Listen now on: Spotify | SoundCloud | Apple | YouTube
In this special episode of I Think You’re on Mute, host Beth Eggleston reflects on the journey of the Humanitarian Horizons research programme, which has driven insights and influence across the humanitarian sector over the past seven years.
Beth explores the diverse research areas that have shaped humanitarian practice, from examining mental health support for and recruitment practices of local staff, to reducing the environmental impact of humanitarian operations and shifting the power to local actors.
With independent evaluator, Pamela Cajilig, and the Humanitarian Horizons research programme lead, Eranda Wijewickrama, we look back on our achievements, our challenges, and the lessons learned; asking ourselves what worked well and what could have worked better if… Join us as we dive into the research and ideas that are shaping a better humanitarian future.
Podcast host and guests
Beth Eggleston
Beth is the Director of the Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG) and co-founded the organisation in 2012. She has worked in the humanitarian sector specialising in civil-military coordination and humanitarian reform for the last two decades and has field experience in Afghanistan, Liberia, Tonga, Costa Rica, Laos PDR, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
Pamela Cajilig
Pamela is an anthropologist and independent consultant advocating for participatory design and architecture for disaster risk reduction and management. She is a professorial lecturer at the University of the Philippines College of Architecture and Global Fellow at the Brown University Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Studies. Her efforts in inclusive disaster management were recognised by the UNDRR and the Australian Government at the 2021Asia-Pacific Women’s International Leadership Awards.
Eranda Wijewickrama
Eranda is an Executive at HAG with experience in research, evaluation, project management and partnership building in the aid sector. Eranda is the lead co-ordinator for HAG’s Humanitarian Horizons programme and has led various research and evaluation work across a range of contexts. His work at HAG has particularly focused on equity and accountability within the aid sector, looking at topics such as localisation of aid, partnerships and role of intermediaries, inequalities, and humanitarian reform.
Podcast research and links
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | Humanitarian Horizons research programme
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | Greening the System research
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | Framework for Greening Humanitarian Action in the Pacific
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | A Pathway to Localisation Impact: Laying the Foundations
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | Power, People and Local Leadership research
Podcast transcript
Beth Eggleston: Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians and their ancestors of the unceded lands and waters on which we live, work and depend. We recognise all First Nations peoples around the world and celebrate their enduring connections to country, and pay our respects to elders past, present, and emerging.
It’s hard to believe we’ve been working on our Humanitarian Horizons research programme in all its forms for seven years! This is a special episode of I Think You’re on Mute, and as your host Beth Eggleston, this is a particularly special episode for me to reflect on what has been achieved in that time, the challenges along the way, and all that we can learn. We’ll highlight some of the headlines you may have missed and the insights you may need in your work as we shape a better humanitarian future. In just the last three years alone, the Humanitarian Horizons research program has delivered 32 research papers with six different institutional partners and 22 different collaborators across the Indo Pacific region. We’ve also published 15 policy and research briefs. We’ve seen our research make an impact with it presented at conferences and roundtables and gain more than 100 citations globally. We’ve provided organisational briefings on our research and had agencies share examples of how the research has really directly impact their programmes, their strategy and their advocacy efforts. And of course, we’ve had three fantastic seasons of I Think You’re On Mute to bring the research to life and to hear from humanitarians doing the work to make the research, frameworks, approaches and models a reality. We’ve worked on everything, from supporting the mental health of local humanitarian staff to examining whose knowledge we prioritise when making decisions. We’ve looked into who is excluded from protection and assistance, who provides aid and their motivations, and how policies play out in practice. We’ve also explored how to truly “walk the talk” in greening humanitarian operations. So what’s worked well, and what could’ve worked better if…Let’s find out!
I’m thrilled to welcome to the podcast, Pamela Cajilig, an independent evaluator of our Humanitarian Horizons research programme. Welcome, Pam. Could you please tell our audience a little bit about yourself and your role in evaluating the programme, please?
Pamela Cajilig: Well, thanks, Beth, it’s great to be here. So I’m Pamela Cajilig. I am an anthropologist by training, but much of my research focuses on disaster risk reduction and management, as well as climate adaptation. So that intersects with humanitarian research as well, and right now, I’m working with HAG on evaluating the interim of the humanitarian Horizons programming.
Beth Eggleston: Perfect, thank you, Pam. So, let’s get into it. I’d love to ask you, firstly, what is one example that stood out to you where the research really made a difference in how humanitarian work was conducted?
Pamela Cajilig: Okay, well, I can speak from my experience in the Philippines, particularly in testing the localisation pathway. I worked with persons with disability, and as we went through the accompaniment process, they said that it became clearer to them what we were trying to do, as well as their justifications for trying to do it. And also it became an avenue for them to learn more about measurement and evaluation, so it doubled as a capacity building, exercise as well. And we’ve seen that similar impacts of that in Bangladesh, for example, in Pakistan, in humanitarian shelter. Yeah. And then in Bangladesh, the Humanitarian Horizons, research and localisation in general has really helped mobilise the local actors in the country and advocate for policy reform that was taken up by the government.
