2.3 Implementation of the strategy

From the onset, a major challenge for the IFP has been to develop, with limited resources, a rounded ILO crisis portfolio and capacity to perform. In assessing strategy implementation, the contingent nature of crisis work should be kept in mind, recognizing that preplanning and implementing established plans cannot and should not be the narrow measure of good performance. The assessment instead considers decisions related to prioritization and choice of activities and their usefulness, given the constraints faced by the team. In this context, highly impressive work has been accomplished by a skeletal staff of experts over the short period of 30 months.

Choose a heading: Country-level crisis response initiatives Tools and knowledge development Creating an international response network Strategic partnership and capacity building

Raising awareness among global and national players of the importance of jobs and livelihoods has been approached most directly through development of training tools and knowledge development materials. Although the initial plans for establishing a research centre and full-blown research network have not yet been realized, the IFP has completed a range of documents including the following:

• A series of working papers, reports, country studies, and publications addressing a wide range of research issues have been developed through involvement in different research networks, and internal technical collaboration. Some forty different technical reading materials have been published in the past three years. In general, the ILO can build on this success and offer more within the area of effective response to vulnerable groups in crisis.

• Two recently developed manuals have met with success among users: ILO Generic Crisis Response Modules (2001) and Rapid Needs Assessment Manual (2001). More specialized manuals on emergency employment services, gender in crisis response, local economic development in post-crisis situations, the role of cooperatives, and other self-help organizations in crisis resolution and recovery, tackling employment challenges of armed conflict, and microfinance (through an ILO/SFU collaboration with UNHCR), are known and used internally and externally.

• The IFP has made headway in developing new areas of programming for the ILO and international humanitarian and reconstruction networks. Socioeconomic reintegration of ex-combatants is one area where a concerted ILO effort to research and develop effective technical cooperation is becoming effective. Manuals on this subject are now available in three languages.

Choose a heading: Country-level crisis response initiatives Tools and knowledge development Creating an international response network Strategic partnership and capacity building

Capacity building of ILO staff emphasizes inter alia a training of trainers approach, targeting different types of staff and levels of skills, with participation based on a cost-sharing scheme. IFP/CRISIS conducted two capacity building workshops on crisis response and reconstruction: an inter-regional one in Turin (Italy) in October 2000 and a sub-regional one in Kribi (Cameroon) in April 2001. In addition, a Training of Trainers workshop on crisis response was carried out for ILO Crisis Focal Points in Turin in November 2001. Additional training, including several aimed at constituents (Harare and Guinea, 2003), were funded under the ILO’s 2000/01 surplus. Crisis network meetings, crisis-related workshops and training guides were all developed with involvement of staff from field and HQ units. Awareness-raising activities aimed at raising staff and constituent understanding of ILO crisis work have also been frequent and well received.

Externally, capacity building within key partner agencies has involved raising awareness of the importance of ILO-supported decent work approaches to crisis response, reconstruction, and development. This has involved participation in critical forums on crisis. Expanding and deepening ILO’s working relationships and communication networks with crises programmes of key agencies has met with mixed results; however, considerable ground work has been made in better defining ILO’s niche within wider inter-agency processes. Noteworthy achievements include the current revising of a framework agreement for agency collaboration with UNHCR, revised strategies and discussions for collaborating with UNDP’s own Bureau for Crisis Preventions and Recovery (BCPR), and regular participation in OCHA and selected sub-committees of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC).

At national levels, capacity building among ILO constituents was planned to involve a series of training initiatives, written crisis-context guidelines for employers, trade unions and collaboration through field structures and ACTRAV and ACTEMP. To date, the IFP has completed several specialized training courses aimed at constituents with more planned in late 2003 and a number of field offices have worked with social partners to integrate crisis preparedness and response into joint work plans and as agreed priorities for future work, some of which have been partially financed through ILO surplus funds.

Choose a heading: Country-level crisis response initiatives Tools and knowledge development Creating an international response network Strategic partnership and capacity building

The primary work of the IFP team has been to coordinate actual ILO responses to crises at country levels. Towards this end, considerable programme resources and experts’ time have been used. During its first full two years of operation, the IFP initiated ILO crisis response work in 19 countries, although the form and scale of action differed considerably. In 2002, interventions involved an additional eight country responses. In total, these have included post-conflict initiatives in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, East Timor, South Lebanon, DRC, the Great Lakes region, Solomon Islands, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Palestine, Tajikistan, and Sri Lanka. In response to natural disasters, initiatives followed in Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Mozambique, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Southern Africa. Finally, the IFP has supported responses to economic crises in Indonesia and Argentina.

ILO interventions over the past three years have coincided with a high number of unexpected national crises developing during the same time period. At the time of IFP formation, few imagined so many crises posing major disruptions to peoples’ work and livelihoods over such a short period. At IFP startup, staff anticipated the need to be flexible where actual crisis response would take precedence over other programme components. In assessing whether priorities among alternatives were appropriately considered, the IFP has followed its initial strategy with consistency by placing crisis response at the forefront of its workload, while maintaining a balanced programme.