Episode 8: Principled Action
Wafaa Saeed has 20 years of humanitarian work experience in complex settings. She is currently the Deputy Director in the Operations and Advocacy division, covering Eastern and Southern Africa at UN OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. She has worked with WFP, UN OCHA and UNICEF in various roles in Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan and other countries. Prior to joining the UN, Wafaa worked as a lecturer at the University of Khartoum and as an architect in the private sector. She joins us from New York, USA.
She speaks to us about:
her interest in working closely with communities / in the field
governments in the leading role and UN organizations in the supporting role
empowering local government systems
making principled decisions / zero tolerance for fraud
maintaining the neutral humanitarian space
the differential treatment between national vs. international staff
the 3 pillars of the UN reform process
working collectively
her commitment to localization - and much more!
Transcript
Intro: One of my favorite quotes is from a poem by the poet called Pryor. He used to say: remember, you are only one, but you are one. You cannot do everything, but you can do something. And I think sometimes we can really be overwhelmed by the crisis that we see, by the scale of things, and we think we cannot really make a difference. But I really believe in that collectively, the community work, that if people come together, everybody can contribute something and then together do something big. So that has been my motivation. But I think now I really want to try to use my experiences and to advance certain things that I see that would really help the system work much better.
Safa: Welcome back to The Rethinking Development Podcast. My name is Safa, and I'm your host. Thank you for joining me as we speak with and learn from practitioners of all career stages and organizational affiliations around the world. In our conversations, we aim to rethink ethical behavior and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Wafaa Saeed. Wafaa has 20 years of humanitarian work experience in complex settings. Currently, she's the Deputy Director in the Operations and Advocacy division, covering Eastern and Southern Africa at UN OCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. She started her career working with the WFP in her native country of Sudan. She then worked with OCHA as a Humanitarian Affairs Officer in Somalia and later as Deputy Head of Office in Syria. She has also worked with UNICEF as Chief of Field Officer in Somalia, Indonesia and Pakistan and later as Chief of Field Operations in Syria. She holds a Master of Architecture degree from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, and a Master's of Physical Planning from the University of Khartoum. Prior to joining the UN, Wafaa worked as a lecturer at the University of Khartoum, and as an architect in the private sector. Wafaa, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
Wafaa: Thank you so much Safa. And thank you so much for the opportunity to chat with you. Thank you so much.
Safa: Thank you so much for speaking with us. So to begin the conversation, could you share a bit more about how you first began to work in this field? And how was it that you transitioned from working in architecture or at the University of Khartoum to beginning to work with WFP in Sudan?
Wafaa: I think, when I was at intermediate school, I was about 13 years old, I came across the Charter of the UN. And I recall, I read "we the people of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, the dignity and the worst of the human person". And I was just so drawn to that. And I told myself at that time, you know, I would really love to work for the United Nations. So it was like a dream for me. And as you mentioned, I studied architecture, and I did urban planning, and I was always drawn to work at the community level. So while I was teaching at the university, I was also working as a volunteer with an organization called the Sudanese Environment Conservation Society, And that was my introduction to work at the community level. So working in informal settlements. And also when I was a student, in a large part, we did some projects - so I was very much drawn to work at the community level and social work. And I was thinking that eventually, maybe I would work with UN Habitat, which is the organization of the UN that deals with urban settlements and settings. And I was applying for different jobs. So I would always bring the newspaper when I finished my master and every day look at job adverts and try to apply for positions. And then I got this position, opportunity to join the WFP as a Program Assistant. And actually, at that time, my late father was quite disappointed because he was saying, oh, you're a lecturer at the university, what are you going to do? So he could not understand it. But since I took the decision, they were very supportive. And that's how I started in 2000 - about 20 years ago with the World Food Program as a Program Assistant in my own country.
Safa : Wonderful. And as you mentioned, you were working in your own country. So could you share a bit about perhaps the feelings or the the unique setting of actually working in your own country as opposed to later on when you were working in other countries? How was it to serve in Sudan, specifically?
Wafaa: I was born and raised in the capital of Sudan in Khartoum, and Sudan is a country I think, that has been through civil war since independence. So we had war in the beginning, in the southern part of the country that now has, with the independence of South Sudan, become a different country. And also we had a war in Darfur, that started since 2003. And for me, the fact that I started to work in my own country, with the World Food Program, because World Food Program had a huge program all over the country, first it gave me the opportunity to move out of Khartoum to different places in the country and to see for myself the impact of the war on the people, and how people felt about being in your own country and you are living in a war zone. And of course, I cannot compare my experience with the experience of the people because I would go on a field mission, I would spend a few days in the field and talk to the people. But you know, sometimes when you are sitting in the capitol, and then there is the media, having a certain narrative, when you go there yourself and talk to the people actually gave me the credibility to say, no, I was there, I have seen with my own eyes, spoken with the people and this is what's happening. So for me, it was also very sad to see the impact of war on people and how people had to suffer to lose everything. But also, it gave me even more motivation and more sense of responsibility to try to contribute, and also to be a voice and to talk to the other people and say: no, things are this way. So I think it was an eye opener for me, I think except for my father, because in those days the civil service would work at different parts of the country, so most of the people around me had not really gone very far outside the capitol. So I think that was a huge privilege. And also it gave me this sense of responsibility to really talk about the narrative, and also to try to do my best to try to contribute. So I was very, very grateful. And I think my experience with WFP in Sudan is the part of my career that I value the most.
