Report

Norway’s humanitarian policy Annual report 2011

Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 3

Foreword

Through its humanitarian aid, Norway provided considerable support to local and international humanitarian organisations in their efforts to save lives and alleviate suffering in a long line of humanitarian crises all over the world in 2011. Several new conflicts, the re-emergence of old conflicts, the continuation of chronic conflicts, new crises and extreme weather conditions complicated the picture and humanitarian efforts.

Developments in North Africa and the Middle East dominated in 2011. Libya, Yemen and Syria witnessed dramatic events, resulting in large waves of refugees, armed violence and human suffering. In Syria in particular, lack of humanitarian access to the civilian population was a major problem. Difficult security situations and a lack of acceptance by the parties to the conflict meant that the conditions under which humanitarian aid could be provided were also very difficult in Côte d’Ivoire, Afghanistan, DR Congo, Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia.

In the Horn of Africa, 13 million people were affected by drought and conflict in 2011. The population of Somalia was hardest hit, and the UN defined the disaster as a famine. The situation in the Horn showed that countries that have developed strong local resilience, such as Ethiopia and Kenya, coped with the crisis better than Somalia, where local resilience is weak due to long-term armed conflict. Humanitarian assistance must include efforts to strengthen resilience.

Extreme weather and extreme events also had major humanitarian consequences in 2011. The earth- quakes in Japan and Turkey and exceptionally strong monsoon rains in Pakistan all caused widespread destruction in affected areas. It is important not only to provide immediate assistance in the wake of natural disasters, but also to work to improve knowledge so that we can help to minimise the consequen- ces of such disasters. Norway is working on several levels to prevent humanitarian crises. In 2011, our contributions included work on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on extreme weather, which we hope will serve as a common reference point for the future efforts of all countries to deal with the challenge of extreme weather.

The economic, social and humanitarian consequences are enormous when people are unable to lead normal lives because of unexploded cluster munitions, abandoned landmines or because illicit small arms get into the wrong hands. Norway is working actively to ensure compliance with the Mine Ban Conven- tion and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. These efforts are also helping to strengthen humanitarian law, and to prevent and reduce armed violence in a wider sense, by focusing on field-based activities and on weapons that have unacceptable consequences in the field.

As long as the international humanitarian community is dominated by a few Western donor countries, we will be unable to address the humanitarian crises of tomorrow. Responsibility needs to be spread more widely. It is crucial that new humanitarian actors and new alliances emerge, and that humanitarian contributions are increased and better coordinated. Norway is working towards this end.

This is the fourth annual report on humanitarian policy published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We hope that it will promote access to and transparency about the results of Norway’s humanitarian engagement.

Gry Larsen Arvinn Gadgil State Secretary State Secretary

Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 5

Contents

Foreword ______3

The past year – the humanitarian situation in 2011 ______6

Annual report on Norwegian humanitarian policy ______10

Part I: Norwegian humanitarian policy in 2011 ______11 1. A global humanitarian system ______12 2. Respect for humanitarian principles ______15 3. Humanitarian disarmament ______18 4. Needs-based assistance ______21 5. Protection of civilians, refugees and internally displaced persons ______24 6. Coherent assistance ______28 7. Norway as a good donor ______30 8. Financial and administrative consequences ______31

Part II: Norwegian humanitarian aid in figures ______33 Channels and partners for Norwegian humanitarian aid ______35

Part III: Selected humanitarian aid results ______40 Somalia: the Norwegian Refugee Council assisted more than one million displaced people ______41 Bosnia and Herzegovina: victim assistance works, but the long-term effects are difficult to measure ______43 Liberia: knowledge about armed violence has a preventive and mitigating effect ______45 Libya – migration crisis and air bridge ______47 Protection needs ______48 Protecting civilians in Côte d’Ivoire ______49 6 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

The past year – the humanitarian situation in 2011

Inconceivable human suffering was the common result, civilian populations often have to flee to denominator in a long line of humanitarian secure vital help. Being internally displaced or a crises all over the world in 2011. While 2010 was refugee is dangerous. Vulnerable people often characterised by the “mega disasters” in Haiti become more vulnerable when they have to flee and Pakistan, the picture was more complicated their homes, and are thus more likely to suffer in 2011, and featured several new conflicts, the abuse, including sexual violence, from warring re-emergence of old conflicts, the continuation parties and/or criminal gangs. It is therefore of chronic conflicts, new extreme events and important to maintain efforts to ensure that extreme weather. more civilian victims of war and conflict receive protection and assistance as close as possible to A lack of humanitarian access to civilian home. populations was also a major problem in 2011. In countries such as Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, 2011 was strongly marked by developments Afghanistan, DR Congo, Sudan and Somalia, a in North Africa and the Middle East. The difficult security situation and a lack of accep- consequences of the “Arab Spring” varied tance by the parties to the conflict meant that substantially from country to country. While the the conditions under which humanitarian aid mass mobilisations of democracy advocates in could be provided were very constrained. As a Tunisia and Egypt occurred relatively peacefully, Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 7

events in countries like Libya, Yemen and Syria humanitarian crisis arose in the state of South were far more dramatic. The armed conflict in Kordofan in Sudan, subsequently spreading Libya intensified considerably in February 2011, to the Blue Nile state. The South Kordofan and and in the course of a few weeks produced large Blue Nile states are both located in Sudan, but waves of refugees fleeing to neighbouring have strong cross-border ties with South Sudan. countries. While only a few organisations had The UN estimated that more than 250 000 access to those in need in Libya, extensive persons were displaced in the two states. The humanitarian efforts were initiated near the Sudanese authorities refused access to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders. The humanita- conflict-hit areas to both the UN and internatio- rian evacuation of more than 100 000 third- nal aid organisations. Along with other actors, country nationals was particularly important to Norway put pressure on the Sudanese authori- reduce human suffering as far as possible. ties to protect the civilian population and grant full humanitarian access. Following the elections in Côte d’Ivoire, hard fighting and looting in Abidjan and western Extreme events and extreme weather also had parts of the country displaced almost one extensive humanitarian consequences in 2011. million people within the country, and more than A major earthquake measuring 8.9 on the 150 000 refugees crossed the border into Liberia Richter scale struck off the east coast of Japan and other neighbouring countries. The interna- on Friday 11 March. The earthquake produced tional humanitarian organisations were largely large tidal waves and caused considerable unable to help the civilian population, due to a damage to affected areas, resulting in many lack of access. The protection of civilians was deaths and injuries. As one of the world’s most therefore the greatest challenge. advanced and prepared nations, Japan needed little external assistance. However, the crisis In the Horn of Africa, 13 million people were once again demonstrated the importance of local affected by drought and conflict in 2011. The and national aid organisations like the Japanese population of Somalia was hardest hit, and the Red Cross in first-line response. UN defined the situation as a famine. The primary cause of the crisis was not the drought, A powerful earthquake hit Turkey on Sunday but rather the long-term armed conflict that has 23 October. The Turkish authorities and the made local communities highly vulnerable even Turkish Red Crescent Society immediately to natural, recurring climate variations. Other launched a large-scale rescue operation to assist factors than conflict and drought also helped to the hard-hit population. Several hundred people weaken local resilience in Somalia, particularly were killed, thousands were injured and more the global increase in food prices and the than 250 000 people were made homeless. In considerable drop in remittances from the Soma- cooperation with the Norwegian Red Cross, lian diaspora due to the global economic crisis. Norway provided insulated tents, blankets and Large numbers of people fled from Somalia to other emergency aid. Ethiopia and Kenya, and many fled to the war-torn capital, Mogadishu. This put considera- In addition, Pakistan suffered unusually strong ble pressure on communities which were monsoon rains in 2011, resulting in flooding. already vulnerable, and resulted in full refugee Around six million people were affected in the camps in Kenya, Ethiopia and Mogadishu. provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan. More than one million houses were entirely or partly At approximately the same time as South Sudan destroyed. The emergency preparedness became an independent state on 9 July, a capacity developed by Pakistan following the

The Norwegian Minister for Development visits a local center for distribution of food in Mangaize in Niger. Photo: The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 8 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

powerful flooding of 2010 proved useful. it is crucial that humanitarian actors strengthen Nevertheless, millions of people were affected in their ability to respond quickly and mobilise a region that was already very poor. Women, personnel and resources when needed. At the children and the disabled were particularly same time, it is often national and local efforts vulnerable in the chaotic situation. that save the most lives and help to protect civilians during crises. In Libya and Syria, for One important lesson learned in 2011 is that it is example, we observed that both the national often difficult to predict humanitarian crises, and Red Crescent societies and other groups of thus to plan for sufficient capacity to provide volunteers played a key role in protecting life effective help when an acute situation arises. and health among the civilian population. These During the initial phases of the 2011 crises in efforts must be strengthened, not under- Libya and Côte d’Ivoire, for example, several UN estimated or forgotten. humanitarian organisations and several large Western NGOs found that they were unable to provide effective humanitarian aid. Accordingly, Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 9

Humanitarian policy objectives and instruments

Humanitarian law and humanitarian principles Diplomacy, normative work, international Based on humanitarian law and experience of cooperation and aid are all instruments for humanitarian efforts in the field, the Red Cross achieving Norway’s humanitarian policy movement, UN agencies, humanitarian donors such objectives. as Norway and non-governmental organisations t
5IF
DPSF
PG
BMM
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BTTJTUBODF
JT
UP
TBWF
(NGOs) have jointly developed a set of general people’s lives, alleviate suffering and protect principles for humanitarian assistance. human dignity regardless of ethnic background, HFOEFS
BHF
SFMJHJPO
PS
QPMJUJDBM
BóMJBUJPO
5IJT
JT
The four main principles are: a key aspect of Norwegian foreign policy. t
)VNBOJUZ
5IF
QVSQPTF
PG
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BDUJPO
is to protect life and health and ensure respect for t
5PHFUIFS
XJUI
PVS
QBSUOFST
XF
BMTP
XJTI
UP
human beings. change the operating parameters for humanita- rian efforts. Norway will seek to ensure that far t
/FVUSBMJUZ
)VNBOJUBSJBO
BDUPST
NVTU
OPU
UBLF
greater investments are made in prevention, sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of climate change adaptation and humanitarian a political, racial, religious or ideological nature. emergency preparedness than is currently the t
*NQBSUJBMJUZ
)VNBOJUBSJBO
BDUJPO
NVTU
CF
DBSSJFE
case. In these efforts, we will focus on those who out on the basis of need alone making no are affected by humanitarian disasters – on their distinctions on the basis of nationality, race, rights, their resilience and their response capacity. gender, religious belief, class or political opinions. Humanitarian crises require political solutions. t
*OEFQFOEFODF
)VNBOJUBSJBO
BDUPST
NVTU
ESBX
up and implement their own guidelines t
1FBDF
BOE
SFDPODJMJBUJPO
FòPSUT
QPMJUJDBM
EJBMPHVF
independently of the policies and actions of the with affected countries, contributions to authorities in the country concerned. international peace operations, aid, Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, humanitarian disarmament and work on The strategic objectives of Norwegian humanita- strengthening human rights are all important for rian policy. In cooperation with others, we must: preventing humanitarian suffering. t
FOTVSF
UIBU
QFPQMF
JO
OFFE
BSF
HJWFO
UIF
necessary protection and assistance t
3JHIUT
QSJODJQMFT
BOE
WBMVFT
GPSN
UIF
NBJO
CBTJT
for Norway’s humanitarian assistance. t
GVOE
IVNBOJUBSJBO
FòPSUT
PO
UIF
CBTJT
PG
UIF
international principles of humanity, neutrality, t
/PSXBZT
FòPSUT
NVTU
BMTP
CF
CBTFE
PO
impartiality and independence knowledge, expertise and robust administration. 5IF
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
PG
IVNBOJUBSJBO
GVOET
NVTU
t
FRVJQ
UIF
JOUFSOBUJPOBM
DPNNVOJUZ
UP
NFFU
be efficient, and should result in desired and future global humanitarian challenges quantifiable outcomes.

