Closing well: national and international humanitarian workers’ perspectives on the ethics of closing humanitarian health projects

Journal of International Humanitarian Action - Tập 5 Số 1 - 2020
Matthew Hunt1, Lisa Eckenwiler2, Shelley-Rose Hyppolite3, John Pringle4, Nicole Pal5, Ryoa Chung6
1School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation, Montréal, Canada
2Department of Philosophy, Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, USA
3Public Health Office of the CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale, and Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Canada
4Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
5School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montréal, Canada
6Department of Philosophy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Tóm tắt

AbstractProject closure is a core feature of humanitarian action. However, how decisions to end projects are made, and how closure is planned and implemented, has implications for upholding ethical commitments, and can have positive or negative consequences for affected communities, local stakeholders, and humanitarian organizations and their staff. To better understand the ethical dimensions of closing humanitarian projects, we undertook an investigation of national and international humanitarian workers’ experiences.Guided by interpretive description methodology, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study with two rounds of semi-structured interviews. Four national and five international staff of non-governmental organizations with experience of humanitarian health project closure took part. The participants had diverse professional roles and disciplinary backgrounds. All participants took part in the first round of interviews which focused on experiences and perceptions of ethics and project closure. Analysis of these interviews contributed to the development of a draft “ethics guidance note.” Five of the participants took part in the second round of interviews which focused on receiving feedback on the draft guidance note. We used constant comparative techniques and a recursive approach to data collection and analysis. In this article, we draw on both rounds of interviews to present findings related to how participants understood and experienced ethical responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities for humanitarian project closure.We identified six recurrent ethical concerns highlighted by interviewees regarding closure of humanitarian projects: respectfully engaging with partners and stakeholders, planning responsively, communicating transparently, demonstrating care for local communities and staff during project closure, anticipating and acting to minimize harms, and attending to sustainability and project legacy. We present these ethical concerns according to the temporal horizon of humanitarian action, that is, arising across five phases of a project’s timeline: design, implementation, deciding whether to close, implementing closure, and post-closure.This exploratory study contributes to discussions concerning the ethics of project closure by illuminating how they are experienced and understood from the perspectives of national and international humanitarian workers. The interview findings contributed to the development of an ethics guidance note that aims to support project closures that minimize harms and uphold values, while being mindful of the limits of ethical ideals in non-ideal circumstances.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abu-Sada C, Mambetova K (2012) Dilemmas, challenges, and ethics of humanitarian action: reflections on Médecins Sans Frontières’ Perception Project. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

Alliance CH (2014) Core humanitarian standard on quality and accountability. CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and the Sphere Project. Available from: https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf

Anderson MB (1999) Do no harm: how aid can support peace--or war. Lynne Rienner Publishers, London

Anderson MB, Brown D, Jean I (2012) Time to listen: hearing people on the receiving end of international aid. CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Cambridge

British Red Cross (n.d.) Exit strategy guidance. Available from: http://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/20720/25507/EN_Exit_strategy.docx

Broussard G, Rubenstein LS, Robinson C, Maziak W, Gilbert SZ, DeCamp M (2019) Challenges to ethical obligations and humanitarian principles in conflict settings: a systematic review. J Int Humanit Action. 4(1):15

De Waal A (2010) The humanitarians’ tragedy: escapable and inescapable cruelties. Disasters. 34:S130–S137

Ford N, Bedell R (2001) Justice and MSF operational choices. Médecins sans Frontières-Holland, Amsterdam

Ford N, Zachariah R, Mills E, Upshur R (2010) Defining the limits of emergency humanitarian action: where, and how, to draw the line? Public Health Ethics. 3(1):68–71

Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice. Power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Fuller L (2006) Justified commitments? Considering resource allocation and fairness in Medécins Sans Frontières-Holland. Dev World Bioeth 6(2):59–70

Gerstenhaber R (2014) Handover Toolkit 2.0 “Success is also measured by what you leave behind”. Médecins Sans Frontières, Geneva Available from: https://evaluation.msf.org/sites/evaluation/files/handover_toolkit.pdf

Global CCCM Cluster. Camp closure guidelines. 2014. Available from: http://www.globalcccmcluster.org/system/files/publications/Camp_Closure_Guidelines.pdf

Gustavsson ME, Arnberg FK, Juth N, von Schreeb J (2020) Moral distress among disaster responders: what is it? Prehosp Disaster Med.:1–8

Hunt M, Miao J (2018) Moral entanglements and the closing of humanitarian projects. In: Ahmad A, Smith J (eds) Humanitarian action ethics. Zed Books, London, pp 22–29

Hunt M, Schwartz L, Sinding C, Elit L (2014) The ethics of engaged presence: a framework for health professionals in humanitarian assistance and development work. Dev World Bioeth. 14(1):47–55

Hunt M, Sinding C, Schwartz L (2013) Tragic choices in humanitarian healthcare practice. J Clin Ethics. 23(4):338–344

Hurst SA, Mezger N, Mauron A (2009) Allocating resources in humanitarian medicine. Public Health Ethics. 2(1):88–89

IFRC. Exit strategy guidance. 2016. Available from: https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/01/TOOL-16-Exit-strategy-guidance.docx

Jamar A (2016) Breakfast in Aidland: quotidian relations and structural contradictions. Allegra Lab

Kurasawa F (2007) The work of global justice: human rights as practices. Cambridge University Press, United States of America

Lee SY, Özerdem A (2015) Exit strategies. In: Ginty RM, Peterson JH (eds) The Routledge companion to humanitarian action. Routledge, New York, pp 372–384

Lincoln YS, Lynham SA, Guba EG (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. Sage Handb Qual Res 4:97–128

Maxwell D (1999) Programmes in chronically vulnerable areas: challenges and lessons learned. Disasters. 23(4):373–384

McGoldrick C (2011) The future of humanitarian action: an ICRC perspective. Int Rev Red Cross. 93(884):965–991

Orach CG, De Brouwere V (2005) Integrating refugee and host health services in West Nile districts, Uganda. Health Policy Plan. 21(1):53–64

Pal N, Eckenwiler L, Hyppolite S-R, Pringle J, Chung R, Hunt M (2019) Ethical considerations for closing humanitarian projects: A scoping review. J Int Humanit Action. 4:17

Redfield P (2012) The unbearable lightness of ex-pats: double binds of humanitarian mobility. Cult Anthropol. 27(2):358–382

Richardson HS (2012) Moral entanglements: the ancillary-care obligations of medical researchers. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Roth S (2012) Professionalisation trends and inequality: experiences and practices in aid relationships. Third World Q. 33(8):1459–1474

Rubenstein J (2015) Between Samaritans and States: the political ethics of humanitarian INGOs. OUP, Oxford

Slim H (2015) Humanitarian ethics: a guide to the morality of aid in war and disaster. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Solidarités International. Solidarités international operational framework. 2016. Available from: https://www.solidarites.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Solidarités-International-operational-framework.pdf

Sphere Association (2018) Sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response. Practical Action. Available from: https://spherestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Sphere-Handbook-2018-EN.pdf

Thorne S (2000) Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs 3(3):68–70

Thorne S (2016) Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice. Routledge, New York

World Health Organization (n.d.) Chapter 11 phasing out. In: Managing WHO humanitarian response in the field Available from: https://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/tools/manuals/who_field_handbook/11/en/

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of International Humanitarian Action

Tập 5 Số 1

Thông tin tác giả