Safa: Very interesting. So in your career, eventually you focused on humanitarian work, and one of your first experiences outside of Sudan was as Humanitarian Affairs Officer with OCHA in Somalia. Could you say a bit more about what drew you specifically to working in humanitarian contexts or in emergency contexts and the motivations behind working in that context, specifically?
Wafaa: My work initially was with the World Food Program. And so World Food Program, the work was largely a humanitarian response, they also had a bit of a recovery program. So I started with the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Somalia, because I was applying for international positions at that time, and I think this was the opportunity that had come. But what also drew me to humanitarian action is that first, you're very close to the people. And actually, when I started this work, even when I was in Somalia, we used to be very close to the people, visit the field regularly listen from them directly. So that context of being very close to the people give me a sense of reassurance that what you're doing is guided by the people, we were always checking with them, as for example, now, when I think of myself in New York, I miss that kind of field context, of talking to the people - because even when you're trying to advocate, having that direct touch is very important. And also, you would be able to see the impact maybe in the short term - and I think that doesn't mean like it's wrong or right, but sometimes also, I recall, when I was in Somalia, we had this huge nutrition program. And we used to go every week, the malnourished children would come and they would get what's called ____, a fortified meal. And everyday you would see the same child renew - life coming back into them, gaining weight and laughing. And that was also very, very much rewarding.
Safa: And that commitment to working at more the community level and being able to really see the tangible impact of your work - in terms of your experiences, just generally, whether it was in Somalia or in other countries, what would you say are some of the challenges to having more community level, community led participatory approaches embedded in the programs you've been with? What would you say are some of the barriers?
Wafaa: The way I started, I think was in a way maybe lucky, because the team and the leaders I worked with from the beginning, it was very clear to me that we are of service to the people. And that especially also when I moved to Somalia, I remember one of my bosses used to say: our bosses are the Somali people, when we are working for a Somali operation. And I think for me, the challenge is that we say this, but I think there is a bit of a gap between saying that they are our bosses and our action and our decision making. I believe it is very, very, very important to be able to go to the people, to talk to them, to make their voice heard and also to factor this in all we are doing. But one of the challenges is sometimes also, I've found, that we have these programs, we have certain services, and the goods that we deliver, we work in a certain way. And so sometimes we go to a community, and they would ask for something else, which is not in your package. And I think that's a challenge. It means that we have to really factor the opinion of the people in the design of our programs, and to try to really go out of our sort of - we have to have some flexibility to address what is the priority for the people. And also, I think we're good at engaging the community, maybe in the level of needs assessments and also when we are doing monitoring, but not in every step in between. Which also brings me to something else that I feel very strongly about and I think now, even with the situation that we're seeing with the impact of COVID- 19 - is the role of the local NGOs, because they are always there, before the international actors come, they continue to be there. And they are also there even when some organizations close their programs and so on. So, in a way, I also think they represent the community. In the humanitarian system, we've been talking about localization as part of the reform, as part of the investment, but I think we need to do better. Not only to give the organization resources to implement things, but rather to empower them so that they can become self sustainable, they can get their own resources, they can work in a more systematic way.
Safa: When it comes to building collaborations or partnerships, whether that's with local NGOs, or perhaps government counterparts, what have been some of your experiences with navigating the power dynamics that exist, in terms of everybody's agenda, or their perspective, and how to overcome any of the differences that sometimes come up?
Wafaa: Maybe I can talk about relationship with governments, because, you know, the Humanitarian Mandate has come from General Assembly Resolution 4682, which also states that in times of crisis or emergencies, the first responsibility is with the government. And the government has to provide the people who are in need with protection, with services, and then the international system with the request from the government, they come in, and they provide support in coordination with the government. So for me, I think, I always find that we really have to work very closely with the government, because we are in the support role, and they are in the lead role. So I think this sort of like balance between who's supporting and who's in the lead role is very important. My experience has been sometimes, when you work in like conflict settings, I think it's been a challenging relationship, because you want to go to certain areas, sometimes maybe you are not allowed to. And sometimes also, you have to as an organization make public statements to say, you know, we could not go to this area and so on. But what I found that was very good, is that as long as you're also consistent and credible and transparent, then you will gain the trust of the government, even if they don't or would not, for example, agree or endorse everything. But what I also got to know is that the government is not like one thing, you know? It's not like us and them. Even within the government, you have some actors that are more political, you have actors who our technical, and you have actors at the sub national level. So you also have to build relationships at all levels. And I found that there are always entry points where you are able to get allies, explain your point of view. And also, even if you, for example - to be very quite predictable. So I found that sometimes the government would say that, if you have an issue, you are going to the donors before you're coming to us. And I think things like this should not happen. So if there is any issue, they should not be surprised - because we are there to support them. And I find that if you're consistent and transparent in working with the government, you are able to get their trust and also try to find entry points. One challenge that we're facing now is that we have a large number of crises that have been protracted and they have been going on for 10 years, 15 years, even 20 years. And I found that for the humanitarian system, it is also very important to try as much as possible, where feasible, and where there is opportunity, and where there is no harm, and where you can reach the people - to try to strengthen or work with the government system. And this way, gradually, you know, there will be more sustainability and support in that regard.
