”

While the CLEAR program received an extension that will allow Maximum to support families for another two months, Global Communities is committed to introducing the foundation’s impactful initiatives to other non-governmental organizations that might be interested in providing additional support. Maximum also plans to seek out additional funding, so its vital work can continue for vulnerable families throughout the region.

The post Supporting Foster Families Amid Ongoing War in Ukraine appeared first on Global Communities.

Being face-to-face with the bulk of responsibilities, trying to fit them in all in a 24-hour day and serving as the primary support system for children and elderly family members, Ukrainian women are struggling to manage emotions that have come up during this yearslong conflict — exhaustion, apathy and overwhelm being at the top of the list. 

Olena and Eugenia are two psychologists who were hired by Civic Initiatives of Ukraine (CIU) to provide training in art therapy techniques for working with this specific population. CIU is a local civil society organization that partnered with Global Communities to implement the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) 2 program funded by the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA) in Chernihiv oblast.

The post Creating Safe Spaces: How Art Therapy Offers Emotional Refuge for War-Affected Women in Ukraine appeared first on Global Communities.

Last year, Global Communities began working in this remote hromada under the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, partnering with a local civil society organization known as LAMPA. With funding from the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), children and adults started receiving psychosocial support services and attending various therapy activities in a child-friendly space created by the program.

More recently, under a renewed CLEAR 2 program, Sesame Workshop joined the partnership and developed a series of animated content and tools for teachers to help children and caregivers process the trauma of conflict and displacement.

The post From Sesame Street to Snovsk: Supporting Kids in Crisis appeared first on Global Communities.

Global Communities has a rich history of implementing Child Protection in Emergencies programs. Our interventions are multifaced, ranging from psychosocial counselling and art therapy classes to life skills, literacy and parenting sessions. In countries where institutional services are weak, Global Communities delivers these services directly, including through child-friendly spaces and mobile teams. In other countries, such as Ukraine, these services are delivered by local actors, with technical assistance from Global Communities’ national staff and the Global Support Team.

In this interview, Emily Galloway, our Sr. Technical Advisor for Protection, shares how Global Communities is applying localization principles to child protection interventions within our Community-led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program in Ukraine. CLEAR works in the Chernihiv, Chernivtsi, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv oblasts to address urgent protection, shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene needs among conflict-affected populations.

The conversation was edited for length and clarity.

Paula: CLEAR is grounded in the principles of localization. How has Global Communities applied these principles to the program design and implementation?

Emily: Global Communities has been implementing a development program focused on local governance in Ukraine since 2016. When Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022, we were able to quickly leverage our existing relationships with local communities to craft a locally led response to the humanitarian crisis. Thankfully, our donor—the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA)—was receptive to a program that was much different from our typical approach.  

First, our proposal was much less detailed than usual. Instead of listing exact activities, locations and partners, we provided a scope of what we might do depending on our partners’ interest. Of course, we included standard child protection activities, such as awareness raising and case management, but we built in flexibility that would allow us to co-create specific interventions with local partners.

Second, our partner selection process was different. Instead of focusing solely on partners with the greatest capacity and experience, we selected organizations that were motivated to enter the humanitarian sphere or eager to gain child protection expertise. This tiered partnership model allowed us to work both with larger organizations that could launch a rapid emergency response with minimal support and smaller organizations that were missing from the crisis response. For example, we included women-led groups and community-based organizations operating in rural, less populated areas, where government services are not available. This way we could address niche needs in hard-to-reach communities.

Third, we invested time and resources in the co-creation process. We provided our partners with activity options, and they shared with us community needs. Together, we agreed on their scope of work in child protection.

And finally, we worked with each partner on a tailored capacity strengthening plan. Certain things were not negotiable. For example, all of our partners had to be familiar with humanitarian principles, minimum standards on child protection, child safeguarding and donor’s rules and regulations. Otherwise, the partners could choose their own growth objectives. 

Paula: What are the enabling factors for applying the localization approach in Ukraine’s humanitarian context?        

Emily: Ukraine has a very strong civil society and a decentralized governance system, which we have worked with for years. This has allowed us to capitalize on community strengths and often work within existing structures. For example, our partners could relatively easily establish child-friendly spaces in local schools, libraries or other community centers. In addition, Ukraine has an excellent cadre of psychologists, who were already providing services to children prior to the conflict. What they needed was upskilling. We trained them on how to respond to the needs of children in conflict settings and offered them tools to expand their services. Now, many of them use art therapy, which is a very effective therapeutic modality in times of crisis.

In addition, we have heavily relied on our amazing national staff. They are highly dedicated, motivated and invested in their communities, and they have played a leading role in designing and implementing the program. 

Paula: What are the challenges of localizing humanitarian assistance interventions? 

Emily: The greatest challenge is competing priorities, specifically the need to balance life-saving emergency assistance with capacity strengthening activities, such as training, mentorship and lots of meetings and discussions. On the one hand, we have children who urgently need protection services. On the other hand, we have minimum standards and donor compliance requirements which our partners are
obligated to follow. It takes a lot of time and effort to do both in parallel, especially with more than a dozen organizations.