Beth Eggleston: Thank you, Pam. And as you know, we have, quite a passion for transparency at Humanitarian Advisory Group, so we’re really keen to get your insights on also, what could we have done, done differently, what could have worked better in our research programme?
Pamela Cajilig: Right, so far what the data is showing is that people really appreciate the transfer of power that, from international to local, within the programme. A lot of interviewees do say that it could still be pushed further by, for example, having more resources to translate the findings into local languages, so that the results of the research can be brought down to the grassroots communities and that could also be an avenue for more feedback on how to localise the different programmes.
Beth Eggleston: Yeah, that’s a great insight, absolutely. So in our last episode, Pam we spoke about the value of locally led response and we were asking if in fact it’s working. So from evaluating our localisation research what are your thoughts, how are we actually listening meaningfully to local actors and letting them lead?
Pamela Cajilig: Well, absolutely. That is one consistent feedback, in the evaluation, that the shift to like centring global South voices and global South experiences in the conduct of research is not only shaping international humanitarian actors’ views of what humanitarian research could be, but also researchers from the global South are also saying that it is transforming their own notions of, you know, how research can be conducted, how it can be made more equitable, and the impact of that is, well, firstly, there is a growing shared language, between the different local actors, that helps them collectively advocate for reform in humanitarian, in the humanitarian space. And then secondly is, you know, when the grand bargain said that humanitarian response ought to be localised, there were so many questions on how this can be done, and what the research, from the programme is showing is, you know, different ways to operate in the next localisation, whether it’s Covid response or disaster risk reduction or recruitment across a different range of fields where it could be tricky for local actors to be able to collaborate and advocate together.
Beth Eggleston: And Pamela, you have so much experience when it comes to research. I would love to understand a bit from your personal viewpoint of how you see the value of research in informing humanitarian response.
Pamela Cajilig: Well, localisation is such, it can be an abstract concept, and what research can do is translate the abstract into concrete. And we’re seeing that in the evaluation as well. There’s a great appreciation for the research playing a big role on how different responses that are localised can be made tangible and connected to on ground realities.
Beth Eggleston: Yes, I agree very much with that. Thank you so much for these insights, Pam. It’s been great to understand from the outside how you feel the research programme has gone, and where we could look to take it in the future. Thank you so much for joining the podcast.
Pamela Cajilig: Thanks to you Beth.
Beth Eggleston: Finally, as our last guest for season three, I’d love to welcome HAG’s own Eranda Wijewickrama, who coordinated and managed our Humanitarian Horizons programme for the last four years. Eranda is an executive at HAG and has been instrumental in making sure we answer important research questions, while making sure we also meet our deadlines. Thank you so much for joining us, Eranda.
Eranda Wijewickrama: Thanks Beth, it’s so exciting to be, talking to you about all the things we’ve achieved in this programme in the last six years, along with our partners.
Beth Eggleston: As we reflect on the end of an era, I’d love to know from you, if you have some examples on how the research from the Humanitarian Horizons programme has informed change in the humanitarian sector, or informed policy here in Australia or elsewhere around the world?
Eranda Wijewickrama: Thanks Beth. So I’ll try and maybe pick three or four examples from the last few years of Humanitarian Horizon’s research programme. The first one, I think has definitely been the localisation baseline methodology, which we started off in the Pacific, around 2017, 2018, but since then it’s grown its own wings. And now that methodology has been used in in Yemen, in Ukraine, and is being used in, Lebanon and Iraq to help shape the discussion around localisation. In Yemen specifically, it’s opened up pathways of local actors to engage with the humanitarian coordination team, which they didn’t have before, so I think that’s a big win for us. The second one is around the greening humanitarian framework that was developed as part of the current programme. And I think one of the sort of the most immediate influences that we could see was how that helped DFAT’s humanitarian logistic capability or HLC to cut back on plastic packaging for some of their supplies. And the framework has also influenced the thinking and design for the Pacific warehouse programming, so that’s going to have a big influence in the Pacific region moving forward. And I think one of the other key examples is the work that we’ve been doing around, you know, thinking around the an equitable knowledge and evidence ecosystem in the humanitarian sector and how we’ve been engaging with global North and global South actors is really sort of trying to, showing how it’s affecting the thinking and the practices of Global North researchers and knowledge producers, so I think that’s something for us to be proud of and to keep working towards. Finally, I think the localisation impact framework that we’ve been developing is starting to shape some of thinking of particularly international actors as well, in terms of how they plan for and better, track the impact of localised practices. But also, some of the INGOs have been exploring how this can help them to bridge the gap between localisation and accountability to affected populations or IAP. So I think for me those would be sort of the four major examples of how research has helped to shape policy or practice in the sector.