Safa: You mentioned how in some countries there are protracted conflicts or there cycles of conflict - and you've had some experiences specifically where you worked in the same country twice or in different roles or with different agencies, I think in Somalia and Syria. Could you speak about that experience of maybe leaving and coming back to a country in a different role or just having a different role in a context where you've been before, and what that has been like in terms of the work that you've done or your perspective about the fact that there are protracted conflicts or how that continues to unfold?
Wafaa: In Syria, I worked first with the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, I was the Deputy of the Office. And, I believe in in many settings, when you want to make change, collective action, I think it's very important. So as OCHA, our role was to support bringing the organization together. One of the challenges that we were facing was, because it was a country in conflict, is to try to reach people that are in places where it's not easy to go there, because you know, some of these areas are under control of armed opposition groups so you need to negotiate with them, you need to negotiate with the government, because the government is also responsible for the people. And I think one of the things was that it's very important to have collective action, and also to be able to prioritize, and to try to give the support as per the priority of the people. So I think that was what we were doing with OCHA there. But when I moved to UNICEF, UNICEF had also been in the country, with a smaller presence, for over a longer period of time, to advise the government, mainly at policy level, for policy support, but not at the level of service delivery, like providing services. And I think one of the challenges is that, for example, while you had a country in conflict, we wanted to have a large scale vaccination program. And this life vaccination program, you had a government system at the technical level, the ministry, the health departments at the different levels, all the sub levels - which was functioning, they had very capable people, technical people. So the choice programmatically was to work through this system, that is in all parts of the country, including in areas under the control of them on opposition group. But we faced criticism from some actors about how come you are using the government system, for example, to deliver a vaccination program? However, I think you have to think about what you're doing now and what you're doing in the long term. And as long as you have oversight of the vaccine going to the children, they're using technical people who are capable, who know the work, who have the baseline - so this was our decision, it was the right thing to do. I think also, when you are engaged in these settings, one lesson learned for me was that if there are institutions that are providing services, you have to see how you can work with them to make sure that there would be sort of like, you know, an exit system and so you don't destroy a whole system of service, especially if it was working well. And also the other thing, when you have opportunity, even in fragile context, when you have opportunity to work at the local level, and to empower the local actors, we have to do this. Otherwise, we will not get out of the protracted crisis. I think also in terms of protracted crisis, one of the challenges is that when you are in conflict setting - in the past, we used to think of it as very linear. You know, you have emergency, you have recovery, you have development - but in reality, it doesn't work like this. And we know that we really all of us have to work together at the same time whenever there's an opportunity to address the longer term. And I think that's why in some places, we are not able to pull out or exit from the humanitarian response, because the people still have no means to just go on with their lives and to be able to access services and so on.
Safa: You mentioned this non- linear path or the fluctuation between emergency and non emergency contexts - when it comes to working at the level of policy and working at the level of political will and building political will, what have been some of the maybe strategies you've used to support the positions or argue for the positions that perhaps your organization is trying to put forth with a government counterpart or another partner? Have there been any tips or strategies that have helped you in terms of building that political support?