t
QSFWFOU
BOE
SFTQPOE
UP
IVNBOJUBSJBO
DSJTFT
BOE
initiate reconstruction in their wake.

Ubaro, Pakistan- 16 September 2011: Children travel in a flood hit area. Photo: Shutterstock 10 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Annual report on Norwegian humanitarian policy

The annual humanitarian policy report for 2011 gency aid in the longer term. In Part I, we provides an overview of the most important describe some of the results achieved through processes in the area of Norwegian humanita- international cooperation and dialogue in the rian policy, and of the support for humanitarian various processes in which the Ministry of assistance given in the past year. This is the Foreign Affairs is participating, which in the fourth annual report on humanitarian policy long term will influence the operating parame- published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ters of humanitarian assistance. The report primarily discusses Norway’s activities in its capacity as a humanitarian policy Part II: Humanitarian aid in figures provi- actor, but also gives examples of results achie- des an overview of the distribution of the funds ved through the support provided to Norway’s allocated to humanitarian aid by the Storting in humanitarian partners. The report forms part of 2011 via the National Budget.4 The nature of the implementation of Norway’s humanitarian humanitarian assistance means that there may strategy and the white paper Norway’s Humani- be large variations in the destinations of these tarian Policy,3 which the Storting adopted in funds from year to year. Part II shows where the June 2009. Our aim is to facilitate greater access funds went in 2011. The main aim is to provide to, transparency about and insight into what we an overview of the distribution of humanitarian are achieving through our humanitarian engage- funds this year, while a further aim is to demon- ment. This report is part of the follow-up of the strate certain trends over time by comparing the 2008 investigation by the Office of the Auditor figures for 2011 with previous years. General of Norway into the effectiveness of Norwegian humanitarian aid. Part III: Selected results in 2011 contains some examples of what has been achieved The annual report on Norwegian humanitarian through humanitarian assistance financed by policy must be considered together with Norad’s Norwegian aid. We have seen that Norwegian- Results Report, which discusses aid results financed humanitarian efforts have produced across the field, including the humanitarian satisfactory and substantial results. This year, sector. The theme of Norad’s Results Report we have focused on six examples, which do not 2012 (to be published in December), is the provide a complete picture. The sample illustra- management of natural resources. tes different types of results in the context of humanitarian aid, as well as some of the chal- This report has three parts: lenges that arise when seeking to provide the best possible help to the largest possible Part I: Norwegian humanitarian policy number of people. in 2011 provides an overview of the most important steps taken to implement Norwegian We hope that, through these three approaches, humanitarian policy priorities in the past year. the report as a whole provides helpful insights Part I mirrors the classification of the humanita- into some of what has been done and achieved rian priorities set out in chapter 5 of the white in the area of Norwegian humanitarian policy paper Norway’s Humanitarian Policy. One and through humanitarian aid in 2011. The important objective of Norway’s humanitarian information in the report supplements the policy is to influence the operating parameters report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the of the international humanitarian system so that budget proposal for 2011. We also hope that this humanitarian aid becomes more effective. report is useful and of interest to a wider Another is to help reduce the need for emer- audience.

3 Report No. 40 (2008–2009) to the Storting 4 Prop 1 S (2010–2011) Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 11

Part I: Norwegian humanitarian policy in 2011

Roles and responsibilities in Norwegian humanitarian policy Norway’s policy of engagement, political dialogue with affected countries, efforts to strengthen human rights and IVNBOJUBSJBO
EJTBSNBNFOU
FòPSUT
BSF
BMM
JNQPSUBOU
DPOUSJCVUJPOT
UP
UIF
QSFWFOUJPO
PG
IVNBOJUBSJBO
TVòFSJOH
5IF
white papers Norway’s Humanitarian Policy3 and Norwegian policy on the prevention of humanitarian crises4 form the foundation for the government’s humanitarian assistance.

5IF
4FDUJPO
GPS
)VNBOJUBSJBO
"òBJST
JO
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
"òBJST
JT
SFTQPOTJCMF
GPS
GPMMPXJOH
VQ
PO
/PSXBZT
humanitarian policy engagement and the humanitarian aid that is provided to developing countries affected by DPOøJDU
BOE
OBUVSBM
EJTBTUFST
5IJT
JT
EPOF
JO
DMPTF
DPPQFSBUJPO
XJUI
PUIFS
SFMFWBOU
TFDUJPOT
XJUIJO
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
Norwegian embassies and Norad.

5IF
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
PG
DIBQUFS

PG
UIF
/BUJPOBM
#VEHFU
PO
FNFSHFODZ
BJE
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BJE
BOE
IVNBO
SJHIUT
plays a central role in this work, as does our core contribution to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 2011, the Section for Humanitarian Affairs administered approximately NOK 3.3 billion in total.

Norway accepts offices, and chairs committees and other initiatives, in order to have a greater influence on the development of the humanitarian system. Here are some of the most important offices held by Norway in 2011: Norway chaired the OCHA Donor Support Group (ODSG) GSPN
+VMZ

UP
+VMZ

5IF
PCKFDUJWF
PG
UIF
Norwegian chairmanship is to ensure that the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) helps to improve effectiveness and humanitarian leadership in the field, that ownership of the UN’s humanitarian assistance is expanded, and that the added value of OCHA’s coordination and leadership on the ground becomes clearer. Norway is also working to increase total humanitarian assistance, and to ensure a focus on performance and reporting results in the field.

/PSXBZ
XBT
BQQPJOUFE
QSFTJEFOU
BOE
IPTU
PG
UIF
5IJSE
.FFUJOH
PG
4UBUFT
1BSUJFT
UP
UIF
Convention on Cluster Munitions, which was held in Oslo in September 2012. Norway wishes to focus on the humanitarian objectives of the convention.

3 Report No. 40 (2008–2009) to the Storting 4 Report No. 9 (2007–2008) to the Storting

A man with the leftovers of a MAT-120 cluster munition in Libya. Photo: Scanpix 12 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

1. A global humanitarian system

The increasing frequency of increasingly Humanitarian reform. International reviews complex humanitarian crises is challenging have shown that the humanitarian reforms the ability of the humanitarian system to initiated by the UN Emergency Relief Coordina- respond effectively. As long as the interna- tor in 2005 have made international humanita- tional humanitarian community is domina- rian efforts more predictable and effective. ted by a few Western donor countries, we A clearer division of labour and leadership at will be unable to effectively address the sector level, quicker and more flexible financing humanitarian crises of tomorrow. Norway arrangements, such as the UN Central Emer- will help to increase the reach of humanita- gency Response Fund (CERF) and funds for rian assistance by forming new alliances individual countries, i.e. Common Humanitarian and strengthening humanitarian leadership Funds (CHFs) and Emergency Response Funds and the capacity of actors to provide more (ERFs), and a more equal partnership between effective humanitarian responses. the UN and NGOs have made humanitarian assistance more effective. Reviews show that We need to be able to deal with new global appeals are launched quickly, and that CERF humanitarian challenges and the increase in the contributes to quicker responses. Funding number of natural disasters, not least in view of through CHFs and ERFs is more cost-effective climate and environmental change. At the same and predictable than direct funding, and the time, we have to strengthen our efforts in measures are more relevant. vulnerable states marked by conflict and weak institutions. Success in this regard will require Despite this, the major disasters on Haiti and in responsibility to be spread more widely. The Pakistan in 2010 showed that the humanitarian involvement of new humanitarian actors, system requires further strengthening. The UN formation of new alliances, and increases in and Emergency Relief Coordinator has worked on better coordination of humanitarian contribu- this in 2011, through an increased focus on tions are crucial. It is also vital to secure broader stronger humanitarian leadership, more strate- acceptance of humanitarian principles and build gic planning, greater accountability between a greater understanding of the importance of actors, improved prevention and more effective humanitarian access. coordination. A joint plan has been developed that enjoys the support of many humanitarian Norwegian humanitarian policy gives high organisations. Norway is lending active support priority to the improvement of cooperation to these efforts. between local, national and different internatio- nal humanitarian actors. Norway is an active, Coordination. The UN Office for the Coordina- but critical, partner of the UN agencies, and tion of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has five actively supports UN humanitarian appeals as a regional offices and country offices in 25 channel for providing assistance during humani- regions featuring some of the world’s most tarian crises. We also support efforts to use difficult humanitarian crises. OCHA’s main task these appeals as an instrument for improving is to coordinate and increase the effectiveness of the effectiveness and capacity of the humanita- international humanitarian assistance at country rian response. The UN Office for the Coordina- level. This is done by promoting closer coopera- tion of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the tion between UN agencies, national authorities UN Emergency Relief Coordinator are key in and non-governmental humanitarian organisa- this area. tions. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 13

