Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development in the Framework of New Humanitarianism A SUMMARY BRUSSELS, OCTOBER 2002

Transcription

1 Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development in the Framework of New Humanitarianism A SUMMARY BRUSSELS, OCTOBER 2002 Karlos Pérez de Armiño Professor of International Relations, and researcher in HEGOA (Institute of Development Studies and International Co-operation), Bilbao The original publication was produced in the framework of the Development Education Project supervised by the platform of Spanish NGDOs (CONGDE) during the Spanish EU Presidency. This summary was compiled by Clara Beetz Slattery on behalf of VOICE asbl (Voluntary Organisations In Cooperation in Emergencies), 46 Rue Dejoncker, B-1060 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: , Fax: voice@skynet.be The original Spanish publication was financed by the European Commission Chapter One Introduction The aim of this paper is to analyse the concept of linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) in light of the profound changes that have occurred in humanitarian aid since the early 1990s. Since the end of the Cold War humanitarian aid has been interpreted not only as a means of saving lives and alleviating suffering, but also as a means of promoting development, peace and human rights. Although the debate initially focused on crises triggered by natural disasters, LRRD has more recently been discussed in relation to conflict situations also. The recent application of LRRD to conflict situations has led to doubts about its successful implementation. These doubts have arisen in light of the numerous risks associated with the difficulty of applying LRRD to contexts of political, economic and social instability. The discourse on the successful implementation of LRRD has led to the development of two approaches; firstly, the continuum approach which views LRRD as a chronological succession of the three phases of relief, rehabilitation and development, and secondly, the contiguum approach which implies the simultaneous combination of these three forms of assistance. A distinction is made between relief or emergency aid (ayuda de emergencia), humanitarian aid (ayuda humanitaria) and humanitarian action (acción humanitaria). However, in the context of this paper the author uses the term humanitarian aid to refer to both short term emergency aid as well as long term activities aimed at promoting development. Humanitarian aid has been traditionally conceived as linked to humanitarian principles. This paper, which is divided into seven chapters, looks at the following issues: chapter two, the changes in humanitarian aid since the end of the Cold War, and the basic characteristics of new humanitarianism ; chapter three, the origins and evolution of the debate surrounding LRRD in the context of new humanitarianism ; chapter four, the means by which LRRD can be put into practice; chapter five, the different ways in which LRRD have been implemented by various actors;

2 chapter six, recent criticisms of LRRD, particularly in conflict situations; and chapter seven, conclusion and recommendations. Chapter Two New Humanitarianism Since the end of the Cold War humanitarian aid has experienced changes in its principles, objectives and operational implementation. Prior to this, humanitarian aid was delivered mostly to areas affected by natural disasters to save lives and alleviate suffering. In the early 1990s however, humanitarian aid was increasingly delivered to areas affected by conflict, in other words, areas characterised by very complex, violent and insecure climates. At the same time, in response to the new international political context, donor governments, UN agencies and NGOs are becoming more optimistic about the potential for humanitarian aid. They have started to consider that its objectives could be expanded to include the promotion of future development as well as bring about peace and protect human rights. By engaging in a more integrated approach humanitarian aid can help tackle the causes of crises, and therefore, help prevent future occurrences. Since the 1990s the nature of humanitarian aid has changed considerably resulting in a relatively clear distinction being made between what is now called, new humanitarianism and what preceded it, i.e. classic humanitarianism. The main distinguishing characteristics between the two are: Classic humanitarianism New humanitarianism -Limited and short term objectives -Save lives and alleviate suffering -Provision of assistance for survival -Apolitical and independent -Help victims -Obligatory, victims right -Based on humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence -Unconditional -Independent -Broad and long term objectives -Promote peace and development -Broad objectives such as assistance, protection, defense of human rights, disaster preparedness, conflict prevention -Political and part of an integrated political strategy -Help support political and social processes -No longer obligatory nor is it a victims right -Based on political criteria -Conditional -More control by governments, partially militarised New humanitarianism has been, since the mid-90s, broadly adopted by donor governments, the UN and even many NGOs, and has broken from the classic form of humanitarianism practised prior to the end of the Cold War. Chapter Three Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development: the Debate In the 1980s the LRRD debate emerged in an attempt to achieve a more encompassing solution to

