View previous stories
	Humanitarian action in a changing landscape by Yves Daccord Director-general of the ICRC   Feb 2013   For more than a year now, the spiralling armed conflict in Syria and its devastating impact on people in and beyond the country has dominated the international spotlight, with still no end to the suffering in sight. While there are many other internecine conflicts causing immeasurable suffering, far from the media"s gaze, the situation in Syria encapsulates some of the key challenges facing humanitarian actors today.   The widening gap between humanitarian needs and the ability to deliver an effective response is one such challenge. On the one hand, the needs of people affected by armed conflict and violence are growing in scope and complexity, compounded by the worsening global financial and economic crisis. Poverty and hardship have effectively become more entrenched and chronic than ever, just as dwindling resources are putting governments (and humanitarian organisations) under unprecedented pressure. On the other hand, constraints to humanitarian access – be they military or political in nature – are making it increasingly difficult to address those needs. Syria is just one dramatic example, where the civilian population across the entire country is suffering the consequences of the intensifying fighting, yet the response of humanitarian organisations - facing major political and security constraints – falls dramatically short of the needs of the population.   While the decreasing proximity of humanitarian organisations to the people they claim to help is partly due to security constraints, and partly due to national sovereignty concerns and host government control of aid, there is another major reason. This is the deliberate choice of most UN agencies and many large international NGOs to effectively outsource their response – and the risks associated with it – to local partners. As the chain from donor to UN agency to international NGO to local partner and eventually to beneficiary becomes longer and longer – with the monitoring challenging this entails – this raises important questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall response, especially about who has final accountability for ensuring this. It also means that a first-hand perspective of the real needs and resilience of beneficiaries is lost.   Another key challenge, and a prominent feature of today"s humanitarian landscape, is the increasing decentralisation and fragmentation of humanitarian response, further fuelling the sometimes rampant competition between actors . This trend has rendered traditional coordination mechanisms all but obsolete, replacing them more and more with local, flexible arrangements tailored to a specific context. While this is largely welcome – and the diversity among emerging humanitarian actors should be embraced – the challenge in such a crowded environment is to clearly distinguish and separate principled humanitarian action from pure relief assistance. Whereas the latter may have military, political or economic objectives underpinning it, the former must always be based purely on actual needs. Blurring of the lines between the two ultimately complicates or hinders impartial humanitarian access to people on both sides of a conflict for all actors. To this end, the principles of humanity and impartiality must be the minimum common denominator among all humanitarian actors, regardless of their particular mandate or approach.   Principled humanitarian action is nothing more than an empty mantra unless it is translated into a meaningful response on the ground. Humanitarian organizations, including the ICRC, need to carry out an honest self-appraisal of their capacities and limitations, with a real commitment to match fine words and good intentions with effective action. Effective and meaningful coordination must be based more on genuine transparency and accountability than on ever-more refined mechanisms and procedures of coordination. We must all be realistic and unambiguous about our available capacities in situations of emergency, including about where we have humanitarian access and where we do not, and about where we implement activities ourselves and to what extent we work through implementing partners. In the case where we delegate activities to partners, to what extent do we monitor these activities? Are we effectively outsourcing risks that we are unwilling to take ourselves? How do we assess needs? To what extent, if any, do we integrate beneficiaries into our action?   For the ICRC, there is clear recognition of the need to better connect with other responses – through operational partnerships within and beyond the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The need to build a broader support base through engagement with more diverse stakeholders is essential to strengthen the acceptance, perception and relevance of humanitarian aid. Failure to do so will create a risk of being marginalised by the state, military forces, civil societies or faith-based organisations. Lack of acceptance could also have negative repercussions on the security of staff in the field.   There is also a need to invest more in our workforce, and the way in which we manage, support and retain our staff. Striking the right balance of diversity, developing leadership and striving for the highest professional standards are crucial in a workforce that is increasingly required to respond in highly complex and demanding contexts.   