OCHA is an important partner for Norway in the improve their knowledge of how the UN humanitarian sector. In 2011, Norway was the conducts humanitarian work in the field. This third-largest donor to OCHA. Norway made a type of visit helps to strengthen new alliances core contribution of NOK 90 million in 2011, in and partnerships. Norway has also supported addition to providing around NOK 30 million in the development of a more comprehensive and earmarked funds for OCHA’s work on the robust internal reporting system for OCHA coordination of humanitarian aid in different through its work in the ODSG. This includes countries. results reporting from the field. The experience gained thus far shows that the cooperation with Norway chaired the OCHA Donor Support OCHA has been productive, and that Norway Group (ODSG) from July 2011 to July 2012, and has succeeded in influencing OCHA’s work and hosted the High Level Meeting in Tromsø from priorities. 11 to 13 June 2012. The ODSG is tasked with building broader support for humanitarian New donors. A broader group of countries principles and providing political, financial and donated funds for humanitarian assistance in other support to enable OCHA to deliver in 2011. Turkey provided considerable bilateral accordance with the mandate adopted by the humanitarian support to Somalia. The Gulf UN General Assembly. Through the ODSG, States increased their support in a number of Norway has helped to strengthen OCHA’s humanitarian crises. Brazil increased its humani- Earthquake performance on the ground by ensuring that the tarian contributions, particularly in its own victims in the organisation’s policy efforts have a clear region. Several new donors also channelled Gedikbulak operational focus, and that the budget is desig- money into the UN humanitarian funds in 2011, Village in Van, ned to support the organisation’s work on particularly CERF, and CHFs/ERFs. At the same Turkey 1 becoming more effective in the field. Through time, many countries contributed much larger November 2011. the ODSG, Norway has also arranged field visits amounts outside the UN-coordinated appeals. Photo: to Haiti for seven non-ODSG countries to Although this increased the total contributions, Shutterstock. 14 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

the UN’s humanitarian efforts continue to be the Palestinian Territory, Zimbabwe and funded by contributions from the five largest Colombia. These are earmarked for internatio- donors. In 2011, 25 countries joined the OCHA nal and national NGOs, and are to provide rapid, Donor Support Group (ODSG), an increase flexible funding for humanitarian aid. Norway from 22 countries in 2010. The five largest has been among the largest donors to CERF donors to OCHA provided more than 66 % of the since its establishment in 2006 (for further organisation’s funding in 2011. Work on expan- details see Part II). In 2011, Norway’s allocation ding the group further is continuing. of around NOK 390 million made it the third- largest donor to the fund. Norway attaches Humanitarian funds: The UN has established importance being a stable donor, and makes permanent Common Humanitarian Funds payments early on during the year to provide the (CHFs) for some of the most complex, long- predictability required to ensure a more effec- term crises. The largest funds are for Sudan, DR tive UN response to humanitarian crises. Congo and Somalia. Both the UN and internatio- nal and national NGOs may apply to these funds In total, Norway paid out more than NOK 660 for money to implement humanitarian program- million to UN humanitarian funds in 2011. mes. Smaller, temporary emergency response In addition to the NOK 390 million donation to funds (ERFs) have been established for certain CERF, Norway provided NOK 230 million to other countries, including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, CHFs and NOK 45 million to ERFs.

Review of the white paper Norway’s Humanitarian Policy An independent review of the white paper Norway’s Humanitarian Policy (Report No. 40 (2008–2009)) to the Storting XBT
DPOEVDUFE
JO
DPPQFSBUJPO
XJUI
/PSBE
JO

5IF
QVSQPTF
PG
UIF
SFWJFX
XBT
UP
FWBMVBUF
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
Affairs’ implementation of the white paper, and to make recommendations regarding further follow-up.

5IF
SFWJFX
DPODMVEFE
UIBU
UIF
TUSBUFHJD
BJNT
IBE
CFFO
JNQMFNFOUFE
/PSXBZ
IBT
CFFO
BO
BDUJWF
EPOPS
BOE
IBT
helped to set the agenda for international humanitarian efforts. Humanitarian disarmament, the strengthening of the gender perspective, and the protection of civilians, refugees and internally displaced persons were highlighted as areas in which much has been achieved. Less progress has been made on the inclusion of non-Western donor DPVOUSJFT
JO
UIF
JOUFSOBUJPOBM
IVNBOJUBSJBO
TZTUFN
5IF
SFWJFX
SFDPNNFOEFE
UIBU
DPOTJEFSBUJPO
TIPVME
CF
HJWFO
UP
other ways of including these donors.

Norway has been able to respond rapidly to crises and post-crisis recovery needs. Humanitarian budgets have been VTFE
UP
GVOE
JOJUJBUJWFT
BOE
QSPKFDUT
DPOTJTUFOU
XJUI
UIF
IVNBOJUBSJBO
QPMJDZ
EFTDSJCFE
JO
UIF
XIJUF
QBQFS
5IF
review did not comment on the degree to which individual measures have benefited individual persons, as this XPVME
IBWF
SFRVJSFE
B
CSPBEFS
FWBMVBUJPO
5IF
SFWJFX
QPJOUFE
PVU
UIBU
UIF
MJNJUFE
IVNBO
SFTPVSDFT
PG
UIF
'PSFJHO
Service make it difficult to ensure that individual measures have the maximum possible effect on people in need.

5IF
JOUSPEVDUJPO
PG
EJBMPHVF
BOE
DMFBSFS
SFQPSUJOH
SFRVJSFNFOUT
JO
GSBNFXPSL
BHSFFNFOUT
IBT
IFMQFE
UP
QSPGFTTJPOBMJTF
QBSUOFST
5IF
SFWJFX
SFDPNNFOEFE
OPU
POMZ
GVSUIFS
EFWFMPQNFOU
PG
UIF
VTF
PG
GSBNFXPSL
agreements with key partners, but also evaluations of the use of such agreements.

One of the most important conclusions of the review was that the best results are achieved when different policy instruments are combined, i.e. when humanitarian policy engagement is combined with the strategic use of funding.

Part II of this report, Norwegian humanitarian aid in figures, considers the strategic use of funding in more detail. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 15

2. Respect for humanitarian principles

Attacks on humanitarian aid workers and 2011, including during UN Security Council medical facilities such as hospitals and debates on the protection of civilians and, in a ambulances have increased in recent years. NATO context, the debate on efforts in Afgha- The civilian population suffers, and is nistan. prevented from receiving vital assistance. Norway promotes respect for humanitarian The Red Cross. Through its mandate under principles and international humanitarian international law to protect and assist people law. We will also seek to ensure a clear affected by war and armed conflict, the Interna- division of responsibilities between huma- tional Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays nitarian organisations, other civilian actors an important part in ensuring the proper and the military during conflicts. functioning of a humanitarian system based on humanitarian principles. Norway therefore uses To ensure the safety of humanitarian actors and the international Red Cross system as one of its access to those in need, it is often crucial that main channels for providing humanitarian armed groups and the civilian population assistance in crises and conflicts. In 2011, some perceive the humanitarian actors as neutral and 17 % of Norway’s total humanitarian aid went to impartial. The humanitarian principles of the international Red Cross movement, prima- humanity, independence, neutrality and impar- rily via the Norwegian Red Cross, and Norway tiality form the basis for the acceptance of was the sixth-largest donor to the ICRC. humanitarian assistance by warring parties in conflicts. Nevertheless, we are constantly seeing The 31st International Conference of the these principles come under pressure. For Red Cross and Red Crescent took place in example, humanitarian actors may be associated Geneva from 28 November to 1 December 2011. with a particular political or military strategy. The conference is arranged every four years, They may be barred from the areas of greatest and is the Red Cross movement’s highest need, or be refused permission to assist those in decision-making body. In total, 170 Red Cross need in areas controlled by non-state armed and Red Crescent societies participated, as did groups which are regarded as terrorist organisa- 150 states parties to the Geneva conventions, tions. These problems arose particularly in the ICRC and the International Federation of Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia in 2011. Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The main topics were access to health services, In many current conflicts, humanitarian efforts health work during armed conflicts, migration, are being made side by side with international strengthening human rights law and strengthe- police efforts and military peacekeeping ning humanitarian partnerships. Norway operations. It is important to maintain a clear participated actively during the conference, distinction between civilian and military initiati- including by promoting safer conditions for ves. In Norway’s view, the various elements in health workers during armed conflicts and other international peacekeeping operations must be emergencies. The resolutions adopted by the coordinated on the basis of the clearest possible conference included the “Four-Year Action Plan division of responsibilities between humanita- for the Implementation of International Humani- rian organisations, other civilian actors and tarian Law”, which aims to protect vulnerable military forces. Norway’s position is that groups such as women, children, the disabled humanitarian assistance should be based on and journalists during armed conflicts. Item 5 of humanitarian needs, and should not form part of the action plan, which concerns the ongoing any political or military strategy. Norway raised negotiations towards a treaty in international these issues in various international forums in trade in conventional weapons (the Arms Trade 16 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Treaty) came under vigorous attack. Norway context of integrated peacekeeping operations and likeminded countries had to fight to retain in which the UN is to coordinate humanitarian, the text, which sets out the primary objective of political and military engagement. Emphasis maintaining the Red Cross’s engagement in was also given to the potential consequences of processes and projects relating to arms control. national anti-terrorism legislation for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Legislation which The conference gave the ICRC and the national aims to prevent the provision of material support societies a basis for more systematic work on to terrorist groups may entail that humanitarian the “Health Care in Danger” campaign. The assistance for those in need in areas controlled campaign will increase awareness of the pro- by such groups is defined as “support for blem of attacks on health personnel and facili- terrorists”. This directly contravenes the ties, and will highlight the legal obligations and principle that humanitarian aid should be responsibility of states when health work is provided wherever the needs are greatest. blocked or health personnel and facilities are Reports on both topics will be completed in attacked. 2012. A seminar on non-state armed groups and internal displacement was held in Geneva. It The Norwegian Refugee Council. The focused particularly on practical experience of Norwegian Refugee Council actively promotes improving protection for internally displaced respect for humanitarian principles vis-à-vis persons. states and non-state actors. In 2011, the Council had a special focus on challenges relating to respect for humanitarian principles in the

Clear division of roles between humanitarian organisations and military peace operations is imperative in many conflicts . The Norwegian Foreign Minister visits the Norwe- gian camp in Maimana in Afghanistan. Photo: The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 17

The use of cash in the context of humanitarian aid 5IF
VTF
PG
DBTI
JT
BO
JODSFBTJOHMZ
JNQPSUBOU
UPQJD
JO
UIF
öFME
PG
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BTTJTUBODF
%POPS
DPVOUSJFT
BSF
becoming increasingly interested in distributing cash instead of food, tools, etc., particularly following the 2004 UTVOBNJ
EJTBTUFS
JO
4PVUI
&BTU
"TJB
%VSJOH
UIF
DSJTJT
JO
4PNBMJB
JO

DBTI
BOE
WPVDIFST
XFSF
UIF
QSFGFSSFE
GPSN
of emergency aid, rather than food distribution. Since access was difficult for humanitarian actors, in many areas local people running small businesses were the only ones able to carry food into the most affected areas.

