Andriy Klepikov, Executive Director of the Alliance for Public Health (APH), Ukraine

In Episode 3, ALNAP director Juliet Parker meets Andriy Klepikov, executive director of the Alliance for Public Health (APH) in Ukraine.  Juliet speaks to Andriy about the adjustments APH has had to make since Ukraine's war with Russia began and the learning that has been pulled through from previous work into this new reality. Andriy explains APH's partnership with Christian Aid and their work together using the survivor and community-led response (sclr) approach. Localisation is a big theme in the discussion.

Follow us on WhatsApp for exclusive releases: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaLBHnR0wak1Rlk7662x

Transcript

Juliet Parker (JP): Welcome to The Learning Curve. My name's Juliet Parker and I'm the Director of ALNAP, the learning network for the humanitarian sector. During this podcast series, we'll be taking the opportunity to talk to a range of people across the sector about what the humanitarian sector would look like if we lived in a world based on learning. I'm delighted to be joined today by Andriy Klepikov, who is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Public Health (APH), in Ukraine, who work on public health and human rights, and of course, over the last two years, have been responding to the changing situation in Ukraine. Welcome, Andriy, and thank you very much for joining me. 

Andriy Klepikov (AK): Thank you. Thank you for having me. 

JP: So, Andriy, APH have been delivering long-term health programming in Ukraine for many years. With the onset of the war, what adjustments have you had to make? What learning were you able to bring from your previous work into this shifted context? 

AK: Yeah, we have been working in Ukraine for 24 years, for now, focusing on public health and human rights, and specifically on HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis area where we are dealing with key populations we call vulnerable, sometimes discriminated, isolated or even criminalised. When the war started, we first of all focused how to protect the people, the most disadvantaged. Those who were vulnerable before the war became much more vulnerable in times when the war started with no social connections, with no income, sometimes forced to move away. 

We already have established contacts and reached to over 200,000 people in the very difficult circumstances, even before the war. So we are built on this network and trust, to provide humanitarian support. If someone comes to me with hunger, starving, and asking for food, I cannot simply reply ‘Sorry, I have only condom for you.’ To be relevant, to be responsive to the people’s needs. And when the war started it was like a kaleidoscope of this need. So, in the first days it was evacuations and it was a need to support to provide some basic food, warm clothes, because it was in the middle of the winter with a temperature below zero degrees. Then it was housing and shelters. So many, many things coming one to another. So, we needed to constantly adjust all this time. 

JP: It was such a dramatic shift in context. Were you able to also access other forms of learning from other parts of the system to support you making the changes? 

AK: We are a Ukrainian organisation, local. So, we are most closely located to the reality. And if change happens, we are about first to know about this. To be honest, we never did humanitarian work before. It emerged in response to the situation. So, of course, it was a big, huge learning for us. And including from the humanitarian organisations focusing on this, such as Christian Aid, with whom we became partnership. Christian Aid came with a huge experience of humanitarian support in many countries. So we learn. 

But it's good to flag that it was not learning from scratch. For example, one of the approaches, such as survivor and community-led response (sclr) is community-based and community support is in our DNA, because we have been building HIV response on community action, on community support, on bringing money and resources to the communities, avoiding all these bureaucratic, you know, obstacles. And it's very important that Christian Aid came not just with the funding, but also with the knowledge and expertise. We try to adjust and adapt them and to see how our people are reacting. It's actually wider than just a targeted community. It's building local, complete local ownership. And it works amazingly.

JP: And what did Christian Aid think of you adapting their approach?

AK: Oh, I think they are happy. They are documenting it right now, actually. So it's also a good sign. Any methodology should be live and also learnt and developed based on the reality. 

JP: Looking back over the last two years in Ukraine, did you see opportunities for learning in the sector that were missed? 

AK: Oh, this is a very important question. I think when the war started nobody expected that it will last for so long. We didn't focus on the learning itself, so we focused on emergency support. We had only, you know, 24 hours a day to respond. So, I think every effort was put to support people. And it's important to focus on the most impactful things. Well, it's a reality if we then have ten asks and we have resources to address five. So, it shouldn't be a random selection. So, it should be based on the learning and now it's even more important because we're also thinking about sustainable interventions, share not only practices, but demonstrate the evidence of a year or two of the war to the government, to municipal authorities to ensure some policy engagement, integrating this into governmental regulations, for example some of the services and interventions we are providing.

JP: What would your message be if the humanitarian sector is serious about learning? What is it that needs to happen?

AK: The big thing is localisation. So, it's important to be rooted and to have direct contact with local civil society and community. Of course, it doesn't exclude any international expertise, rather the opposite. So, international expertise and learning frameworks and past experience or experience from other countries is a huge asset, but it should be really integrated very closely with the local expertise, local civil society and reality we have on the ground.

I think the humanitarian sector, first of all, should look at the reality of the country and what actors are already there. Because it takes time to, you know, parachute down to the country. It takes months to get familiarised with the context. Ukraine demonstrated it very evidently that we have already developed access, we had trust, but we needed this humanitarian funding and some advice and expertise. 

I think humanitarian sector globally is still a big bureaucracy. And bureaucracy creates an obstacle of delivering aid to those most in need. For this we need localised response and very dynamic, agile, based on learning and changing of the environment response. I couldn't imagine how we can go with the same strategy over months, so we always change, we always adjust it. I would say agility is a core essence of the humanitarian response. If we would rate top 10 humanitarian organisations versus agility criteria, I doubt they would get high scores. So, humanitarian response, its for sure should be agile, dynamic, kind of locally-rooted. So, it is a critical for its success.

JP: Andriy, thank you so much for your time to talk to me today on The Learning Curve. The wealth of learning that your organisation brought into a dramatically shifting context was clearly extremely valuable. But I can only imagine the learning curve your own staff at APH have been on this last two years as well. Thank you so much for your time and for your reflections. It's been a real pleasure. 

AK: Thank you so much, Juliet.