A short timeframe of humanitarian projects complicates things further. We typically have 12, maybe 18 months to do start up, implementation and close down. Furthermore, child protection is usually one of many components of a humanitarian project, so there is a lot to juggle.

Paula: Balancing the need for rapid response with the need to strengthen local capacities is complicated. How do you address this challenge?  

Emily: The key is to select highly motivated partners, prioritize activities that can be implemented early on, and then layer additional activities when possible. When it comes to capacity strengthening, it is crucial to distinguish strict requirements (e.g., child safeguarding or financial compliance) from good practices (e.g., recommended child protection tools), and focus on what is necessary and most important at a given time. It is also imperative to focus on the practical side of capacity development so that local partners can easily apply the knowledge they have gained in their daily operations. This includes ongoing technical assistance, collaborative decision-making and real-time support. Finally, it is important to leverage existing resources and coordination mechanisms, such as protection clusters.

All of this requires frequent tweaks and adaptations, which can be quite overwhelming for us and our partners. But ultimately, we have better programming, which is more sustainable and responsive to the niche needs of the communities we work with.

Paula: How have you adapted your standard approaches to operationalize localization principles under CLEAR?

Emily: First, we had to acknowledge the uncertainty that comes with a flexible program design. We could not simply implement a one-size-fits-all approach to child protection. Instead, we had to leave room for trial and error and simplify our processes so that we could more easily adapt the program to the ever-changing community needs.

Second, we had to become more comfortable with power- and resource-shifting. This required a critical reflection about our role in the program. Ultimately, we have received funding for the project, and we are accountable for its technical quality. Yet we are putting our partners in the driver’s seat. Building trust with our partners has been incredibly important. We are now in the second phase of the program, and we have made a lot of progress.

And third, we have been very intentional about addressing burnout among our staff and partners. They are the ones who work on the frontlines of an international conflict. They experience both direct and vicarious trauma. And on top of that, they absorb so many burdens of working on a humanitarian assistance project. Their health and well-being is our top priority and we have included funding for staff care into our budget. We have also encouraged our partners to incorporate it in their budgets.

Paula: What are some of the most significant localization achievements of the CLEAR program? What are you most proud of?

Emily: One of our objectives is to strengthen our partners’ capacity so that they can receive direct funding from other donors. One of such organizations is Lampa: a young, small and very motivated organization working on the frontlines of the conflict in the east of Ukraine. Lampa is an amazing partner. They provide comprehensive child protection services and really understand children’s layered needs. Thanks to CLEAR, Lampa now receives independent funding from the United Nations and other donors.

Another objective is to reach communities and vulnerable groups that would be otherwise overlooked by donors and international organizations. We have had many successes in this regard. For example, we have partnered with Civic Initiatives, which works in small, rural areas to train local art therapists who can then remain in their communities and serve the needs of children in the long run. I am also excited about the work of larger organizations, such as Chernihiv European and Search for Innovation, which engage local grassroots groups to provide services to children with disabilities.

The key takeaway is that localization is possible from the beginning of a crisis. It is not easy, and it requires adaptation, but it ensures greater sustainability and responsiveness to community needs.    

Paula: What changes would you recommend at the policy level to better support localization efforts in humanitarian interventions?

Emily: I have several recommendations for humanitarian donors:

1. Require adequate budgeting for capacity strengthening. Both international and local partners need solid funding for capacity strengthening activities, including training, mentoring and ongoing support. We cannot expect local partners to comply with the requirements and minimum technical standards they are not familiar with.

2. Encourage flexibility in program design and co-creation with local partners. In a rapidly changing context, interventions included in a proposal may no longer be the priority once the program rolls out. For example, no one anticipated local markets in liberated areas of Ukraine to resume so quickly. As a result, many actors distributed large amounts of non-food items (NFIs) when they could have balanced the NFIs with vouchers or cash assistance to support local businesses. The co-creation process allows us to address the most pressing needs and gaps as they emerge.

3. Fund longer projects. The standard 12- or 18-month timeframe is insufficient to build rapport and trust with local partners and to implement parallel humanitarian assistance and capacity strengthening interventions.

4. Simplify compliance requirements and decentralize decision-making. We can streamline and speed up program implementation if our in-country staff can approve partnerships under a certain financial threshold, and if our partners are less bogged down in bureaucracy.

Paula: Thank you for your insights. How can our audiences learn more about CLEAR and our child protection activities?

Emily: I encourage you to watch the recording of my presentation about this topic, which I delivered at the 2024 Annual Meeting for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action. To learn more about our protection programming, please read my recent blog Protecting Children in Emergencies: Perspectives from Syria and Ukraine and review our technical factsheet, Protection in Emergencies. You can also find me on LinkedIn.