Knowledge about the effect of using cash in an aid context is limited, and it is unclear whether this is a better policy instrument than food aid. Experience must be gathered, and many lessons remain to be learned before we know IPX
BOE
JO
XIBU
TJUVBUJPOT
BOE
DPOUFYUT
UIF
VTF
PG
DBTI
DBO
BDIJFWF
UIF
CFTU
SFTVMUT
5IF
BQQSPBDI
IBT
NBOZ
QJUGBMMT
but also many advantages.

5IF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
"òBJST
TFFT
UXP
JNQPSUBOU
SFBTPOT
XIZ
UIF
VTF
PG
DBTI
TIPVME
CF
UFTUFE
'JSTU
XF
CFMJFWF
that recipients are best placed to decide what they need the most. Providing cash will help to ensure that aid is determined by needs. Second, there is less risk of flooding local markets with food, thus inflicting losses on local producers and traders. In fact, the provision of cash can have positive ripple effects on local production and businesses, although there are also certain risks.

*O

/PSBE
DPOEVDUFE
B
TVSWFZ
GPS
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
"òBJST
PG
UIF
VTF
PG
DBTI
JO
DPOOFDUJPO
XJUI
IVNBOJUBSJBO
SFTQPOTFT
BOE
USBOTJUJPOBM
TJUVBUJPOT
5IF
SFQPSU
8F
BDDFQU
DBTI
XBT
QSFTFOUFE
UP
B
XJEF
SBOHF
of national and international NGOs.

5IF
SFQPSU
DPOUBJOT
JOUFSFTUJOH
öOEJOHT
3FDJQJFOUT
QSFGFS
DBTI
UP
HPPET
$BTI
HJWFT
UIFN
HSFBUFS
øFYJCJMJUZ
BOE
JT̓DPOTJEFSFE
NPSF
EJHOJöFE
5IF
SJTL
PG
NJTVTF
JT
OP
HSFBUFS
JO
UIF
DBTF
PG
DBTI
UIBO
JO
DPOOFDUJPO
XJUI
HPPET
CVU
does depend on the project design. Projects that distribute cash can be more cost-effective than projects that EJTUSJCVUF
HPPET
CVU
UIF
QJDUVSF
JT
DPNQMJDBUFE
5IF
EFDJTJWF
GBDUPS
JT
XIFUIFS
UIF
QSPKFDU
JT
BEBQUFE
UP
UIF
TJUVBUJPO
on the ground. Cash can be used as a policy instrument in various areas, not only to replace food during famines. 5IF
VTF
PG
DBTI
JO
DPOOFDUJPO
XJUI
UIF
EFNPCJMJTBUJPO
PG
TPMEJFST
JT
POF
FYBNQMF
"OPUIFS
JT
UIF
QSPWJTJPO
PG
microcredit to promote the establishment of new businesses and income-generating work.

5IF
/PSXFHJBO
3FGVHFF
$PVODJM
XIJDI
JT
B
NFNCFS
PG
UIF
$BTI
-FBSOJOH
1BSUOFSTIJQ
VTFE
/PSBET
8F
BDDFQU
DBTI
SFQPSU
BT
UIF
CBTJT
GPS
B
XPSLJOH
TFNJOBS
PO
UIF
UPQJD
5IF
VTF
PG
DBTI
JT
QBSUJDVMBSMZ
SFMFWBOU
JO
SFGVHFFSFMBUFE
humanitarian situations.

Hargesia, Somaliland. A large pile of Somaliland Shillings displayed by a currency dealer. Photo: iStockphoto 18 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

3. Humanitarian disarmament

The economic, social and humanitarian rance and the destruction of mine stockpiles. consequences are enormous when people Supporting victims is a key objective. At the are unable to lead normal lives because of beginning of 2012, there were 159 states parties unexploded cluster munitions, abandoned to the Mine Ban Convention. Norway remains landmines or because illicit small arms get an active partner in work relating to the Mine into the wrong hands. The objective of Ban Convention. Particular emphasis is being humanitarian disarmament is to prevent given to supporting landmine clearance in and reduce armed violence in a wide sense affected countries, including through the by focusing on field-based activities and on improvement of working methods and by weapons that have unacceptable humanita- facilitating national ownership of the problem, rian consequences in the field. Norway is and the solution. Norway supports organisations working to promote the adoption of and that assist the victims of landmines and cluster compliance with international conventions munitions, to enable them to influence the and agreements relating to humanitarian development of policies relevant to them, disarmament, and to ensure that obliga- whether locally, nationally or internationally (see tions in this regard are enshrined in the examples in Part III). Norway is also sup- national legislation and practice. Norway’s porting organisations that monitor states’ ongoing work on and compliance with compliance with their obligations under the conventions and agreements that have Mine Ban Convention. already been adopted, such as the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention on The resources devoted to landmine-related work Cluster Munitions, are helping to strengt- on a global basis continue to grow, and new hen international humanitarian law further. methods are making landmine clearance efforts ever more effective. As a result, more areas are According to the UN, armed violence in and being cleared and released for social and outside of ordinary conflict situations causes an economic development. There are still 72 average of 2 000 deaths per day. Small arms are landmine-affected countries in the world, but responsible for most of these deaths. The focus more and more of these are being freed of is on the people and local communities affected landmines. Some 87 countries have destroyed all by armed violence, as well as on the reasons of their landmine stockpiles. In 2011, Nigeria why weapons are easily available and why they was declared landmine-free, and Iraq destroyed are used. One important measure is to limit the remainder of its stocks. Since the 1990s, the access to weapons, by, inter alia, negotiating and annual number of new landmine victims has implementing a UN treaty on trade in conventio- been reduced from over 20 000 to less than nal weapons. At the same time, it is important to 5 000. The number of landmine victims is still seek to improve and promote compliance with much too high, but there is nevertheless a trend the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, towards fewer victims. Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms. The Convention on Cluster Munitions was negotiated in 2008, and came into force in 2010. The Mine Ban Convention. The Mine Ban The convention already has more than 70 states Convention was negotiated in 1997, and entered parties. It bans the use, sale and production of into force in 1999. Norway participated actively cluster munitions, and contains clear fram- in the negotiations, which resulted in a ban on eworks and deadlines for clearing affected areas the use, sale and production of anti-personnel and destroying stockpiles. The convention landmines. The convention also sets out clear contains groundbreaking legal obligations to frameworks and deadlines for landmine clea- assist the victims of cluster munitions. A total Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 19

of 19 countries have used cluster munitions, and and confirmed that destruction efforts have more than 30 countries and areas are affected. progressed more quickly than envisaged. It is The situation is worst in South East Asia. The very important to highlight positive results of First Meeting of States Parties was held in Laos, this kind, as they show that the convention is and the second in Lebanon in 2011. At the having an effect. second meeting, Norway was elected as presi- dent and host of the Third Meeting of States Despite intensive efforts to secure broader Parties, which took place in Oslo in September support for the convention and the prohibitions 2012. it contains, cluster munitions were used in two situations in 2011. In Libya, Gaddafi’s forces Eighteen new countries became states parties used cluster munitions in their own country, to the convention in 2011. Along with good while Thailand used cluster munitions against implementation progress, this helped to strengt- Cambodia in a bilateral border dispute. Both hen the convention further. In 2011, Norway’s cases were widely condemned by the internatio- priority was to keep the focus directed on nal community, including by countries which concrete solutions to specific challenges, to have not yet signed up to the convention. The ensure that the discussions at the multilateral lesson is that the standard set by the convention meetings are as relevant as possible to work in is spreading, although it is still absolutely vital to the field. With this in view, Norway supported maintain intensive efforts to ensure that no the presidency’s preparation of the Beirut countries or actors use cluster munitions in Progress Report as background information for future. the meeting in Lebanon. The report showed that a large number of cluster munitions had already Armed violence. Since the Oslo Conference on been destroyed, and that the states parties had Armed Violence in 2010, Norway’s efforts to made good progress on clearing affected areas. counter armed violence have focused on It has been more difficult to measure improve- follow-up of the “Oslo Commitments” adopted at ments in the situation of victims. These vary the conference, including the requirement that considerably from country to country, according states monitor and measure armed violence on a to national economic circumstances and the national basis. In 2011, Norway chose to focus priority given to the rights of disabled persons. on national reporting of armed violence as a way Mine clearer in of meeting this obligation. Mozambique. In the report, several countries presented Photo: Halo Trust detailed plans for the destruction of stockpiles, 20 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

National reporting is important, because many security-related considerations. Norway argued countries lack national overviews of the scope of that the treaty should cover all types of conven- armed violence, who is affected, and what steps tional weapons and ammunition. The treaty are being taken to reduce the problem and its should contain strict, binding criteria to deter- damaging effects. In this connection, Norway mine when the export of weapons is permitted, produced its own national report on armed taking into account the consequences for peace violence in 2011 – the first of its kind. Together and security, human rights and international with civil society partners, Norway worked to humanitarian law. Norway is also seeking to create a platform for dialogue on national ensure that the treaty includes provisions on reporting. No concrete results were achieved in assistance for the victims of armed violence 2011, although Norway’s efforts helped to linked to conventional weapons. A further increase awareness of reporting among states important principle for Norway is that all and civil society actors. In addition, a small countries should be free to apply stricter rules number of countries have expressed an interest than those laid down in the ATT. in reporting on armed violence on a national basis. Further, by supporting various civil International attention was also directed to the society organisations, Norway sought to ensure specific problem of small arms in contexts other that more states develop their own capacity to than the ATT negotiations in 2011. One example measure and monitor armed violence, so that is the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, data on armed violence becomes publicly Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small available and can be used by those tasked with Arms (PoA) and the preparations for the PoA developing responses. Norway’s support for Review Conference in New York in August/ Action on Armed Violence’s programme in September 2012. In May 2011, for instance, a Liberia, discussed in Part III of this report, meeting of experts was held in New York on the is one example of this type of work. marking and traceability of small arms, at which Norway participated actively. Conventional weapons. There has been an increased focus internationally on the uncontrol- Strategic use of aid. In 2011, the Norwegian led proliferation of conventional weapons. authorities donated a total of NOK 323 million to Negotiations on an international Arms Trade humanitarian disarmament work in over 20 Treaty (ATT) were to be concluded in July countries, including around NOK 60 million to 2012, at a four-week negotiation conference victim assistance programmes. Through the organised by the UN in New York. In 2011, strategic use of funds, Norway supports compli- Norway participated actively in the preparatory ance by other states with their obligations under meetings held in New York in connection with the Mine Ban Convention and the Convention the ATT negotiations. Norway’s objective on Cluster Munitions, and thus the achievement throughout has been to support the negotiation of the conventions’ humanitarian objectives. and implementation of a strong, robust treaty Norwegian People’s Aid is Norway’s most that is based on humanitarian perspectives and important partner in these efforts. Other focuses on reducing human suffering and armed humanitarian landmine clearance organisations violence. also receive support from Norway, as do relevant UN agencies and organisations that During the 2011 negotiations, Norway helped to promote the rights of victims, conduct informa- put the humanitarian and development-related tion campaigns and seek to prevent armed aspects of the uncontrolled proliferation of violence. weapons on the agenda, in addition to trade- and Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 21