Wafaa: I'll share with you my experience from Indonesia. I was responsible for two provinces called Papua and West Papua, and in a city called Jayapura. And I think the government there, they were very rich in terms of resources. So our input was not really to provide financial resources, but to influence policy, to influence budgeting, allocation of budgets and the kind of programs run by the government. We were working with the Department of Health, with Water, with Education. But maybe I'll give an example from our work with the Department of Education. There was an issue of the community there where the density was not very high. And so one of the approaches of trying to provide education support in some of the remote villages was to be able to have teachers and a curriculum where they can teach multiple different grades at the same time. So this was one example. And what we actually did was that we took a number of schools, and we sat with the community, and with the government at the local level, and we designed the program, and we invested in this program, and we were monitoring the program, the impact, the problem. And then at the end of the day, we presented this as an example, to say, this is like a business case, you know, this is a way where things can be done to provide education in a way thats designed for that community. And I was very happy because the government, when they had other donors coming to ask for support, they called us for the meeting. And they said, you know, UNICEF are our technical advisors, and we have this model that we've worked collectively on. And then we would like you to replicate it in other areas. Maybe also to add that in that area, malaria was also a huge problem, especially women who were pregnant were particularly vulnerable. And so we had a program to support the training of midwives in detecting and treating malaria in pregnant women. We had the curriculum and everything. And rather than saying, okay, we're going to train midwives this year, and repeat the training. We had a partnership with the Institute that was responsible for the training of midwives, and it become part of their curriculum. So there was a number of steps. And then they adopted this approach as part of their curriculum. So every midwife that had to be graduated, would go to this school, she will be trained, and part of the training will be how to address malaria among pregnant women. And I think these are a couple of examples, where it shows that you can work to lead an impact that is more systematic, where then the government are putting their own resources and scaling things up. This brings me to the point that sometimes people think that the role of the UN is to provide services. And in my view, I think maybe our largest role is to be - well, I think, okay, we have the convener role - but also to be the technical adviser where you can provide a business case. Because you know, to influence policy, you need to provide some sort of evidence, why would they adopt this policy if it is not cost effective, if it is not proven, etc. And I think that was a very good approach in Papua and was very, very rewarding because we invested a small amount of money, for a government that had huge resources for these services, yet they were able to adopt this and to make significant change.
Safa: Mm hmm. In some situations where you've worked in a country or a context where there is some internal political issue, how has it been to try to maintain, I guess, a sense of neutrality or maintain a non political stance while still trying to work in a context that is facing political issues or tensions?
Wafaa: When you read the text and the principles, I think, I also quite early on, I benefited from the humanitarian principles, which, you know, human suffering should be addressed where it is, neutrality, that you don't take sides, and also impartiality, that the system should be only based on need, and not, for example, by political motivation, and so on. But I think in reality, my personal experience has been that this is also quite challenging. What makes it challenging is that the UN has different hats. So maybe I'll give you an example, not to speak abstract. In Somalia, I think the needs were quite severe, because we had a very bad drought in 2006, at that time, and also there was huge malnutrition among children in different parts of the country. And there was a transitional government. But at the same time, there were some groups that were extremists group, fighting with the government. And so, for you to try to maintain the humanitarian space, which is that, you know, we are only there to provide life saving assistance to the people. And to keep that distinction for the humanitarian action, in reality, in some contexts has been a challenge. But I think the way we try to manage it was, I think, to be very, very transparent with the government. And to explain to them that as humanitarian actors, what we are doing, why there are certain things, for example, that we can not do. I recall, there was one time we stopped some of the support to some of the Ministries. So you have to have this balance. To be able to speak to all actors, you have to stick to the principles but at the same time, you have to also be transparent and engage with the government because at the end of the day, the government is responsible. I think I found that when you are in these complex situations, and when you're trying to make decisions , it is quite complex. And I think maybe the good way that we were trying to respond, is that it was not one person who's making a decision, we come as a team and try to have a discussion and also to look at what is likely to happen if we do this. We have a saying: to be guided by the best interest of children, to be guided by the best interest of the people. So these decisions are quite complex in reality, but I found transparency and consistency with all the actors is what has has been our approach. But I have to say, there's many times when you really come to make difficult decisions when you are in those context.
Safa: Mm hmm. You mentioned the importance of transparency - as you've progressed and taken on senior roles or positions of leadership, how has it been to be responsible, I guess, for perhaps processes of accountability and transparency? Or have you ever had experiences or challenges of facing maybe a case of abuse of authority or mismanagement Have you had to face those type of situations?
Wafaa: I was working in Pakistan, and we had a challenge with one of our partners. And there was a case of fraud that we had to investigate, dealing with the partner. And the partners were very well connected at the local level. And they were trying to really influence the decisions by that organization and try to use their network and to try to sort of like question the process, the credibility of the process, and so on. While we know that we have followed a very thorough process on that. And I think the organization was saying, in terms of like, you know, they would be zero tolerance for fraud for the organization, for the partners of the organization, and so on. So we had to make a decision. And I was responsible for that area, as the most senior person responsible for that geographical region where we had this problem. So I had to advise my management on what decisions and what action to take. And I thought about it and I think I was very clear that we have to - because we told our partners that if we find cases of fraud, we are going to terminate that agreement. And I took that decision and I advised the management. And I also tried to explain to my colleagues at the senior team why we should go through with that path of termination - because we had an issue of insecurity. So we were not able to have good access to all the areas. You know , it's very common, it's not just limited to this context, in many contexts where you are not able to have regular access, you could have this risk of fraud. But I think I also wanted to set an example to the team that when we say something about the principles, we act on it, and I knew that it's going to be a difficult position, because then I ended up facing challenges with the partners, because these partners mobilized and accused me personally, but I think eventually, at the end of the day, it was the right thing to do. We sent a clear message to all the partners that you know, when we say zero tolerance, then there is zero tolerance. The thing is that when it comes to principled action, if a time comes and then you don't act on what you say is important, despite it being difficult - I think people as they say they really listen to your actions rather than your words. And I think this is one of the examples that was was very important for us to have this response. For me its also about how do you have a systemic response to address this kind of risk? For example, in this case, we had a risk of fraud in use of the resources. And I think one of the things, it is not done only in that place, but there was this shift in what we call an approach where rather than you give a partner resources for a specific activity, they do the proposal, you do the monitoring, you rather assess them and look at what are their gaps in terms of their organization? Do they have checks and balances to make sure that it's not the same person who's buying, who's signing? Do they get audited? And we started also investing in working with the partners to put these systems in place, because we also want the partners to have capacity, to work with transparency, to work with credibility and to deliver to the people.