The overriding challenge is to keep pace with changing humanitarian landscape at a time when humanitarian needs are so vast and so complex, yet the resources to address them are so constrained. The pressure to "get it right" in terms of coherent, effective humanitarian response is acute. This is the time for humanitarian actors to cement their common ground, to make the most of their differences, and move forward with a genuine commitment to filling the gaps and avoiding duplications of humanitarian aid; a genuine commitment to effective action rather than words; and to make a real difference for people affected by ongoing and emerging humanitarian crises. Only then will humanitarian aid be fit for purpose in a tumultuous environment with evermore complex needs.   http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/editorial/02-04-humanitarian-action-yves-daccord.htm Visit the related web page
	Underwrite the poor like we underwrote the banks by Olivier De Schutter UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food   “Underwrite the poor like we underwrote the banks” – UN Human Rights experts recommend Global Fund for Social Protection.   “Nearly 80 per cent of the world’s poor do not have access to social protection to shield them from the effects of unemployment, illness, or disability – not to mention crop failure or soaring food costs.   Yet, if we were to dedicate 2 per cent of global GDP to securing this human right, basic social protection could be provided to all of the world’s poor,” stated Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and Magdalena Sepúlveda, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.   “Following this summer"s drought in the US, food prices are dangerously high for the third time in five years, and hunger remains at unacceptably high levels, as FAO figures show. The right to food is denied every time prices spike and people are no longer able to put food on the table.   Food and other basics must not be left to the mercy of economic cycles – the world"s poorest citizens must be able to fall back on basic social protection,” said Mr. De Schutter.   In a briefing, the UN experts call for the creation of a Global Fund for Social Protection (GFSP), funded by donations from developed countries.   The dual functions of the GFSP would be to (a) close the funding shortfall for putting in place a social protection floor in least developed countries (LDCS); and (b) help underwrite these schemes against the risks of excess demand triggered by major shocks by (i) advising LDCs on suitable private reinsurance options, (ii) subsidising premiums where necessary, and/or (iii) acting as the reinsurer of last resort in cases where private schemes are not extensive or affordable enough.   The UN experts explained that many developing countries face human, technical and financial constraints and thus cannot afford the surging expenditure on social protection that is required in the wake of catastrophes such as droughts, floods or disease epidemics that afflict large population groups, while simultaneously slashing a State"s tax and export earnings.   “International support for social protection measures becomes even more relevant in the context of the global economic crisis and its severe impact on the LDCs. International solidarity is needed,” they urged.   “When the global financial crisis struck, Governments stepped in to prop up banks that were deemed too important to fail. The same logic must now be applied to basic social protection, which is too crucial to be denied.”   They stressed that in doing so, States would be answering the calls of the ILO, UNICEF, the G20 and the World Bank to make social protection global, fulfilling their human rights obligations, transforming the shape of their development aid, harvesting the multiplier effects of supporting incomes in developing countries, and continuing the promise of the Millennium Development Goals beyond their expiration in 2015.   The Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights   Based on international human rights norms and standards, the Guiding Principles provide for the first time global policy guidelines focusing specifically on the human rights of people living in poverty.   They are intended as a practical tool for policy-makers to ensure that public policies (including poverty eradication efforts) reach the poorest members of society, respect and uphold their rights, and take into account the significant social, cultural, economic and structural obstacles to human rights enjoyment faced by persons living in poverty.   The Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles at its 21st session in September 2012. The Principles can be accessed here:   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/DGPIntroduction.aspx   "Ocean-grabbing" as serious a threat as ‘land-grabbing’.   The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, warns of the threat of ‘ocean-grabbing’ to food security, and urged world governments and international bodies to halt the depletion of fish stocks, and take urgent steps to protect, sustain, and share the benefits of fisheries and marine environments.   ‘Ocean-grabbing’ – in the shape of shady access agreements that harm small-scale fishers, unreported catch, incursions into protected waters, and the diversion of resources away from local populations - can be as serious a threat as ‘land-grabbing,’” Mr. De Schutter said as he unveiled a new report* on fisheries and the right to food.   “Without rapid action to claw back waters from unsustainable practices, fisheries will no longer be able to play a critical role in securing the right to food of millions,” the expert said, noting that “with agricultural systems under increasing pressure, many people are now looking to rivers, lakes and oceans to provide an increasing share of our dietary protein.”   Estimates on the scale of illegal catch range from 10-28 million tons (mt), while some 7.3mt – 10 per cent of global catch – is discarded every year. “It is clear that as fish are becoming less abundant, fishing vessels are tempted to evade rules and conservation strategies,” the Special Rapporteur said.   Many of the world’s waters are fished by distance fleets, Mr. De Schutter noted, calling for the License and Access Agreements (LAAs) governing their activities to be urgently revised. He called for LAAs to include stronger oversight mechanisms to tackle illegal and unreported catch; take full account of the role of fisheries and small-scale fishers in meeting local food needs; strengthen labour rights on fishing vessels; and be concluded only on the basis of human rights impact assessments, to be prepared with the assistance of flag states.   The UN expert called on governments to rethink the models of fisheries that they support, highlighting that small-scale fishers actually catch more fish per gallon of fuel than industrial fleets, and discard fewer fish.   “Industrial fishing in far-flung waters may seem like the economic option, but only because fleets are able to pocket major subsidies while externalizing the costs of over-fishing and resource degradation. Future generations will pay the price when the oceans run dry,” he said.   The key challenge, Mr. De Schutter indicated, is to ensure coexistence between industrial fishing and the rights of small-scale fishers and coastal communities - for whom even occasional fishing can constitute an essential safety net in times of crisis. He therefore made the following five recommendations:   1. Create exclusive artisanal fishing zones for small-scale fishers and clamp down on incursions by industrial fleets;   2. Support small-scale fishers cooperatives and help them rise up the value chain;   3. Put co-management schemes in place to manage fishing resources locally;   4. Refrain from undertaking large-scale development projects, e.g. sand extraction, that adversely affect the livelihoods of small-scale fishers; and   5. Make fisheries and small-scale fishers an integral part of national right to food strategies.   The independent expert drew attention to positive examples, such as the decision to grant community-based user rights to small-scale fishers on the largest freshwater lake in South East Asia (Tonle Sap, Cambodia), and the decision to ban industrial tuna fishing in favour of local ‘pole and line’ fishers in the Maldives.   “It is possible, and necessary, to turn these resources away from over-exploitation, and towards the benefit of local communities,” the Special Rapporteur stressed.   “The right to food has more than just symbolic value. It works because it is operationalized into laws and policies. It then can provide a buffer against land-grabbing, over-exploitation of natural resources or unregulated investments, or against a form of development that is insufficiently participatory and inclusive,” Mr. De Schutter said.   The Special Rapporteur referenced lessons from meetings he convened recently in Latin America and Africa on the national implementation of the right to food principles in these regions.   “We have learned that without strong monitoring systems, human rights can remain a dead letter.” He highlighted the call he made with twenty other UN human rights experts earlier this year in an open letter to States, recalling that sustainable development is impossible without effective implementation of human rights*.   Therefore, the Special Rapporteur said, “We should now focus on improving the global institutional architecture on sustainable development, including the fight against hunger and food insecurity.” A key step towards improved governance for sustainable development, he argued, should be to strengthen the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), where the food insecure are most fully represented.   Noting that the CFS had involved in adopting guidelines on the responsible governance of land, he added: “The CFS could monitor progress on implementing food security as a global goal. And it may take in the future a prominent role in developing a global action plan to fight hunger and develop sustainable food systems, including timelines and allocation of responsibilities.”   * Olivier De Schutter and more than 20 UN rights experts sent an open letter to governments negotiating the Rio+20 summit. Read: “If Rio+20 is to deliver, accountability must be at its heart”:   http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20120314_rio20_openletter_en.pdf Visit the related web page
	View more stories