Beth Eggleston: Thank you, Eranda. And I know you don’t like to play favourites, but I would love to know out of all the large number of products that we’ve developed under the programme, what are a couple that have really stood out for you?
Eranda Wijewickrama: If you focus on the current programme Beth, I think the Greening Framework has a lot of potential. And it’s been creating a lot of interest, both in Australia, but also, if you look at some of the engagement we’ve had in Fiji and Tonga, and there’s a lot more potential for that to be applied in the Pacific region, but more broadly as well. The localisation impact framework again is hopefully going to be a crucial product for the sector to really start recentring communities in terms of how we plan for and track the impact of our work, particularly from a localisation lens. The vision for K and E, the knowledge and evidence system, I think is going to be, again, an important piece for us as an organisation from the global North, but other actors in the global North to support and uplift global South researchers and knowledge holders and experts who are usually considered, you know, who are not given their due place in the sector. And finally, we’ve also worked on a couple of inequalities papers looking at staff recruitment practices and psychosocial support for local and national staff. And these for me, have been, some of the most interesting products because these are looking at really thorny issues from the perspective of local and national actors, and we certainly hope that this is going to create some more space for the sector to discuss difficult issues moving forward.
Beth Eggleston: Thanks, Eranda. Indeed, they certainly address some very thorny issues. And I agree that was super interesting. So I suppose if you had to look back on this programme and even perhaps the programme before, what are some of the key achievements or other legacies of this Humanitarian Horizons program for you personally?
Eranda Wijewickrama: For me, I think one of the biggest, legacies of our achievements is the way we approach partnerships in this research programme. For us as an organisation, as you know, Beth, you know, the partnerships that we’ve developed through this programme with PIANGO, with GLOW Consultants, with Insights, with CoLAB Consultants, and PUJIONO Centre have really defined how we function as an organisation. But that’s also been a critical element for our partners as well in terms of their growth, their reach and the engagement that they’ve had – and I hope we played a small part in elevating them to the global stage. Definitely the partnership approach that we had, along with the research that we’ve been doing on the knowledge and evidence base in the sector has also helped some of the other Global North actors to rethink how they do work, and I hope that’s going to be a continuing legacy of the programme. In terms of particular products, I think the localisation baseline methodology stands out for me because it started off as a more focused piece of work in the Pacific that we started off with PAINGO. But as I said before, it’s really started to create a lot of buzz and, you know, influence across different humanitarian spaces. You know, in Ukraine, the, the they completed the baseline last year with support from ICO, and now they’re completing another follow up study to really hold the humanitarian actors to account on the progress of localisation. And that’s what we wanted to do from this programme is create the means and the and the evidence to support humanitarian actors to drive that change. And finally, I think looking forward, definitely the greening framework and the localisation impact frameworks will have those same influences, I think, and I hope that, it’ll also generate that interest and the momentum that the localisation methodology has, has over the last few years. And this will also drive more, evidence based discussions and reform in the sector that’s badly needed.
Beth Eggleston: Yes, I agree, Eranda. I feel that because it’s not just insights and research that we generated throughout the programme, but that we were able to distil that down into practical tools and frameworks, you know, that guidance that agencies can actually take and integrate into that everyday work. There seems to be a real appetite to want to take that and run, which is so exciting. Thank you so much for those insights, Eranda and congratulations on coordinating such a huge programme over the last four years. Thanks so much.
Eranda Wijewickrama: Thank you so much Beth.
Beth Eggleston: As we wrap up, a huge thank you to all the people we interviewed, all the partners we worked with, all the people who peer reviewed the research, and to all of you who took the time to read and digest the insights and listen to our podcast. A big shout out to our wonderful partners, GLOW Consultants in Pakistan, CoLAB in Fiji, Insights in Bangladesh, PUJIONO Centre in Indonesia and PIANGO based across the Pacific. Your brilliance in helping shape, guide, produce and socialise the research has been immense and we can’t thank you enough. We also extend our gratitude to DFAT for giving us the opportunity to explore new horizons within the humanitarian sector, allowing us to collaborate and generate new research and insights. We’ll continue to share the findings, and we’ll look at shifting gears to provide advice, training and guidance so get in touch if that’s of interest to you. This is the last episode for this season. I look forward to bringing you another season with new insights and new voices. I’m Beth Eggleston and this is I Think You’re On Mute.
This podcast, I Think You’re On Mute, is supported by the Australian government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views expressed through this podcast are the presenters alone and are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government.
This podcast was produced and recorded by Room3, a production company that works with not-for-profits and social enterprises, and supported by Green Letter Communications.