4. Needs-based assistance

Women and men, children and the elderly responses, and helping to ensure the implemen- are affected differently by war, conflicts tation of relevant UN resolutions and other and natural disasters. That is why Norway common standards. For example, through the seeks to ensure that the gender perspective UN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict is integrated into humanitarian assistance. (UN Action), Norway is supporting implementa- Women and girls are often particularly tion in the UN system of Security Council vulnerable to sexual abuse and gender- resolution 1325 and the other resolutions on based violence, and Norway is giving women, peace and security: resolutions 1820, priority to the protection of women and 1888, 1889 and 1960. Norway hosted the annual children against sexual abuse. Effective UN Action donor meeting in 2011. One of the humanitarian assistance means that initiati- topics at the meeting was the implementation of ves must be adapted to different needs and Security Council resolution 1960, which envisa- that the abilities and resources of the ges an accountability system that will list the affected population are utilised. Emergency perpetrators of conflict related sexual violence. aid recipients must be included in the Under the leadership of the SRSG on Sexual identification of needs and in the design of Violence in Conflict, UN Action is responsible measures. Inclusion and participation are for coordinating the UN’s implementation of key elements of any rights-based approach resolution 1960 , and for introducing monitoring, Collection and to humanitarian crises. analysis and reporting arrangements (MARA) to securing of hand that effect. In line with its objective of better weapon in Somali- Sexual violence. Norway is assisting Norwe- coordination within the UN, Norway has given land. Photo: Danish gian and international organisations in integra- priority to ensuring that the MARA is coordina- Demining Group, ting the gender perspective into humanitarian ted with existing systems. This is particularly Pete Mueller 22 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

relevant in relation to Security Council resolu- improved considerably, from little contact tion 1612 on children and armed conflict, which between actors and almost no involvement of the calls for the registration of parties who exploit provincial authorities to the establishment of children during wars. Norway clearly communi- coordination and working groups and regular cated its position to UN Action at the donor meetings chaired by the provincial authorities. meeting in Oslo, as well as in other forums and One result of this is quicker notification and dialogues with key UN actors. In 2011, the follow-up of cases of sexual violence. Another responsible UN agencies agreed to coordinate result is a survey of existing sexual violence their work on implementing resolutions 1960 projects, which is now providing the basis for and 1612. the development of new programmes. This example illustrates how the strategic use of DR Congo may well be the country in which relatively small amounts can make a difference. the use of sexual violence as a weapon in conflicts is most prevalent. In 2011, Norway People with disabilities are particularly supported various partners, Norwegian and vulnerable during humanitarian crises. Disabled international NGOs, and UN agencies in their persons must be included in emergency aid efforts to combat sexual violence in DR Congo. operations both during and after crises and Sexual violence is a widespread problem, conflicts. However, there is little knowledge particularly for the population in eastern parts about how humanitarian interventions can be of DR Congo, in which conflicts arise almost designed to safeguard the particular needs of continuously. One important element of Nor- the disabled. This was the topic of a conference way’s involvement in DR Congo has been to held in Oslo from 30 to 31 May 2011 (see strengthen the UN’s ability to protect civilians. separate fact box). The conference was the first That is why Norway has focused particularly on international event at which this topic was supporting the UN in its work on implementing discussed at the political level. the Comprehensive Strategy on Combating Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Norway’s aim in doing so is to improve the coordination of the many actors active in the field, and to increase the authori- ties’ ownership of efforts against sexual vio- lence. In 2011, Norway seconded two positions to the Sexual Violence Unit in MONUSCO (the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DR Congo). The unit is small, but has nevertheless proven effective. Norwegian support in 2011 enabled the unit to deploy one person to South Kivu, one of the provinces in DR Congo where sexual violence is very common, to improve coordination between the many actors in the field. During the course of 2011, the situation Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 23

Conference on disability in crises and conflicts #BOHMBEFTI
BOE
.ZBONBS
QSPWJEFE
NPWJOH
BDDPVOUT
On 30 and 31 May, the Atlas Alliance and the Ministry of how disabled persons in conflict and disaster areas of Foreign Affairs arranged an international lose their rights, for example to education and conference of experts entitled “Disability in Conflicts healthcare. In addition, the disabled are often ignored and Emergencies – Reaching the most vulnerable”. and excluded from disaster-prevention efforts. 5IF
QVSQPTF
PG
UIF
DPOGFSFODF
XBT
UP
GPDVT
BUUFOUJPO
5IF
DPOGFSFODF
XBT
PQFOFE
CZ
'PSFJHO
.JOJTUFS
+POBT
on persons with disabilities, a particularly vulnerable Gahr Støre and Atlas Alliance Chair Liv Arum. Former group during humanitarian crises and conflicts. .JOJTUFS
PG
$IJMESFO
&RVBMJUZ
BOE
4PDJBM
*ODMVTJPO
Another important aim was to increase knowledge Audun Lysbakken opened day two of the conference. about how humanitarian interventions can be .S
4U“SF
FNQIBTJTFE
UIF
JNQPSUBODF
PG
JODMVEJOH
designed to safeguard the particular needs of the persons with disabilities in all emergency aid efforts, disabled. Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Rights quoting work on the inclusion of a victim perspective PG
1FSTPOT
XJUI
%JTBCJMJUJFT
$31%
XBT
UIF
EFQBSUVSF
and human rights perspective in humanitarian QPJOU
GPS
UIF
DPOGFSFODF
5IF
$31%
IBT
IFMQFE
UP
disarmament efforts by way of example. increase the focus on the situation of persons with disabilities in crises and disasters in important It is currently too early to evaluate the effect of the international processes, such as the second meeting conference in practice. However, the UN is focusing of states parties to the Convention on Cluster more strongly on the need to include disabled persons .VOJUJPOT
IFME
JO
#FJSVU
JO
4FQUFNCFS
 in both humanitarian assistance and long-term development work. Increased UN attention is 5IF
UBSHFU
HSPVQ
GPS
UIF
DPOGFSFODF
XBT
/(0T
UIBU
important for effective implementation of Article 11 engage in humanitarian efforts, UN agencies and the PG̓UIF
$31%
5IF
DPOOFDUJPO
CFUXFFO
WJDUJN
BTTJTUBODF
authorities in donor countries and countries that are and the inclusion of persons with disabilities in often affected by, or are currently affected by, conflicts humanitarian operations was also discussed at the BOE
EJTBTUFST
5IF
QBSUJDJQBUJPO
PG
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
conference. Norway hopes that this topic will be representing persons with disabilities, including some included in further work under disarmament treaties. PG
UIPTF
EJSFDUMZ
BòFDUFE
XBT
JNQPSUBOU
5IF
In the long term, we hope that this initiative will conference delegates included representatives from promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities and Western nations and countries in Asia, Africa and Latin their special needs in strategies and plans for "NFSJDB
5IF
EFMFHBUFT
GSPN
UIF
1BMFTUJOJBO
5FSSJUPSZ
emergency aid operations.

Syrian refugee children in Kilis refugee camp in Turkey. Photo: The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 24 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

5. Protection of civilians, refugees and internally displaced persons

Armed conflicts often cause suffering to ship between human rights and humanitarian the civilian population, through the actions law is key in situations of this kind. The seminar of both state and non-state armed groups. strongly recommended that police and military New forms of warfare and the failure to security forces should receive training in both distinguish between military and civilian human rights and humanitarian law, and how targets are undermining respect for huma- they can be applied to protect the population. nitarian law. Norway therefore promotes the fundamental principle of humanitarian The seminar also focused on how to ensure that law that civilians must be protected against persons responsible for breaches of humanita- violence and abuse. rian law are held responsible. Particular empha- sis was given to documenting facts, both during Refugees and internally displaced persons are and after a conflict. One problem that was important target groups for humanitarian highlighted was the practice adopted by certain assistance. The reasons why people flee are countries of preventing journalists and other becoming ever more complex, but may include independent reporters from entering conflict conflicts with the authorities or armed groups, areas. Under humanitarian law, parties to armed or natural disasters, or a combination of these conflicts have a duty to consider the consequen- factors. This was the situation facing many ces of their actions for the civilian population. thousands of Somalis from al Shabaab-controlled There was broad agreement that the parties to a areas in central and southern Somalia, in what conflict must assess the impact of their actions was perhaps the most serious emergency aid on civilians. It is also necessary that appropriate situation of 2011. Many of these people fled measures are taken to improve documentation primarily from drought, and constitute a group and transparency. increasingly referred to environmentally displaced persons. People caught in protracted, The seminar formed part of a Norwegian-led long-term refugee situations with no prospects initiative entitled Reclaiming the Protection of of a permanent solution comprise a special class Civilians under International Humanitarian of refugees and internally displaced persons. Law, and was the second of four regional seminars on the topic. The first was held in Indo- Protection of civilians during armed con- nesia in the autumn of 2010, while the third took flicts. Despite the fact that international huma- place in Uganda in the spring of 2012. The nitarian law confers a fundamental right to fourth seminar is scheduled for a European protection on civilians affected by armed location in the winter of 2012/2013. The initia- conflict, in practice we see that it is still civilians tive will then conclude with a global conference who are hit the hardest. From 7 to 8 November in the spring of 2013. The aim is to build broad- 2011, Norway and Argentina held a regional based agreement on concrete measures to seminar in Buenos Aires to discuss how the strengthen respect for humanitarian law, and its rules of humanitarian law should be interpreted application, in order to improve the protection and applied to give civilians the protection to afforded to civilians affected by armed conflict. which they are entitled. In Latin America, the “war” on drugs presents a particular challenge. Internally displaced persons. Norway is Fighting between drug gangs and between giving high priority to strengthening legal security forces and drug gangs terrorises entire protection for internally displaced persons, a districts, and results in murder, kidnapping and group not covered by the Convention Relating to threats against the local population. Deaths are the Status of Refugees. In 2011, Norway chaired often much higher in this type of situation than negotiations on a resolution on the protection of in many ongoing armed conflicts. The relation- and assistance to internally displaced persons Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 25