Safa: And as you say you know, the importance of principled action and really walking the talk, implementing the zero tolerance policies that are spoken about even though there is sometimes you know, negative pushback, as you say, you experienced some personal attacks based on that decision. On the podcast, we also often talk about some of the more internal issues in terms of the work culture of organizations or the hierarchies that exist among staff members - so in thinking about perhaps some of those broader issues, could you speak in little bit about your own experiences when it comes to perhaps being a woman in a position of leadership or being a Sudanese woman or, you know, making that transition from being a national staff member to international staff member? What have been some of your own experiences in terms of how your identity has influenced the work that you do?
Wafaa: Thank you so much Safa, I think this is an interesting question. I think I came across this different treatment between national staff and international staff, starting in my experience in Sudan. And I recall in the beginning, in those days, this has changed now - but in those days, you would go on a field trip, like, you know, we travel out of the capital to a location in the field with your international colleagues, you get like an allowance for every day you are outside of the capital, because you have to find and rent a place and to eat and things like this. But we were not paid the same rate. So if you are a national, you are paid a certain rate. And if you are International, you are paid a different rate. And I think in those days, while many times we would be staying - unless you have family in that area, you would stay maybe in the same guest house or hotel and things like that. So I was always asking: why is this, why is that? I had this experience, and then when I moved to Somalia, I think it struck me again, because at that time, I was based mainly in Somalia itself, in the field. And we had a very high level of insecurity. We had lost colleagues when I was there, some of our colleagues were actually killed. So it was quite difficult, you know, somebody who was with you in the office, to be attacked by someone in the street and shot at so it was highly insecure. Yet at that time, also, the level of insecurity was quite high so the sort of like assessment was that we have to try to maintain these programs, because if these program, especially if you have a nutrition program, if you have a program that is supporting water, these are really very, very important programs in the sense of life saving, and especially I'm talking about supporting vaccination together with the World Health Organization and nutrition programs. But then, whenever an incident happened, you know, when people were kidnapped, including the International staff, we were asked to say, the international staff, you have to leave, and the national staff will continue to do the work, and you can support them remotely, and many offices have back offices in Nairobi. But then this actually troubled me a lot personally, because I would talk to my national colleagues and first for them, they had a sense that whenever the international staff goes, it means things get worse, if something happens to them, nobody will be able to sort of like follow up and negotiate and to release the staff. And also, I think, with some of the colleagues, we started looking at the data. And when you look at the data, you find the incidence of those who are most affected by kidnapping, or attacks or incidents at their houses, are actually the national staff. So that response was based on - I think it's coming from a good place that the national staff have the protection of their community, they know the area, they know where to go, they know what to do, but as international staff you are more vulnerable. But this is not really what has been happening in reality, because we don't have the guest houses, we don't have security. So I think we really have to act based on a sharp understanding of the risk. And I think we used to have those discussions. And we started a few of us saying: you know what, no, we are not going to be evacuated. Yes, we will reduce the number, because if a problem happens, then you don't want to have a very large number of people that you cannot move out in plane or in a car. But we want to make sure that at all times, if we reduce, there should be some international staff staying and I think also, there were security allowance for the International staff, but not for the national staff. And I think my Head of Organization at that time really made the case and so all the agencies started giving the national staff an allowance so that in your house, you can make some reinforcement, if you have glass, you can put some protecting sheet so that the glass would not shutter on you - and these things were not done before. I'm talking about more than 15, 16 years ago. I think things have improved now, but this was quite stark at that time, in terms of the different treatment of national staff, international staff. I also think that we have to think whenever we have capacity in national staff, we have many very, very capable national staff. And I think also that even in the structure of the organization, we really have to have more senior national positions, they are more effective in the programming, they know the country. Of course you have to make sure also that you have like, you know, a balanced approach within the office. So I think this has been, for me , very Important. And to have that balance between the international the national staff - we are, you know, you work outside your country, you work in your country, but we are both international civil servants. And one thing also maybe to mention briefly is that we also have this system where the international staff, who are away from their families, and the families can not join them, because the place is not secure, they would be given like a break, maybe every six weeks you would be given five days to visit family and come back. And this was like a compulsory break on top of your annual leave. But then also, we were in some very critical situations where we had national staff who were recruited not from the community, and because of the requirements of the work, they were required to stay and work and work throughout the weekend, without any break. And so I think there was some policy change taken by managers that this staff would take what was called them "compressed time off", so that when they do maybe two months, they could also be given a break. So there was discussion about how could these things become a policy, because at the end of the day, your response as an organization, with a duty of care to your staff for the security, should be based on the risk and the need, and not just this blank, international and national staff distinction.