Emily Galloway

Sr. Technical Advisor, Protection

Emily has more than ten years of experience working domestically and internationally with displaced and crisis-affected populations. With Global Communities, she is responsible for providing technical support and guidance to humanitarian protection programs, including Child Protection and Gender-Based Violence, and leading protection mainstreaming efforts within the Humanitarian Assistance portfolio. Emily also has experience in Safeguarding and PSEA in emergency response and is dedicated to ensuring we provide support to communities safely and with dignity. Prior to Global Communities, Emily worked for the International Labour Organization, primarily implementing child labor programming in Somalia. She also supported refugees newly resettled in the U.S. in many capacities.

Emily holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Relations and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis and a Master’s Degree in Peace & Conflict Studies from the University of St. Andrews.

The post Pass the Mic: Localizing Child Protection Interventions in Ukraine’s Humanitarian Context appeared first on Global Communities.

The post Protection in Emergencies appeared first on Global Communities.

Global Communities has a rich history of providing emergency aid and protection services to refugees and internally displaced people in many crisis settings, from Ukraine and Gaza to Syria and Guatemala. This includes our Child Protection in Emergencies (CPiE) programming, which supports the well-being of children and addresses risks created or exacerbated by crises. In emergencies, children are often the most vulnerable and at-risk population group. They face a range of threats, including violence, exploitation, family separation and a loss of education.

Global Communities employs community-based and multisectoral approaches to CPiE. We work to strengthen children’s resilience, prevent further harm and foster protective environments by engaging with children’s families and communities. We partner with caregivers, community leaders, local authorities, schools, nutrition specialists and health workers. Our CPiE interventions are usually implemented through Child-Friendly Spaces (CFS), community-based organizations (CBOs) and mobile teams trained to provide a variety of services to children. They encompass both prevention and response services, ranging from awareness raising and recreational activities to psychosocial counselling and case management. They are designed to meet children’s most immediate needs and support their long-term recovery. CFS allow children and caregivers to receive assistance in physically and emotionally safe environments. Mobile teams bring services to children and parents where they are: in their homes, schools or healthcare facilities. This increases access and outreach to the most vulnerable.

Children enrolled in our CPiE programs also participate in life skills sessions and basic literacy and numeracy training, which helps them return to school when they are able to. Moreover, we facilitate parenting sessions which offer information about early childhood development, help caregivers manage their own stress, and provide parents with tools to help their children cope with the crisis. Our crisis response also includes cash assistance, for instance to ensure that children have stable housing, and other specialized services, for example removing children from harmful work.

Global Communities implements large CPiE projects in Syria and Ukraine. These are very distinct contexts, requiring different approaches.

• In Syria, we have been providing direct services in displacement camps since 2016. We are the primary service provider in our communities because of the lack of local authorities and institutional services.
• Our Ukraine CPiE programming began in 2022 in response to the full-scale Russian invasion. Here, we employ a localization approach and provide services primarily through our local partners, typically CBOs. The goal is to fill gaps in state services and strengthen the capacity of local actors to deliver humanitarian assistance.

Caring for War-Affected Children in Ukraine

For over two years, Ukraine has been engulfed in a full-scale war, with devastating consequences for its children. As of March 2024, 600 children have been killed, 1,357 children have been injured and 3.2 million children need protection services.

The impact of the war on children cannot be overstated. Physical and psychological violence, displacement, loss of homes and loved ones, and restricted access to education and services prevail in their lives, negatively impacting their well-being. Furthermore, since the war started, the risks of child exploitation, neglect, abuse and gender-based violence have increased. Children affected by the armed conflict have lost not only their usual living conditions but also their social connections. They have been forced to part with their friends, classmates, teachers and sometimes family members. These changes have caused severe stress, anxiety and trauma.

Since 2022, Global Communities has been implementing the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, financed by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Child protection is one of the key pillars of CLEAR. Most CPiE interventions are led by small organizations whose employees have experienced the consequences of the war themselves. They apply the best practices of child protection in their communities with the program’s technical support grounded in global insights. These interventions include recreational activities, psychosocial services (such as art therapy classes) and life skills education for children, and psychosocial support for parents. Our partners not only help improve the psychological well-being of children and their parents, but they also support the integration of internally displaced people into host communities, which fosters social cohesion. Our program participants establish new social connections and make new friends, which helps reduce feelings of alienation. This is very important for children’s further development and well-being.

Healing through Art in the Sokyriany Community

One of CLEAR’s partner CBOs, Poshuk Innovatsi (Search for Innovations), works in Sokyriany—the most remote hromada (territorial community) of the Chernivtsi oblast (region). Global Communities is the only international organization providing humanitarian assistance to internally displaced people in this community.

Chernivtsi is located in the western part of Ukraine, which has been relatively unaffected by direct hostilities, but has received tens of thousands of displaced people fleeing the fighting in the east. Children who arrive at Chernivtsi from the occupied territories demonstrate signs of severe stress, anxiety and trauma. They are scared to be separated from their parents, do not want to leave their temporary homes and have problems with sleeping at night. Their parents are stressed, too. Busy addressing their families’ urgent needs, like housing and livelihoods, they often lack time to focus on their children’s emotional needs.