(resolution 66/165), which was adopted by the new protection challenges related to climate UN General Assembly in December. The change on the international agenda. This was resolution is an important instrument for the purpose of the Nansen Conference on Climate securing member state support for the UN Change and Displacement in the 21st Century, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. which the Norwegian Government hosted in The UN Human Rights Council’s Special June 2011. Environmentally displaced persons Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally are expected to constitute a large group in Displaced Persons is also important in this future, and are not covered by the Convention context. The 2011 resolution contains new Relating to the Status of Refugees. The confe- provisions supporting the African Union Con- rence drafted a summary containing 10 “Nansen vention for the Protection and Assistance of Principles”, intended to provide a basis for Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (the further work relating to climate-related displace- Kampala Convention). Displacement as a result ment issues. It was emphasised that the issue is of natural disasters related to climate change not only the lack of clear legal protection, but was also highlighted in the resolution. also the need to strengthen prevention, adapta- tion and early warning measures. Norway is also promoting the allocation of resources to internally displaced persons by At the UNHCR ministerial meeting in December UNHCR. This is not uncontroversial among UN 2011, and by way of follow-up to the Nansen member states, and is regarded by some conference, Norway and Switzerland committed countries as interference in domestic affairs. themselves to working to move this topic further Norway also supports the Internal Displacement up on the international agenda. Monitoring Centre (IDMC), which reports on the situation of internally displaced persons in Protracted refugee situations. Increasing 50+ countries, providing factual and analytical attention is being given to protracted refugee information that forms the basis for UNHCR’s situations within UNHCR and among member work for internally displaced persons. states. “Protracted situations” are situations lasting longer than five years, in which there are In 2011, UNHCR commemorated the 60th no prospects of a permanent solution for those anniversary of the entry into force of the affected. More than 7 million refugees currently Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees fall into this category, as do an even greater and the 50th anniversary of the entry into force number of internally displaced persons. The of the Convention relating to the Status of largest individual group comprises Afghans Stateless Persons. 2011 also marked the 150th currently living in Iran and Pakistan. The largest birthday of Fridtjof Nansen. Nansen was, of refugee camp in the world is Dadaab in Kenya. course, the world’s first High Commissioner for In 2011, approximately 450 000 Somalis were Refugees, in the former League of Nations. living in the camp. The first refugees arrived in UNHCR celebrated the three anniversaries as the early 1990s, and many inhabitants have been part of its efforts to build greater understanding born and raised in the camp. of the need to protect displaced persons. The commemorations focused attention on new The resolution of long-term refugee situations protection needs, and highlighted the need for requires solutions at the political level. Develop- progress on citizenship for stateless persons. ment organisations such as UNDP, FAO and the World Bank have an important role to play. In Environmentally displaced persons. Norway 2011, Norway had frequent meetings with cooperated closely with UNHCR in 2011 to put UNDP and the World Bank on this topic, and 26 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

gave support to the Transitional Solutions for Somali refugees in the Horn of Africa, NOK Initiative, which is intended to secure a perma- 30 million for Afghan refugees in Iran and nent solution for Eritrean refugees living in Pakistan and internally displaced persons, NOK Eastern Sudan. The camps in Eastern Sudan 10 million for South Sudan, NOK 10 million for currently constitute the world’s longest-lasting internally displaced persons in Colombia, NOK refugee situation, excluding that of Palestinian 8 million for refugees from Libya (primarily refugees. The aim of the project, which is being third-country nationals), and NOK 8 million for run by UNHCR in cooperation with the Suda- refugees from Côte d’Ivoire. nese authorities, UNDP and the World Bank, is to integrate the refugees into the local commu- The Norwegian Refugee Council is Norway’s nity in which they are already living. Norway largest humanitarian organisation in terms of also offered approximately 200 refugees from budget and staff numbers. In 2011, the Norwe- this group resettlement under its refugee quota. gian Refugee Council received NOK 359 million via the humanitarian budget. The Norwegian Support for refugees and internally Refugee Council is an important partner for displaced persons. Norway makes considera- Norway in three respects. First, it provides ble annual contributions to the UN and various protection and assistance to displaced persons NGOs to help them to assist refugees and in some of the world’s most conflict-intensive internally displaced persons. Support for and hardest-hit countries. Second, it runs the protection and assistance measures was provi- NORCAP standby roster, which provides the ded through Norway’s core contributions to the UN with personnel (see fact box). Third, it is a Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), the strong advocate for displaced persons. Its voice country funds for Sudan and DR Congo and, not is listened to internationally, and it helps to put least, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees new issues on the agenda. (UNHCR). In 2011, UNHCR received approxi- mately NOK 440 million, making Norway the seventh-largest donor in global terms. NOK 290 million was given as a non-earmarked contribu- tion at the beginning of the year. The largest donations to specific crises were NOK 50 million Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 27

UNHCR review

*O

/PSXBZ
MFE
B
SFWJFX
PG
6/)$3
PSHBOJTFE
CZ
UIF
.VMUJMBUFSBM
0SHBOJTBUJPOT
1FSGPSNBODF
"TTFTTNFOU
/FUXPSL
.01"/
B
OFUXPSL
PG

EPOPS
DPVOUSJFT
"
.01"/
SFWJFX
JT
B
QBSUOFS
BTTFTTNFOU
JOUFOEFE
UP
NFBTVSF
UIF
BCJMJUZ
PG
BO
PSHBOJTBUJPO
UP
DPOUSJCVUF
UP
UIF
BDIJFWFNFOU
PG
EFWFMPQNFOU
SFTVMUT
5IF
GPDVT
JT
PO
IPX
TUSBUFHJD
NBOBHFNFOU
administrative and operational systems and procedures, forms of cooperation and institutional learning help to TUSFOHUIFO
UIF
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
GPDVT
PO
SFTVMUT
*O
PUIFS
XPSET
BDUVBM
SFTVMUT
BSF
OPU
BTTFTTFE
%PDVNFOU
SFWJFXT
BOE
questionnaires were used to assess UNHCR projects in the following countries: Burundi, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Nepal, 4ZSJB
BOE
5BO[BOJB

5IF
.01"/
UPPM
XBT
EFWFMPQFE
UP
NFBTVSF
UIF
FóDJFODZ
PG
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
UIBU
QSPWJEF
MPOHUFSN
EFWFMPQNFOU
BTTJTUBODF
BOE
UIFSFGPSF
IBE
UP
CF
UBJMPSFE
UP
6/)$3
5IJT
JT
CFDBVTF
6/)$3
BT
B
IVNBOJUBSJBO
PSHBOJTBUJPO
JT
OPU
subject to the same sustainability requirements as developmental organisations. On the other hand, it is even more committed to the humanitarian principles.

5IF
SFTVMUT
PG
UIF
SFWJFX
XFSF
PWFSXIFMNJOHMZ
QPTJUJWF
BOE
TIPXFE
UIBU
6/)$3
JT
GVMöMMJOH
JUT
NBOEBUF
*U
PCTFSWFT
the humanitarian principles, is well prepared for crises, and takes a performance-based approach. UNHCR also scored XFMM
PO
DPPQFSBUJPO
JO
UIF
öFME
BOE
EJBMPHVF
XJUI
QBSUOFST
BOE
BVUIPSJUJFT
"DDPSEJOH
UP
UIF
.01"/
SFWJFX
6/)$3T
greatest weakness is its reporting framework, particularly with regard to reporting on results and linking budget EFDJTJPOT
XJUI
DPTUCFOFöU
BOBMZTFT
5IF
MBTU
QIBTF
PG
BO
FYUFOTJWF
SFGPSN
PG
UIF
PSHBOJTBUJPO
JT
JOUFOEFE
UP
TFDVSF
improvements in this regard.

5IF
öOEJOHT
GSPN
UIF
.01"/
SFWJFX
BSF
DPOTJTUFOU
XJUI
PUIFS
SFDFOU
6/)$3
FWBMVBUJPOT
JODMVEJOH
UIF
6,T
comprehensive evaluation of a number of UN agencies. UNHCR also performed well in the UK review.

A Syrian refugee feeding her child while sitting with her family in Al Zaatri refugee camp . Photo: Scanpix 28 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

6. Coherent assistance

Countries that experience recurring or measures to build up local emergency prepared- long-term humanitarian crises often also ness and resilience. face other challenges, including weak state structures, poverty and vulnerability to Prevention works. The most effective weapon climate change. To better prevent humani- against disasters is prevention. A study conduc- tarian crises, it is important to recognise ted by the World Bank in 2010 showed that the connection between short-term emer- every dollar spent on prevention can potentially gency aid and long-term aid and develop- save six dollars in response costs. In Kenya, ment. We can reduce the risk of loss of prevention measures funded by Norway and human life in future crises by building on implemented by the Red Cross in 2009 helped to local emergency preparedness capacity. reduce the impact of the 2011 drought. The Efforts to ensure better transitions from Kenyan Red Cross responded quickly when the humanitarian assistance to recovery and drought hit, recommending the slaughter of long-term development are crucial in order cattle before they died of thirst, and while the to assist vulnerable countries more effecti- meat was still sellable. In Somalia, cattle simply vely. Norway is promoting a coherent died, leaving farmers without any income. approach, and will support the coordina- tion of humanitarian assistance, climate Development and prevention are closely change adaptation and development coope- related. Poor people settle in areas vulnerable ration. to landslides, flooding and drought. Deforesta- tion, the drainage of wetland areas, and inef- The Horn of Africa was hit by drought in 2011. ficient agricultural practices intensify natural In Somalia, the drought caused a famine. People events and have catastrophic consequences for fled from southern Somalia to the war-torn local populations. Effective prevention requires capital, Mogadishu, as well as to camps in both local and national authorities to take Ethiopia and Kenya, where the drought did not responsibility. The authorities should, in lead to famine. consultation with the local population, develop knowledge in order to implement the right Drought and conflicts reinforce one another. measures. The drought that affected the Horn of Africa in 2011 developed into a famine in Somalia because Norway’s efforts in the area of natural disaster the country was in conflict. Neighbouring prevention are linked to Norway’s climate policy countries avoided famine because they managed and long-term development assistance work. to strengthen the resilience of those affected by Like development assistance, preventive aid is drought. The population of the Horn of Africa is most effective when Norway can maintain a used to dry spells. People move, or slaughter local presence and cooperate closely with animals, when a drought arises. However, the authorities and civil society in the longer term, conflict in Somalia, which has been ongoing as is the case in Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cuba. since 1989, has made local communities vulnera- We are also currently establishing a pilot project ble, even to naturally occurring and recurring with Uganda relating to prevention. climate variations. A further factor in addition to conflict and drought is the global increase in The UN report on extreme weather. Effec- food prices, which has had a serious impact on tive prevention requires knowledge about countries dependent on food imports, like extreme weather and climate change. Such Somalia. The ongoing conflict complicates the knowledge is important not only for tackling design of long-term drought-preparedness future natural disasters, but also for promoting strategies and the implementation of concrete development that is more sustainable. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 29