Safa: You bring up so many important examples and points when it comes to the differential treatment. But when you think about, I guess, how maybe things have changed or not changed, or the ways in which these conversations are happening with management or amongst staff members, do you see these conversations happening? Or have you been part of addressing these issues in terms of the places you've worked in? Or do you still think it's overlooked or not discussed enough, are not a priority enough issue in terms of addressing it?
Wafaa: I think, to be honest, I was very pleased that since my start as a Program Assistant to where I am now, I think there is significant improvement. I think there is a realization that its not only the right thing to do, but also the effective thing to do. And I think also in many countries, we found the national staff at the bone of the operations, because they are there, they have the institutional memory, they know the context. But I think also within that, you have to be conscious of bringing diversity, even among the national staff, to make sure that you also have female representation in the office space, in differentials role. If the country also has the groups with different experiences, just to make sure that you are true to the sense of diversity - once the competence or the qualification is assured across all people, then you also have to make sure that you have that diversity. I think also, it's about making sure that the national staff have a voice, in terms of like management, that in every organization, every team, they will have a voice in the management team. A good thing that I appreciate now is that the decision making mechanisms, where you have a leader who has to make a decision - for example, when I was responsible as the Chief of Field Office to make decisions and to be accountable for it, I had have to have a consultative mechanism. You have to have a team where you discuss things with your staff. And I think that really now there is a voice for the national colleagues and there is a recognition of their role. And there's a lot of good practices in place. So I definitely think that good progress has been made over the years on this issue.
Safa: You know, now there are a lot of conversations happening about systemic racism or white supremacy culture in a lot of organizations within the development sector but also scores in other sectors as well - in your experiences or in the countries you've worked in, or their organizations, have you seen critical conversations happening around this issue or ways in which people are addressing these issues?
Wafaa: Yes, I think one of the things that we have been discussing for quite some time now is the issue of inclusion and diversity, starting in the workforce. Because I think, my experience is that we have made a lot of progress in terms of having more female representation, including some of the more senior roles, although I think we still have to do more in terms of having more females at the senior role. But also in terms of diversity to really make sure that your team - because you know as as we work for the United Nations, you're representing the 193 member states. So I think there's a lot of discussion in terms of addressing diversity, and also statistics are being provided in terms of are we a diverse enough team? I think the next step would also be, which I think is still a work in progress, but the culture of the organization itself has to also reflect this diversity. So for example, who is a successful employee in your organization? Is it someone who's, for example, a native English speaker who can write very well in English? While maybe there is somebody else, who could be maybe not as good in writing in English, but who is very good in partnership building. You need all this kinds of skill sets. I always believe that everybody brings their own niche, depending on their experiences and backgrounds. And I think we could do more in managing diversity better. I personally, as a manager, see that I need to do better, I've been trying also to read, how can we manage diversity better in the culture itself, in the way things are being done, in the way people are being assessed? Recently, we've also been raising the issue of racism and how can we address this issue and how to create safe spaces that people can speak about their experiences.
Safa: The UN reform processes that are happening and your involvement with them - could you speak to us a bit about that process, and maybe the priorities within that, but also, I guess, the challenges when it comes to such a big bureaucracy, every agency of course has their own, but in terms of shifting work culture in such a big overwhelming bureaucracy, what is that like?