Poshuk Innovatsi began its CLEAR programming by meeting individually with displaced families to show them that they were not alone and to inform them about psychosocial support available to them through CLEAR.  After that, the CBO involved staff of local schools to support the integration of displaced people. Then, they organized a series of creative lab classes for displaced and local children, where they could express their feelings through different activities, such as drawing, painting and sculpting.

At first, displaced children used dark colors and drew tanks, explosions and soldiers. During the clay therapy sessions, they ruined their own crafts, bursting with anger. Later, psychologists who facilitated these activities explained to the children how to express and process their feelings more flexibly. For example, the kids learned how to tear fabric and use it make Motanka dolls, which are traditional Ukrainian talismans representing prosperity, goodness and hope. When displaced children showed signs of improvement, they started working in pairs with local children and making friends.

Children are the most vulnerable category among internally displaced people. Often, they cannot express their worries with words, and we can see them only through their drawings, crafts, games, movements and behavior. Our task was to help them cope with the emotions caused by the horrors of the war and the challenges in a new place of living. We wanted them to relax and start living full lives.

Inna Yatsyshyna, Director of Poshuk Innovatsi

Poshuk Innovatsi’s social integration efforts culminated in a heartwarming family eco-picnic. There, children and their parents could relax in nature, connect with each other and participate in fun activities. Alongside new local friends, they planted trees, contributing to the emotional and physical well-being of their community.

Supporting Displaced Children and Caregivers in Syria

There are 5.5 million internally displaced people across Syria, including more than 2 million in camps and informal settlements. Idleb and Aleppo governorates in the northwest host the most displaced families, many of whom had to flee multiple times over the course of the 13-year conflict. The majority of displaced people living in camps have exhausted nearly all their economic, financial, physical and social assets, and they are dependent on humanitarian aid, particularly for life-saving services such as water and food.

Protection of children remains a serious and widespread challenge in Syria. Specific issues include porous child protection referral mechanisms, weak case management, dysfunctional formal justice systems and a very limited access to specialized services, such as psychosocial support or care for survivors of gender-based violence. There is a dire need for comprehensive prevention and response interventions to reduce and mitigate risks to children caused by the conflict and displacement. Other needs include community sensitization and mobilization, and strengthening of local institutions, including traditional and religious bodies, so that they can provide better services to at-risk children.

Global Communities began protection programming in Syria in 2016, working both inside and outside of camp settings in northern Syria. To mitigate risks to children, we work through stationary CFS and mobile outreach teams. We implement most extensive CPiE programming in the Atmeh Camp, which is located in the Idleb governorate and hosts an estimated 170,000 people. Our teams provide a wide range of services to children and caregivers, including awareness raising on child rights, play and learn activities, life skills, parenting skills, peer support groups, counselling and referrals to essential services. We reach approximately 30,000 children and caregivers every year.

Promoting Girls’ Empowerment in the Atmeh Camp

Selin* is an 11-year-old girl who was born in the Atmeh Camp and – like most of her peers – has never had a home beyond the camp. Selin’s main caretaker is her mother; her father has been imprisoned for ten years. For a very long time, Selin lived in isolation. She used to avoid socializing with her peers, and she frequently showed signs of fear and confusion. When our team met Selin, they referred her to one of our social workers, who paid a home visit to her family.  

The social worker observed that Selin had significant domestic responsibilities, despite being so young. She had to take care for her brothers, in addition to caring for her elderly grandmother. She was not allowed to leave the house, and she could rarely play with other children. She was also caught in a conflict between her mother’s and father’s families regarding her care. The social worker took time to explain to Selin’s mom how important play and learn activities are for children’s development. The mom noted that Selin loved drawing and was very talented, so the social worker suggested enrolling Selin in structured psychosocial support services, including art therapy. Eventually, our team registered Selin at one of our CFS centers and invited her mom to participate in parenting sessions. This changed Selin’s mother’s perspective on the importance of play and relationships with peers.

These activities contributed to boosting Selin’s self-confidence, and she made new friends. Gradually, she began participating and playing with groups of children, overcoming the shyness and confusion that were initially apparent when she joined the center. Selin is now one of the outstanding children in the center, actively engaging in activities with other children.

Tarek Fakhereddin, Senior Child Protection Officer, Global Communities

Through interventions like these, child protection efforts not only provide immediate relief but also lay the groundwork for long-term resilience and recovery. Ultimately, by ensuring the safety and security of children, these initiatives contribute to building more stable and sustainable communities in the aftermath of crises. Investing in children’s physical, emotional, and educational needs not only ensures their individual growth and development, but also helps to mitigate the same risks experienced by children in their communities in the future.

*The name has been changed to protect Selin’s identity.

The post Protecting Children in Emergencies: Perspectives from Syria and Ukraine appeared first on Global Communities.

Last month, the World Bank held its 2024 Fragility Forum – a biannual conference that brings together policymakers, researchers and practitioners from humanitarian, development and peacebuilding communities to exchange knowledge and ideas about how to improve our approaches in fragile, conflict and violence-affected settings. This year’s theme was “Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World.” 