3 the problems experienced by developing communities and the different types of international assistance. It was later adopted in the 90s by new humanitarianism. This debate suggests that humanitarian aid and development can mutually reinforce each other. In other words, humanitarian aid can be carried out so that it contributes to future development. At the same time development initiatives can help minimise the risk of future crisis situations by prioritising the most vulnerable sectors and strengthening their livelihoods through capacity building. The debate surrounding how to implement LRRD successfully has led to the emergence of two approaches, i.e. continuum and contiguum. The continuum approach, the succession of relief, rehabilitation, and development, has been criticised for being based on the assumption of a linear sequence before-during-after the disaster, which is often not the case in today s lasting conflicts and complex political emergencies. As a result, it is not considered as the most appropriate response. The contiguum approach however, i.e. the simultaneous occurrence of humanitarian aid, rehabilitation and development, is considered by some as more appropriate. Defenders of the contiguum approach explain that in conflict situations a humanitarian crisis is not generally triggered suddenly but instead is recurrent or developing. For this reason there is a need for an integrated and encompassing approach whereby relief, rehabilitation, and development are carried out side by side in order to respond effectively to all aspects and areas of the conflict. LRRD under the contiguum approach requires both NGOs and the UN to expand their activities facilitating co-operation, in order to prevent crises, and to contribute to the long term stability and well-being of societies experiencing conflict. Chapter Four Practical Implementation of Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development This chapter explores how to implement LRRD on the ground. Firstly, in order to bring about as many benefits as possible from LRRD, co-operation between various organisations engaged in each phase of the relief, rehabilitation, and development process is very important. Secondly, in order to promote long term development, and help prevent future emergency situations, it is important for each organisation to make an assessment not only of the needs of the community but also, its capabilities and vulnerabilities prior to implementing the project. The following are suggestions on how to link relief, rehabilitation, and development in order to be as effective as possible: Characteristics of relief that promote development: Understand the context Do no harm Combine immediate needs with future development Strengthen services and infrastructure Capacity of local structures Sustainability Strengthen and make use of the capabilities of the local people Participation and empowerment Gender issues Protection of human rights Peace-building

4 Accountability Convey appropriate messages and images Observe humanitarian principles Development as a means of reducing future disasters Prioritise the most vulnerable groups and areas Disaster preparedness Disaster prevention Disaster mitigation Conflict prevention Chapter Five Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development at the Institutional Level The debate surrounding LRRD has been one of the subjects that have most dominated development and humanitarian issues in the 1990s. Although progress in LRRD has been made (by providing a better understanding of the relationship between disasters and development, and by conducting research and evaluations that help to improve future humanitarian interventions), theoretical considerations on the whole have been slow to be implemented in practice, and therefore, have failed to bring about substantial changes to the humanitarian system. While it has been the intention of many organisations to adopt a more holistic approach, different circumstances within, and tendencies of, the international community have led to the contrary. NGOs have demonstrated both the greatest ability and flexibility in implementing LRRD. Some of the gaps between theory and practice include the following: 1. According to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee of the United Nations (IASC) a majority of donors have, up until now, focused on closing the financial gap between relief and development projects rather than developing integrated strategies. Furthermore, the existence of separate budget lines for relief projects and development projects does not help to formulate integrated approaches but instead serves only to further compartmentalise each phase of humanitarian aid. This compartmentalisation of funds, therefore, slows down the work of NGOs, which often have insufficient funds of their own. 2. Another issue where theoretical considerations are more advanced than practical ones is the failure to promote capacity building. Although capacity building is one of the preferred means of strengthening and empowering local populations, there has been a failure to provide substantial resources in order to achieve it. This is largely blamed on the haste with which many projects requiring immediate assistance are carried out, and therefore, failing to provide sufficient future planning. 3. Governments have failed to dedicate substantial resources to crisis/disaster warning systems, or to tackle problems before they get out of hand. 4. In relation to the method of implementing LRRD the contiguum approach has, at an institutional level, not been advanced. 5. Increased focus on bilateral rather than multilateral humanitarian aid. 6. Increasing tendency among donors in the 1990s to earmark their funds not only for specific geographical areas but also for specific and limited activities. 7. The tendency to help countries characterised by good policy, democratisation and other objectives valued by the international community.