Wafaa: So the UN reform has three pillars. And I think it's very good, because the pillars of the UN reform, and I will come to them, are things that can be done by the UN internally. So it's decisions that they don't necessarily have to be negotiated with all the member states. But they are decisions that will make the UN work more effectively. And one of them is the reform for the peace and the security. And the UN has a pillar that works on conflict prevention, peace building -so this more of the political part. And then you also have a division that is working on peacekeeping operations, where you deploy peacekeeping operations at geographic locations or places or countries where you have conflict. So the first part of their focus i to really to bring this together, and to make sure there's also more investment in the political engagement to create peace and to address conflict and the root causes of conflict. And so that these departments will work very closely together as part of the reform. And the second part of the reform is about the management of the reform. And I think one of the things that I feel closely about because I have been closer to the field is to decentralize decision making - close to the field location, so that the people that are in the field and are delegated from the headquarters, you don't have to go to headquarter for everything - to make decisions, for example, about procurement in your office and so on. Because one of the challenges has been that these things take a lot of time, there are opportunities that we can do things in the field more effectively and more efficiently. So this is one element of the reform. And that last part is the development system reform, whereby in every country, we have a team from the UN agencies, we call them UN country teams, And these UN country teams are usually led by a senior UN official who represents like, basically, the Secretary General in that given country. And his role is the Resident Coordinator, and in cases where you have a larger maybe emergency or humanitarian response, many times they can also be designated as a Humanitarian Coordinator. And in the past, before the reform, the head of UNDP was playing the role also of the Resident Coordinator. And I think with the reform, these two posts were delinked, so now you have a Resident Coordinator who is fully dedicated to coordinate the work of the United Nation. I think also the offices of the Resident Coordinator will have a team with very critical skills in terms of really improving our analysis, our understanding of the situation to be able also to support the government better. And also, we should not have like a cookie cutter approach whereby every country would have the same - so all the UN agencies would be the same in every country, but the way we work has to be cost effective and it has to match the priorities of that specific government. And this will also help us to sort of like accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals. And I have worked with a coordinating agency, I have worked with an agency that had a specific mandate, and I think sometimes you have this challenge between the collective mandate and the mandate of the respective agency. But I think for me, it's a win win situation. So the Resident Coordinator could be in a place where you really bring all actors to the table, that you are also supporting them, that you are empowering them. I have seen it work quite well. So I think this is in the making. You know, this is I think the first year in the implementation of the, for example, the Resident Coordinator system of reform. And I always say try to bring people to think not of our sort of like mandate, but priorities of the government, priorities of the people. What can you do collectively? And I also believe - even in conflicts, my experience has been that when we had challenges, either to get access or to negotiate with partners, with government, the more the collective worked better, the more effective we were. And I think this is something is very, very important. And I feel strongly about.
Safa: Yes, as you say, the more we work collectively, the better it can be. Would you say that over the years, your motivations have changed in any way? Or how do you think about the work that you do now, perhaps, as compared to when you first started, and just the impact of the international development and humanitarian aid sector?
Wafaa: I've always been motivated, Safa, by trying to be of service. This has been a huge motivation for me. And one of my favorite quotes is from a poem by the poet called Pryor, he used to say: remember, you are only one, but you are one. You cannot do everything, but you can do something. And I think sometimes we can really be overwhelmed by the crisis that we see, by the scale of things. And we think we cannot really make a difference. But I really believe in that collectively, the community work, if people come together, everybody can contribute something, and then together this becomes something big. So that has been my motivation. But I think now, having worked, you know, all these years, and I'm very grateful for all the privilege and the opportunity, not only to have a job, but also to work in a job that I find huge satisfaction, I think, also, I really want to try to use my experiences, and to advance certain things that I see that would really help the system work much better. And one of these things is really to support localization. To support local actors - as I think I mentioned earlier, not only for them to receive resources to do services, but to really have a voice, to be able to stand on their feet, to work as a sustainable organization, and to be able to have at least their core staffing, because I think it will become cost effective. It will also be, in terms of programming, more effective. And we have seen this, when we invest in this happens more and more. So this is for me, really one of the areas that I really want to support, invest, advocate on, in that regard. I think also, I really see our role, not just - of course we are there to support the government and that's very important, but I think we need to broaden our partnership. I've seen over the years, there is a huge potential by bringing other partners to the table. I give you an example earlier on from working with academia. Also the civil society actors, many of them, you know, they're engaged, they are doing their own work, we need to bring them to the table, especially in areas where we're doing work on advocacy. The private sector - I think the private sector, especially maybe people think that the private sector should not be the answer, but the private sector, I found that in urban settings, you know, they have social corporate responsibility, and you can engage with them, and they will be able to make a difference for the people. And I also found that there are many young people that have technology, they're having these innovation labs. So for example, even like in Sudan, one of the countries that I am also supporting - when the COVID-19 impact has happened, and there was some restriction, for example, of markets, and so on. There was this innovation hub that has opened through social media and used to come up with solutions for what else can women who are working the informal sector do to gain an income? And you know, people come up with ideas and say how maybe they can form a market in a different way. And I think also having more room for people to do innovation - because I think innovation and research and new ideas are also part of the resources for us to solve the problem, and we should not only focus on the financial aspect. So these are some of the things that I am trying now to promote. And I will continue to support in my work.
Safa: You know, sometimes there's a tension between wanting change to happen, but it taking a lot of time, or as you say, it doesn't happen in a linear way, somethings change, but then they regress, and then they change again. How have you been able to kind of navigate or respond or deal with that type of tension between systemic change, maybe taking more time than perhaps we would like?