After the Forum, I asked my Global Communities’ colleagues who attended the event for their reflections. Kelly Van Husen, Vice President for Humanitarian Assistance; Patricia Dorsher, Senior Manager for Humanitarian Business Development; Meena Grigat, Director of Humanitarian and Nexus Business Development; and Patrick Woodruff, Manager for Humanitarian Assistance participated in the exchange. The conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

Paula: In most of the sessions I attended, the panelists painted a bleak picture. The world is increasingly fragile, marred with compounded crises and intertwined risks, from protracted conflicts and climate disasters to chronic political instability and widespread food insecurity. The World Bank estimates that by 2030, almost 60% of the world’s poor will live in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). During the opening session, Anna Bjerde, Managing Director of Operations at the World Bank noted that we cannot end poverty without addressing fragility. She also said, “I’m going to be very honest with you. … We are not preventing conflict.” Why? What are the key factors behind these alarming trends?  

Patricia: I have been working on our humanitarian assistance portfolio for the past few years and found it difficult to identify funders who are willing to address the root causes of conflict in contexts like Syria, where the outcomes are very political. For example, investing in infrastructure in the non-regime areas could help stabilize the lives for millions of people, but humanitarian donors do not see this as their purview and development actors do not want to pay for something where there is no recognized government counterpart to work with. We have been working to find intermediate solutions, but with funds decreasing, humanitarian donors want to focus on the urgent, lifesaving activities and not those that can help counter systemic fragility.  

Patrick: Well said, Patricia. Humanitarian and development organizations are often forced to choose between working with actors considered illegitimate by the international community and restricting or even halting programming to at-risk populations. This was evident after the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan. The disengagement of many actors, including donors, not only left many people at increased risk, but resulted in brain drain of trained humanitarian workers who fled the country or went underground. The lack of funding and support for national non-governmental organizations has led to devastating backtracking on hard-won gains in the rights of women and minority groups. We can see this trend in almost every major crisis today, from Ukraine and Syria to Gaza and the West Bank. Furthermore, many, if not most humanitarian and development organizations are overly reliant on government funding from the Global North. It makes it increasingly difficult to respond to the needs on the ground when the donor countries are aligned with one side of a conflict. While this is understandable from a political standpoint, porous funding streams leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people without lifesaving aid, in direct contradiction to the humanitarian principles.

Patricia: So true! During the session on “State Building in Protracted Crises,” I was struck by the discussion on Palestine led by Nigel Roberts, former Country Director for Gaza and the West Bank at the World Bank. Roberts talked about how the World Bank is designed to be apolitical – at least at a technocratic level – but is beholden to a board that is, by nature, political. Because of this dichotomy, the World Bank has missed many opportunities to help realize economic improvements and development objectives for Palestinians. This resonated with me. In humanitarian assistance, we frequently grapple with the mandate to be “neutral” and “apolitical,” and yet our largest government donors are responsible for carrying out domestic and foreign policies. Being neutral or apolitical is often thought of as the refusal to choose sides, but we fail to recognize that this is also a choice with consequences. It raises the question of what it means to be neutral or apolitical, and if it is ever truly possible.  

Paula: How can we, and others in the sector, address these challenges?  

Patrick: To me, some of the most impactful discussions at the Fragility Forum were around the need to stay engaged in challenging situations, including by finding ways to work with illegitimate or diplomatically isolated actors. Many panelists emphasized that humanitarian organizations have the moral responsibility to remain engaged in order to alleviate suffering. They also noted that continued engagement decreases the financial and social costs that result from humanitarian and development actors leaving in the face of these challenges. Of course, there is no easy solution to this, and every organization needs to make its own decisions based on acceptable risk levels. I think that the most important thing that organizations can do is to protect the foundations of humanitarian work, which is rooted in the principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence. By reinforcing these ideals, organizations will be better positioned to respond to crises based on needs. 

Meena: The sessions I listened to reinforced the importance of investing time and resources into developing an in-depth understanding of the local context. It is very important to build long-term relationships with local communities and actors, and to conduct political economy and conflict analyses. We must be ready to work with communities and local systems over the long-term in order to see impact. 

Patricia: I have to echo what Meena said. You can’t ignore the political context and conflict dynamics. Understanding them at the macro, meso, micro and even household levels is essential if we want to work effectively in fragile and conflict-affected areas. I also want to second what Patrick said about staying engaged. When a new crisis emerges, donors and implementers cannot just forget about conflicts that have been going on for years or decades. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a sudden reassignment of critical funding and programming to Ukraine and its refugees. Now, the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza dominates the headlines. While we must respond to these new crises to the fullest extent possible, we must still remember about people in Yemen, Syria and other fragile states with protracted conflicts and instability. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their needs deserve to be met, too. I am proud of our programming in Syria, where we have been addressing food security, protection, water, sanitation and shelter needs for a decade. I truly hope donors will remain engaged there for years to come. 