5 All of the above points make it difficult to successfully implement LRRD at the institutional level. Chapter Six Criticisms of LRRD The majority of criticisms of LRRD are focused on its practical application in humanitarian crises triggered by armed conflict or complex political emergencies, as opposed to those triggered by natural catastrophes. Following are some of the main criticisms: 1. Increased government control of NGOs: means of reorganising international aid system implementing tighter regulations in donor/government relations with NGOs. 2. The politicisation of aid and loss of humanitarian principles: the danger that if humanitarian aid and development become more closely linked, humanitarian aid, like development, will become conditional. 3. Aid as the only form of political action: the expectation that aid will solve complex problems and rebuild societies. 4. The promotion of a (neo)liberal model of development: although a definition of development is rarely given by donors, this is their usual underlying ideological approach. 5. The inapplicability of development in complex political emergencies: inability to apply and prepare development where crises are unexpected and take place in complex political emergencies. 6. The questioning of aid as an instrument of peace: development cannot resolve conflict. 7. Absence of sovereignty and legitimacy prevent the transition to development: LRRD often fails in fragile states due to a lack of institutional capacities, and of political recognition by donors. 8. Failure by donors to devise appropriate global responses to complex political contexts. Chapter Seven Conclusion and Recommendations Political, economic and social transformations brought about by the end of the Cold War, alongside the emergence of violent and politically complex crises, have necessitated a change in the nature of humanitarian aid. Although it is a valid aspiration to achieve a more encompassing form of humanitarian aid by linking relief, rehabilitation, and development (LRRD), it is difficult to implement LRRD when the challenges posed by violent conflicts are considered. The problem arises when humanitarian aid is politicised to the detriment of the receiving communities. The humanitarian principles are difficult to observe in conflict situations but they do promote certain procedures when assistance is provided to victims. It would therefore be advisable for the international humanitarian system to guarantee at least a certain degree of independent humanitarian aid which is not politicised and which adheres to humanitarian principles. This would help ensure aid saves lives and alleviates suffering. Recommendations 1. Initiate, amongst both NGOs and EU institutions, a debate on the degree of compatibility of the different humanitarian principles, such as neutrality (which helps to create the conditions for an equal distribution of aid to all parties involved in conflict), and the new practice of linking relief, rehabilitation, and development in the framework of integrated political strategies. In particular a debate is recommended on the possibility of establishing complementary financing. This would enable a part of European humanitarian aid to remain outside of the integrated political framework established in the Country Strategy Papers. Such humanitarian aid should focus on

6 saving lives and alleviating suffering in armed conflict. 2. Carry out an analysis on the viability of LRRD in quasi-states, or countries with weak and disintegrating institutions. Given that the EU is confronted by serious problems in implementing development programs in these unstable states, and because ECHO s aid is being reoriented to the short term objective of saving lives, there exists the risk that the EU will lack suitable instruments to operate in lasting unstable situations. 3. Prepare documents and establish discussion fora in the EU institutions and donor governments as well as among NGOs, to discuss operational mechanisms, criticisms and difficulties related to LRRD in different areas on the ground. This would help intensify the debate, streamline more concrete strategies and guidelines, and improve the quality of intervention to serve as a reference point for EU delegations and NGOs in the field. Some of the more interesting sectors and areas to which the LRRD approach could be applied include: public health, gender, food security, institutional development, peace-building, civil society, refugees, and internally displaced persons. 4. Promote research on the limitations of LRRD in different contexts and areas. The development of a good base of empirical knowledge, backed up with case studies, is necessary to prepare more precise and effective strategies. An additional recommendation would be for the EU to support the decentralisation of such research activities which today are concentrated in one or two EU countries. By conducting such research in universities or centres situated in other member states the debate would be enriched, and an increase in the dissemination of information amongst societies, NGOs personnel and volunteers would result.