Wafaa: So I think the thing is that - you know, when you work, you can deliver a certain service, you know, you can build an institution or hospital or you can train people. give them new skills. But if you want to change the behavior of people or action people in a given kind of area, I think it's understood that this requires really a lot of investment. I will give an example from Sudan about female genital mutilation. I think this is something that has been, in my own country, very prevalent with estimation that over the past years, I don't know the exact figure get now but it's more than maybe 95% of girls who would undergo this female genital cutting or mutilation. And there are different forms of it. And the extreme one, which is maybe not in the capital but maybe in some of the other areas - the impact could be in terms of psychological impact, health impact, could be quite devastating, even putting the lives of girls and women at risk. And I think, since I was in Sudan, only this year was the legislation passed to sort of ban FGM - its been finally approved at all levels of government. So this is like, you can imagine this started how many years ago - there have been a large number of people, activists, social workers, development workers working on this issue. And I think the point is that we really have to have patience, you have to have persistence, you have to have alliances, and you have to understand why people do this. And I think sometimes people think, okay, because it is a cultural thing, you have many societies where the people have to conform, like, even for example, my mother would believe this is not the right thing to do, but what about what the people in the neighbourhood say and so on? For some people it is actually a business, you know, it's a source of living. So then you really have to not give into frustration, but also to accelerate things, which means really having persistence and having alliances and having people who are quite dedicated to make these kind of changes happen in a society where things have been done like this for so many years.
Safa: Sometimes on the podcast, we talk about the difference between addressing symptoms of a problem and addressing the root causes, do you find that that kind of deeper analysis or that type of thinking about, okay, what are actually root causes do stick that's really happening enough at the level of UN work or development work, maybe not so much humanitarian responses, but more so in the development work?
Wafaa: Absolutely, because I think we have now many contexts where, for example, if you are in a country where you have new conflict, new crisis - so the global number of people who are in need are increasing beyond the capacity of the system - so the system can't stretch so much. I think even over the past year, there has been this discussion, you know, you cannot just keep on adding new crisis and so on. So you really have to understand the root causes and to really make a call to say, you know what, really other actors need to step in and to address the root causes. I would say there was a lot of significant improvements in refining the analysis. So as you mentioned, there are the symptoms, but why are these issues happening, why are they not going away? Who need to do what? What are the systemic changes that are required? So I think this is happening, increasingly taking place in terms of trying to really address the root cause of problems. And I think also, now there is a lot of focus on improving the analysis. What I'll say is that we have to also now, make sure that because situations are changing so rapidly, and we have to, from the development side, also to try to support the, for example, the national system for statistics, because otherwise, my sense is that sometimes the efforts could be scattered. So different actors, you know, the UN in the development site, they have the Common Country Assessment, which is so huge, it's for the whole country, it takes such a long time that the time it's finalized, some things have changed. While I think also, the more we embed this into the government systems and also have systems in place that will establish the root causes, but to be able to also, in very agile ways, start to update this kind of work. So definitely, there is a lot of attention on addressing the root causes, and really telling the story about what is it, why it is happening and so on. But I think as much as this is important, it's also important in any analysis, including from the root causes, to try to understand the views of the people themselves. I think for me, this is something I also believe strongly about in any analysis, whether from the development side or from the humanitarian side, the voice of the people, what do they want, what are their priorities, what can they bring? I think it's something very, very important and we can do much better on that.
Safa: Do you think about perhaps working in Sudan again, or what are your feelings after having worked internationally for so long about perhaps working in your home country?
Wafaa: Yes, I'm thinking about that. And actually, I spent the first six months of this year in Sudan, because the government actually of Sudan had asked the United Nations to deploy some capacity support them - and you know, Sudan is going to a transitional government now. And I worked in Sudan for six months with the Ministry, just to provide them with advice, and so on. So it has really helped me to understand, for example, the challenges and the opportunities and how the government system works, and so on. So I think this was very, very rewarding, to see the capacities in country of young people, amazing young people - the way that they're working, the way that they're organizing, and so on. I've thought about also going back and working in my own country and contributing to working in my own country. I'm actually thinking about, maybe I would retire early from the system, and go back and try to contribute my experiences. But I also, to be honest, came back with a sense of humility. Because I think there are so many people from different, different walks of life, whether from the civil society, or the academia, or even the young people with amazing skills, ideas, competence. And I think also for me, I take with me a lot of humility, whenever I'm reaching out to other actors to engage and what I bring to the table. So this was also a eye opener for me.
Safa: Yes, well, whatever the journey takes you, we wish you all the best. And thank you so much for speaking with us and sharing your thoughts.
Wafaa: Thank you so much. I thank you for first, for doing what you're doing Safa, I really appreciate it and I could sense your commitment to these issues. So I want to say a huge thank for the opportunity to talk to you. I think we had a good discussion. And thank you so much for the opportunity.
Safa: Thank you so much for speaking with us Wafaa. Thank you also to our listeners, we invite you to join in on the conversation! You can do this in a couple of different ways.
Number one, you can send us a short voice message sharing one specific ethical issue you have faced in your work - you can visit our website and hit the send us a voice message button for more details.
Or number two, you can email us a short letter to your younger self, sharing what you wish you had known when you first started working in this sector, or tips about some of the things you have learned over the years.
You can also keep up to date with our latest episodes and offerings by signing up for our newsletter, listening and subscribing to our podcasts on your preferred podcast player and following us on social media.
On our website you can also find a donation link where you can choose either a one time donation or reoccurring monthly donation option to help us cover our production costs.
Thank you again for tuning in. I look forward to continue this conversation with you all next time. Until then, take care.