Kelly: One theme that I heard repeatedly in the sessions I attended was around the need to be agile and innovative. This is not necessarily new, but the speakers highlighted how critical it is for implementers – particularly those working in fragile contexts – to be flexible: constantly evaluating, assessing and identifying new opportunities to shift programming to better meet humanitarian needs and more effectively achieve program outcomes. The Forum also reinforced the need for continued advocacy to our donors, policymakers and other stakeholders around flexible funding mechanisms. In a volatile world we live in, funding mechanisms must have built-in opportunities, such as crisis modifiers, to quickly adapt and pivot to rapid emergency response.  

Paula: Indeed. The ability to fluidly respond to changing circumstances is a game changer. We have witnessed how crucial this is in many contexts. In Ukraine, for example, our long-term development program – Decentralization Offering Better Results and Efficiency (DOBRE) – was able to quickly mobilize its networks and provide rapid emergency response right at the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. This paved a way for the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, which we launched soon after in two regions overlapping with DOBRE. By layering life-saving humanitarian interventions with development assistance, we can more effectively respond to the crisis, set the stage for post-war recovery and foster lasting resilience to shocks and stresses.  

Ethiopia also comes to mind, where we are implementing the Resilience in Pastoral Areas South (RIPA South) project. In March 2022, amid one of the driest rainy seasons on record, RIPA South activated a Crisis Modifier to address urgent needs of the most vulnerable people affected by the drought. The Crisis Modifier sets aside funds for emergency response measures to save people’s lives, rescue livestock and safeguard economic gains made possible by development activities. We have categorized these interventions into three windows: livestock support, multi-purpose cash assistance and access to water, sanitation and hygiene.  

Paula: Where else is Global Communities adapting or innovating in the face of fragility and constant change? 

Kelly: Gaza was mentioned several times during the Forum. Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, we have pivoted more than 20 years of programming to address the urgent needs resulting from this devastating humanitarian crisis. Our teams are managing to adapt and innovate in Gaza, despite extremely constrained and dangerous circumstances. As you know, 2.2 million people are at the imminent risk of famine, and we are proud to serve as the World Food Programme’s (WFP) main implementing partner. We have been able to shift our WFP work from cash to in-kind assistance, and we have pooled resources and knowledge to partner with others, for example the World Central Kitchen, to provide hot meals. We are also distributing nutritional supplements to pregnant women, nursing mothers and small children who are at increased risk of malnutrition. In addition, we are setting up latrines and sinks, and he have provided winterization support to many families. This represents critically needed agility and creativity that has enabled us to continue working in this extremely challenging environment.  

Paula: Agility in adapting to evolving needs is vital in our efforts to ensure efficient, timely support in both stable and crisis conditions. I imagine we have had to adapt and innovate our own internal processes and mechanisms to make it happen.  

Patrick: Yes, absolutely. Global Communities is currently developing Protocols for Emergency Response, so that we are humanitarian-ready even in relatively stable environments. I am personally involved in this effort. We want to ensure that our organization has systems in place to respond to natural disasters and conflicts quickly and effectively. We place a heavy focus on increasing the resilience, preparedness and ability of our country teams to respond with existing programming. This is often done by leveraging our ongoing development programs, like in Gaza, Ukraine or Ethiopia. 

Kelly: We work at the intersection of sustainable development and humanitarian assistance, so strenghtening the capacity of our country teams to pivot from development programming to emergency response is one of our main internal priorities.  

Paula: Many panelists emphasized how important it is to strengthen local institutions and make them more inclusive in order to solve conflicts and maintain peace. For example, Bjerde said that it is crucial to focus not just on services but also on the institutions behind the services, making sure that their capacity is built. “When things go wrong, when things get difficult and hard, it’s those institutions that need to actually step up even more,” she said. What are your thoughts on this? 

Patrick: I agree. This brings up the topic of localization, which was frequently mentioned at the Forum too. To protect hard fought gains, we must ensure that local and national actors – who do the vast majority of the work on the ground – have the adequate resources and power to adapt their programming in a way that is contextually appropriate.   

Paula: Right. Ultimately, it is the local communities and institutions who have the intimate understanding of their needs and priorities, and who can design context-specific and culturally relevant interventions. This came up a lot in the session “Gender Equality in FCV Settings: Moving from Humanitarian Responses to Creating Resilience.” Amini Kajunju from the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Center for Women and Development spoke very passionately about investing in community-driven solutions, leveraging local expertise and elevating local women leaders. She also stressed that civil society organizations are central to providing services in fragile settings, especially when state institutions are weakened. I know that our sector has a long way to go to fully realize the localization principles, but I think we are making strides. For example, localization is a core strategy of our CLEAR project in Ukraine, where we invest in small, community-based organizations (CBOs), which deliver emergency assistance and protection services to war-affected populations. Of course, this approach has its challenges. When I visited Ukraine last year, many CBO leaders shared their struggles with strict donor compliance requirements. We hear it in other settings, like Syria, too. This is where we come in with our capacity strengthening interventions, which are extremely helpful, but take time. 