In the implementation of the white paper Havana, Bangkok and Addis Ababa, where the Norwegian policy on the prevention of humanita- presentations to central decision-makers, NGOs rian crises,3 emphasis has been given to adopting and other civil society actors were covered a broad approach. Prevention and climate extensively in the media. change adaptation are crucial in efforts to promote sustainable development. Currently, Our hope is that the report will provide a national and international approaches are common reference framework for the efforts of characterised by fragmentation and a lack of all countries to deal with future extreme weather coordination and cooperation. That is why, in events. These challenges affect us all. Problems 2008, Norway encouraged the UN Intergovern- affecting the global common good require mental Panel on Climate Change to prepare a innovative solutions, and may impose considera- comprehensive report on the likely future ble social costs. Moreover, the SREX report and challenges presented by extreme weather other similar reports clearly document that the events. costs of doing nothing will be infinitely larger than the costs of prevention. Norway is emphasi- The report, which is commonly referred to as sing efforts to promote a prevention culture, the SREX report (Managing the Risks of Extreme nationally and internationally. This is the Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change foundation for Norway’s cooperation with Adaptation), is the result of broad inter-discipli- selected countries in Asia, the Caribbean and nary cooperation between some of the world’s Africa. Norway is participating actively in the Children in leading disaster risk reduction and climate international dialogue on climate challenges, Basaso camp experts, including several Norwegian scientists. both in the UN context and in its cooperation in Puntland Norway is funding the presentation of the report with other donor countries and actors. waiting for in various parts of the world, including in water. 3 Report No. 9 (2007-2008) to the Storting Photo: Corbis 30 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

7. Norway as a good donor

By their very nature, humanitarian needs research institutions on key issues in Norwe- are unpredictable. Norway must therefore gian humanitarian policy. A further aim of the maintain its flexibility and ability to act research programme is to build a foundation for swiftly to meet changing needs. At the same more knowledge-based development of Norwe- time, however, it is desirable to increase gian humanitarian policy. We also hope that the predictability for key partners by making programme will increase the public focus on, increased use of framework agreements and public awareness of, humanitarian issues. and disbursing grants early in the year. The research programme’s funding framework of NOK 10 million annually for four years was Less earmarking. In 2011, Norway continued announced in 2011, generating considerable to make substantial allocations in the form of interest and resulting in 19 grant applications. non-earmarked contributions to the large humanitarian organisations and the fund Norway is also cooperating with the internatio- mechanisms. The UN Central Emergency nal research institutions Feinstein International Response Fund (CERF) received by far the Center at Tufts University and the Humanita- largest amount of non-earmarked support, rian Policy Group of the Overseas Development totalling NOK 387 million. In addition, the UN Institute. Approximately NOK 5 million in humanitarian country funds for Somalia, DR support was given to international research Congo and Sudan received a total of NOK 258 institutions in 2011, primarily under multi-year million in non-earmarked funds, while UNHCR framework agreements. received NOK 290 million, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) NOK 87 Norway is also supporting research projects that million and OCHA NOK 90 million. form part of operational humanitarian activities. This applies, for example, to the development of Early disbursement. Norway’s focus on early warning systems for different forms of natural disbursement to countries and thematic disasters, and research on the protection of projects meant that 40 % of humanitarian persons displaced by climate-related natural allocations were paid out in the first quarter. disasters. Research is also being conducted in This increased the financial flexibility of the the areas of humanitarian disarmament and the organisations and allowed them to work under protection of women in war and conflict. The more predictable conditions. This flexibility challenges are to make sure that research is is strongly linked with the quality of the relevant and to introduce mechanisms to ensure organisations’ programmes. CERF received that decision-makers can benefit from research NOK 350 million in the first quarter of 2011, results. while payments totalling NOK 25 million were made to the Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF) of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in the first three months of the year.

More funding for humanitarian research. In 2011, a new humanitarian policy research programme was established by the Research Council of Norway. The objective of the pro- gramme is to support knowledge development and improve the expertise of Norwegian Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 31

8. Financial and administrative consequences

In order to address humanitarian challen- financial irregularities. These organisations also ges effectively, Norway must strengthen its have to provide a summary of any cases concer- administration and follow-up of humanita- ning financial irregularities they have closed rian aid. The administration of humanita- during the year in question. Improving the rian funds must be robust and ensure that reporting of results is an ongoing effort. the objectives are met and results achieved. This is vital for the predictable, professio- Experience of multi-year agreements. nal administration of grants. As part of Norway’s focus on giving priority to Rescue teams strategic partnerships and strengthening and searching for Reporting of results and new agreement increasing the effectiveness of the administra- earthquake templates. In 2011, the Ministry of Foreign tion of grants, multi-year agreements were victims, with the Affairs introduced new measures to strengthen concluded with the Norwegian Refugee Council, assistance of reporting on aid results. The rules were impro- the Norwegian Red Cross, Norwegian People’s rescue dogs, ved and new grant templates were introduced in Aid, Norwegian Church Aid, OCHA and the after the the Ministry. These contain clearer require- Feinstein International Center at Tufts Univer- earthquake in ments regarding the formulation of expected sity in the period 2008–2010. The framework Van, Turkey in results. Moreover, the agreements with the agreements are a useful instrument that promo- November 2011. largest organisations require them to publish tes closer dialogue and follow-up and provides Photo: annual reports on their efforts to combat financial predictability for the organisations. Shutterstock 32 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Framework agreements were a new instrument number of agreements, thus making the in the context of Norwegian humanitarian policy administration of grants more effective. The when they were introduced in 2008. Accordingly, organisations have benefited from greater it was important to gather experience of their predictability and flexibility. use before concluding new framework agre- ements. A review of the framework agreements Setting administrative grants in the context conducted in 2011 showed that they have of grant administration. Administrative grants promoted more strategic, long-term cooperation are linked to administrative expenses and the with key partners in relation to the thematic cost of support functions at the head office of priorities outlined in the white paper Norway’s the grant recipient in question. Revised procedu- Humanitarian Policy.3 This form of cooperation res for handling administrative grants in the has also helped to strengthen the results focus context of grant administration were developed of the public administration, not least through in 2011. According to these procedures, the ongoing dialogue on measures implemented administrative component of a humanitarian under the agreements. Embassies and field grant may total up to 7 %. The rate is 15 % for offices of organisations are important partici- expenses relating to the operation of emergency pants in this dialogue. The agreements have also preparedness systems for personnel. promoted concentration by reducing the

3 Report No. 40 (2008–2009) to the Storting

Strategic partnerships through multi-year agreements 5P
JODSFBTF
UIF
FòFDUJWFOFTT
PG
UIF
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
PG
BMMPDBUJPOT
NVMUJZFBS
BHSFFNFOUT
BSF
DPODMVEFE
XJUI
LFZ
/PSXFHJBO
BOE
JOUFSOBUJPOBM
QBSUOFST
JO
BSFBT
JO
XIJDI
UIF
QBSUOFST
IBWF
TQFDJBMJTU
FYQFSUJTF
5IFTF
GSBNFXPSL
agreements help to ensure that a more strategic, long-term approach is taken to cooperation relating to the thematic priorities outlined in the white paper Norway’s Humanitarian Policy. .

Overview of the framework agreements:

Organisation Theme

Norwegian Refugee Council Standby roster (NORCAP)

Norwegian Refugee Council Internally displaced persons in Africa

Norwegian Red Cross Prevention of natural disasters

Norwegian Red Cross Humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan

Norwegian Church Aid "VHVTUB
7JDUPSJB
)PTQJUBM
JO
UIF
1BMFTUJOJBO
5FSSJUPSZ

Norwegian Church Aid (FOEFSCBTFE
WJPMFODF
JO
%3
$POHP

Norwegian People’s Aid Humanitarian disarmament

OCHA Core funding

'FJOTUFJO
*OUFSOBUJPOBM
$FOUFS
5VGUT
6OJWFSTJUZ Humanitarian research Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 33

Part II: Norwegian humanitarian aid in figures

Norway’s humanitarian budget totalled approxi- (Figure 2), not including support provided via mately NOK 3.3 billion in 2011. In other words, the International Red Cross system. humanitarian aid accounted for around 12 % of Norway’s total aid budget, including core Figure 1 shows trends in Norwegian humanita- contributions to the UN High Commissioner for rian aid over time. Aid increased considerably Refugees. According to the Development from 2007 to 2011. Figure 4 shows that there is Assistance Committee of the Organisation for variation in the countries that receive the most Economic Co-operation and Development aid. Somalia was the largest recipient in 2011, (OECD/DAC), Norwegian humanitarian aid while Pakistan and Sudan topped the list in 2010. comprises about 3 % of total global humanitarian In Somalia, drought intensified by the ongoing aid (2010 figures). A little more than half of the conflict escalated into a famine situation that humanitarian aid provided by Norway is required extensive financial support from the channelled through the multilateral system international community.

The drought in the Horn of Africa – an expected disaster

In the autumn of 2010, we knew that the weather phenomenon La Niña would affect the Horn of Africa, and that the humanitarian consequences would be considerable in 2011. War and conflict intensified the crisis and made it difficult to gain humanitarian access to large areas.

Extensive planning was initiated before the end of 2010. Funds were allocated in response to the Consolidated "QQFBM
GPS
4PNBMJB
BOE
UP
UIF
HMPCBM
FNFSHFODZ
BJE
GVOET
"U
UIF
TBNF
UJNF
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
BOE
SFMFWBOU
FNCBTTJFT
identified needs and the most effective channels. One conclusion was that priority would be given to the Norwegian and international organisations that had access to those in need in southern Somalia, the region from which people were fleeing. However, few humanitarian actors had real access, since the militant al-Shabaab organisation, which controlled southern Somalia, refused many foreign organisations permission to work in the area. In addition, it was dangerous for foreigners even to enter the area. As a result, a relatively large proportion of humanitarian aid, including food aid, was channelled through private organisations with local operations, rather than large UN agencies like the World Food Programme.