Paula: How else did the conference connect with the work you are doing at Global Communities? 

Meena: The session “Troubled Borders: Subnational Conflict in Middle Income Countries” was relevant to the context in northern Ghana, where we have extensive experience implementing water, sanitation and hygiene programs. The region is one of the key focus areas under the U.S. Global Fragility Act. Communities in the districts along the borders of northern Ghana are part of interconnected trade and migration networks, and there are major concerns over the spread of violent extremism into these communities. The speakers stressed the complexity of border economies and governance institutions, and the need to consider market systems, the flow of goods and ideas, the role of the state, and the ability of local actors to arbitrate conflict. 

Paula: Great point. Conflicts and the climate crisis do not recognize borders. Several panelists also emphasized the need to support countries receiving refugees and discussed the global impact of the war in Ukraine. The fragility that has emanated from Russia’s invasion has cascaded globally, affecting countries not just in Ukraine’s vicinity, but states on other continents. For example, the conflict has had a major impact on the global wheat supply, resulting in a widespread food security crisis.  

Thank you for sharing your reflections. As some of the panelists noted, sustainable development is not possible without sustainable peace, and we need tectonic shifts and holistic approaches to address the interconnected global risks and polycrises. I left the Fragility Forum and our conversation with the following recommendations:  

• Anticipate better and be prepared to ensure effective, timely support when conditions change. 
• Remain engaged when challenges arise. Ensure stable funding streams. Continuity is vital when fragility grows.  
• Acknowledge that conflicts and the climate crisis do not recognize borders. 
• Focus on prevention and resilience building. Address the drivers and root causes of fragility. 
• Strengthen state institutions, engage the private sector and invest in civil society organizations, including women- and youth-led groups, which are often first responders in fragile settings and play a huge role in recovery efforts. 
• Improve governance and the rule of law. 
• Ensure that interventions are inclusive and gender-responsive. Talk to people you typically do not engage with. 
• Localize development and humanitarian interventions. 

The post Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World: Reflections from the 2024 Fragility Forum   appeared first on Global Communities.

It all began with a simple idea: create a public co-working space for local businesses to establish a business school that would provide tools for success. Little did these project developers know how much this community-powered idea would change the lives of residents and set in motion the wheels of local economic development.

PIcturing a way forward, together

Mariia Demchuk is a dedicated and determined entrepreneur from Lanovetska who was struggling to realize her dream of becoming a professional photographer. With limited resources and the need to provide for her family, she often felt her goals were out of reach.

She vividly remembers the first day she walked into the newly established co-working space. It was a bustling hub of creativity, with a video studio for content creators, a spacious conference hall and a photo studio promising great potential. The modern office set-ups, meeting place and cozy recreation areas were designed to foster entrepreneurial growth. Global Communities’ USAID-funded Decentralization Offering Better Results and Efficiency (DOBRE) program provided the grant that allowed the community to develop this opportunity.

“Opening a photo studio in Lanivka helped me to develop my business and significantly increased the number of customers,” Mariia shared. “Moreover, those willing to have a photo session do not need to travel 60 km to the regional center; now, they can do it where they live. Together with the city council, we started to organize social projects and photo sessions for those who could not afford them.”

DOBRE is providing comprehensive technical assistance to 60 territorial communities (TCs), including Lanovetska, to help the TCs recover from the war with Russia and resume their economic development. One aspect of the program involves providing guidance to TCs on how to cultivate local entrepreneurship, accommodate relocating businesses, support cooperatives, attract outside investment and other matters. DOBRE also provides material assistance to support specific projects.

“The mission of the USAID DOBRE program is to help communities take stock of their resources, identify challenges and find solutions for them. We also help communities develop sustainably and increase their economic capacity,” said Vitaliy Yurkiv, the program’s Local Economic Development expert. “At the same time, we do not impose any direction but encourage residents to determine their own priorities. Today, our communities turn to us precisely for help in economic development – they seek to create new jobs, maintain existing businesses and help relocated businesses.

building up local entrepreneurs

While support from DOBRE has been essential, the real catalyst for the success of those like Mariia is the B2B School, a business school that opened just a few days after the co-working space was launched. It is a beacon of knowledge and unique opportunity for local residents who want to learn how to translate their ideas into concrete plans.

To date, more than 20 small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) business owners have enrolled in B2B’s program, where skilled instructors provide training in marketing, finance and business management. The school’s mission is simple but powerful: to equip local entrepreneurs with the skills and knowledge necessary to grow their businesses.

In addition, through the co-working space, a series of trainings have been held for 25 more people — half of whom are already entrepreneurs and the rest who aspire to become business owners. With the help of mentors, participants have already prepared business plans and are looking for funds to implement their ideas.

“I got acquainted with the co-working space and its possibilities when I joined the business school. The major part of the training was held here, because the co-working space has all the conditions for comfortable work and relaxation,” said Hryhorii Soltis, a local entrepreneur and B2B program participant. “The co-working space has created all the conditions for actual and potential entrepreneurs.”

The co-working space and business school have jump-started local economic development. The businesses that have found a home within its walls are growing, creating new jobs for the community and contributing to its prosperity. The impact is visible not only in financial progress but also in the renewed sense of hope and purpose that has swept through the lives of local residents.

In a country still suffering from Russia’s full-scale invasion, where small towns often face economic challenges, the activity of Lanovetska TC offers an excellent example of how local initiatives can lead to significant change. Funding by the USAID DOBRE program provided the initial push, but it was the dedication of people like Mariia and Hryhorii and the entrepreneurial spirit of other community members that has ultimately made the difference.

This success story is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Global Communities and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

The post Making Space for Economic Growth in Ukraine’s Lanovetska Community appeared first on Global Communities.

It took eight years for Yuliia to shake off the feeling of numbness and fully integrate into the Ukrainian community where she lives now. She moved to the Chernivtsi oblast from Luhansk oblast as an internally displaced person (IDP) in 2014.

Having experienced this kind of uprooting on a personal level, Yuliia says she understands how millions of displaced people must feel as Russia continues its full-scale invasion in Ukraine. Since February 2022, Chernivtsi oblast has become one of the main refuge points for IDPs and their temporary home, or transit point, as many wait to move into other parts of Europe. To date, more than 140,000 officially registered IDPs are in the oblast.

To help respond to this population’s unique needs and assist communities in their war recovery efforts, Global Communities partnered with the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA) to implement the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program. CLEAR is addressing the urgent needs of 22,580 people who have been impacted by the war in Chernivtsi and Chernihiv oblasts, providing emergency response in three areas: protection, shelter & settlements, and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). A core strategy of the program is coordinating with local partners and civil society organizations (CSOs) to carry out this assistance, which includes hosting activities aimed at fostering social cohesion, resilience and peace.

One such partner is the Ukrainian People’s House (UPH), a CSO where Yuliia has been serving as a mobilizer since the CLEAR program began in December 2022. She helps IDPs integrate into their new communities through recreational and psychosocial support activities that allow them to interact with local residents and engage in mutually beneficial dialogue.

According to Ihor Babiuk, deputy head of UPH, inviting both parties to participate is key to the success of the approach, because it aids in clearing up misunderstandings and tensions that often arise between IDPs and locals due to cultural differences, competition for jobs and public resources. Since 2014, IDPs have moved into almost every community in the Chernivtsi oblast. Babiuk explains that frustrations between IDPs and local governments have spiked because IDPs believe the government officials are not listening to their voices, while the local governments accuse IDPs of being unwilling to work and engage in the life of the community.

Whether it be an art therapy session or cooking class, CLEAR-sponsored activities at UPH ignite conversations among participants that range from simple exchanges about regional traditions in Ukraine to more pressing matters such as job opportunities and community needs. The idea is to foster greater understanding between the two groups and bring to light the unique experiences and skills IDPs can contribute through new businesses, cultural activities, workplaces and other economic and community development efforts.

“Locals start speaking about these issues openly, as well as the IDPs. Everyone talks about assistance for the relocated population but often forget that local residents also need assistance,” Babiuk says. “Almost everyone has their own pain connected with war – a son or a husband is on the frontline, someone died or is in captivity, someone is in constant stress because of ongoing uncertainty, loss of jobs, or forced changes in habitual lifestyle.”

Babiuk admits new arrivals are not integrated into a community in a year or two – the process is long and intricate. Even so, UPH has found it helpful to seek out public activists and other CSOs that have been relocated and need assistance getting registered, learning about the community, determining activities and building connections. CLEAR also helps recruit volunteers who want to be involved with integration efforts and employs some IDPs who have professional backgrounds that are applicable and relevant.

“We try to work in such a way so that our activities do not end with the closure of a project. Our work is about people, not about figures. That is why we try to maintain continuity,” Babiuk says. “We involve IDPs, provide consultations and help them create their own CSOs. Then, they build a team and again involve IDPs in them, and our work keeps going. That is to say, [these are the] side effects of our projects. They are not foreseen, but they are of great value.”

According to Justin Secrease, Deputy Country Director of Global Communities Ukraine, UPH is a prime example of how the CLEAR program is strengthening humanitarian response by putting localization into practice — investing in CSOs which have deep knowledge of their communities and co-creating new interventions that help meet unique needs emerging from the current crisis.

“Host communities form the fabric of local societies. In times of crises and large-scale displacements, humanitarian organizations must prioritize nurturing the resilience of these hosts. Local CSOs, like UPH, emerge as critical voices advocating for the integration of IDPs, and it’s the collaborative harmony of communities and local governments that lays the foundation for managing displacement on a larger scale,” Secrease says. “UPH’s work under the CLEAR program serves as a testament to the impactful threads reinforcing this intricate weave. Yuliia’s story adds value to the collective narrative, reminding us that unity and shared experiences build resilient communities.”

The post Building Community and Supporting Internally Displaced People with Integration Efforts in Ukraine appeared first on Global Communities.