In total, Norway provided NOK 620 million in humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa in 2011, NOK 210 million of XIJDI
XBT
QBJE
PVU
CFGPSF

.BSDI
.PTU
PG
UIJT
BJE
XFOU
UP
TPVUIFSO
4PNBMJB
)PXFWFS
UIF
TUBUJTUJDT
GPS
/PSXFHJBO
BJE
UP
4PNBMJB
TIPX
B
MPXFS
öHVSF
OBNFMZ
/0,

NJMMJPO
5IJT
JT
EVF
UP
UXP
GBDUPST
'JSTU
/PSXBZT
TIBSF
PG
support for Somalia provided via the UN emergency aid funds is registered as global aid, and not included in the 4PNBMJB
TUBUJTUJDT
5IJT
BNPVOUFE
UP
/0,

NJMMJPO
JO

4FDPOE
TVQQPSU
GPS
SFHJPOBM
NFBTVSFT
DPWFSJOH
several countries in the Horn of Africa is not registered against individual countries. 34 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Humanitarian aid 2007–2011

2007 2630

2008 2769

2009 2688

2010 3206

2011 3343

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 NOK millions

Figure 1: Steady increase in humanitarian aid In 2011, Norway provided NOK 3.3 billion in humanitarian aid. This was slightly more than in 2010. There has been a steady increase in humanitarian aid over the last five years as a whole. The large increase from 2009 to 2010 is primarily due to the allocation of additional funds in connection with the natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan.

Humanitarian aid partners 5IF
4UPSUJOH
UIF
/PSXFHJBO
QBSMJBNFOU
NBLFT
BOOVBM
BMMPDBUJPOT
UP
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BJE
WJB
UIF
/BUJPOBM
#VEHFU
5IF̓GVOET
BSF
BMMPDBUFE
UP
B
SBOHF
PG
PQFSBUJPOBM
IVNBOJUBSJBO
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
SFTQPOTJCMF
GPS
QSPWJEJOH
QSBDUJDBM
humanitarian assistance to those in need. Norway’s most important partners in the context of humanitarian aid are the UN’s humanitarian organisations, the International Red Cross system and other non-governmental humanitarian organisations, both Norwegian and international.

5IF
DIPJDF
PG
QBSUOFS
EFQFOET
PO
UIF
IVNBOJUBSJBO
TJUVBUJPO
JO
RVFTUJPO
/PSXBZ
BMXBZT
TFFLT
UP
TFMFDU
UIF
IVNBOJUBSJBO
BDUPST
UIBU
DBO
QSPWJEF
UIF
NPTU
FòFDUJWF
BTTJTUBODF
5IJT
WBSJFT
JO
EJòFSFOU
FNFSHFODJFT
BOE
EFQFOET
on the local context. A small actor with good local contacts and knowledge will be able to reach areas that are closed to larger actors. In acute humanitarian crises, it is the local actors that will be able to provide the initial, life-saving help. In the case of large, long-term humanitarian needs requiring strategic coordination of many humanitarian actors, the UN will often be a key, effective channel.

Effective crisis coordination and response require emergency preparedness systems that can be implemented RVJDLMZ
PODF
B
DSJTJT
BSJTFT
)VNBOJUBSJBO
GVOET
BSF
WJUBM
JO
UIJT
SFHBSE
5IF
QVSQPTF
PG
UIF
FNFSHFODZ
BJE
GVOET
BOE
country funds established by the UN is to provide rapid assistance in acute crises, cover critical funding gaps and function as a flexible financial reserve during unforeseen crises. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 35

Channels and partners for Norwegian humanitarian aid

Channels for Norwegian Humanitarian aid i 2011 Figure 2: The multilateral organisations remain International and the most important channel for Norwegian local NGOs Norwegian humanitarian aid.. 8% NGOs In 2011, more than half of Norway’s humanitarian 22% aid was channelled through multilateral organisa- Multilateral tions, excluding the International Red Cross system. organisations 51% Public Compared to 2010, there have been only small sector 3% changes in the use of the different types of channels. The exception is support via the Red Cross system, which increased by 3 percentage points from 14 % in 2010 to 17 % in 2011. This increase is connected to the nature of the major crises in 2011 (see Figure 3). The Internatinal Norway’s statistics show that the Norwegian Red Red Cross 17% Cross received the most support among Norwegian NGOs, although the majority of the funds it receives are passed directly on to the International Red Cross. Support channelled through Norwegian NGOs remained stable at 22 %.

The largest partners in 2011

The International Red Cross UNHCR

UNCERF The Norwegian Refugee Council UNDP

UNOCHA Norwegian People's Aid

UNICEF 2011 Norwegian 2010 Church Aid 2009 WFP 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 NOK millions * Inkluderer støtte gjennom Norges Røde Kors.

Figure 3: Support channelled through the International Red Cross system, the Norwegian Refugee Council and UNDP increased in 2011. The changes in the support given to partners reflect which actors were involved in the major humanitarian crises of 2011, a year marked by war and conflict. The International Red Cross and the Norwegian Refugee Council required increased support to protect civilians, internally displaced persons and refugees in Libya, Liberia and Somalia. UNDP administers the UN humanitarian funds. Increased utilisation of the funds therefore resulted in an increase in the humanitarian aid channelled through UNDP by Norway in 2011. 36 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Humanitarian aid to selected countries 2009-2011 350 2009 300 2010 250 2011 200

150

100

50

0 Somalia Sudan The Afghanistan DR Kongo Pakistan Libya Lebanon South- Myanmar Haiti Palestinian Sudan (Burma) Territory

Figure 4: Considerable funds were allocated to acute humanitarian crises in Somalia and Libya in 2011. South Sudan appears as an independent country in the statistics for 2011. When comparing the figures for the period 2007–2011, therefore, the 2011 figures for Sudan and South Sudan must be added together. The drought in the Horn of Africa is reflected in a strong increase in the amount of humanitarian aid given to Somalia, which included support for Somali refugees in neighbouring countries. The statistics also show that considerable humanitarian aid was provided in connection with the situation in Libya.

The case of Haiti illustrates how the amount of humanitarian aid can vary over time. The earthquake that struck Haiti in January 2010 resulted in acute, extensive humanitarian needs. Nevertheless, the figures show that Haiti received little humanitarian aid both before and after the earthquake. This does not mean that no help was given, but rather that the aid which was subsequently provided was not humanitarian in nature, focusing instead on long-term recovery assistance.

The ten largest recipient countries from 2007 to 2011

Sudan 1054 The Palestinian Territory 917 Somalia 839 Afghanistan 826 Pakistan 610 DR Kongo 462 Myanmar 286 (Burma) Iraq 273 Sri Lanka 272 Labanon 256

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 NOK millions Figure 5: Countries suffering long-term humanitarian crises receive the most humanitarian aid over time. Despite large variations in which countries receive the most humanitarian aid from year to year, Figure 5 shows that it is countries with long-term humanitarian needs that receive the most over time. Totalling the support received over the last five years reveals that Sudan, Afghanistan, DR Congo and the Palestinian Territory received the most in that period. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 37

Rapid response – the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) CERF is the UN’s largest humanitarian fund, and received contributions from 126 UN member states in 2011, in addition to donations from businesses and private individuals. Nevertheless, a few traditional donors bear the majority of the funding burden – just seven member states provide 85 % of CERF’s funds. In 2011, Norway was the UIJSEMBSHFTU
EPOPS
CFIJOE
UIF
6,
BOE
4XFEFO
BOE
BIFBE
PG
UIF
/FUIFSMBOET
BOE
$BOBEB
$&3'
SFDFJWFE
64%

NJMMJPO
JO

BDIJFWJOH
UIF
6/
(FOFSBM
"TTFNCMZT
BOOVBM
DPOUSJCVUJPOT
UBSHFU
PG
64%

NJMMJPO
GPS
UIF
TFDPOE
time.

CERF is mandated to fund life-saving humanitarian assistance for people in need. It may only channel funds through UIF
6/
5IF
TJY
MBSHFTU
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
UP
BENJOJTUFS
$&3'
GVOET
JO

XFSF
8'1


6/*$&'


6/)$3


'"0


8)0


BOE
*0.

 

$&3'
JT
BENJOJTUFSFE
CZ
0$)"
PO
CFIBMG
PG
UIF
EPOPS
DPVOUSJFT
5IF
EPOPST
BSF
OPU
EJSFDUMZ
JOWPMWFE
JO
UIF
distribution of funds, but contribute to the continuous improvement of the mechanism through various advisory groups. In many countries, ongoing humanitarian crises have lost their news value, and become “forgotten crises”. Although assistance is still needed, the lack of international attention results in limited donor contributions. CERF has therefore acted as a guarantor of important contributions to crisis responses that are underfunded due to a lack of international attention.

*O

$&3'
QSPWJEFE
64%

NJMMJPO
JO
FNFSHFODZ
BJE
JO
SFTQPOTF
UP
NPTU
PG
UIF
XPSMET
IVNBOJUBSJBO
DSJTFT
.PSF
UIBO
UXPUIJSET
PG
UIF
GVOET
XFOU
UP
IVNBOJUBSJBO
DSJTFT
JO
"GSJDB
QBSUJDVMBSMZ
UIF
GBNJOF
JO
UIF
)PSO
PG
"GSJDB
and the drought in the Sahel region. All of the 10 largest recipients of CERF funds are located in Africa, apart from Sri -BOLB
BOE
1BLJTUBO
5IF
TJY
MBSHFTU
SFDJQJFOUT
PG
$&3'
GVOET
JO

XFSF
4PNBMJB


&UIJPQJB


1BLJTUBO
(7.6 %), South Sudan (5.3 %), Kenya (5.3 %) and Chad (5.3 %). Assistance was provided in the following sectors: food aid (23.1 %), health (14.3 %), nutrition (14.3 %), cross-sectoral support (11.9 %) and agriculture (10.3 %).

0WFSBMM
$&3'
TVQQPSUFE

QSPKFDUT
UPUBMMJOH
BSPVOE
/0,

CJMMJPO
64%

NJMMJPO
JO

4PNF

NJMMJPO
people in 45 countries received humanitarian assistance funded by CERF. A total of 22 million people received food aid, while 19 million received clean water. Vaccinations were given to 19.5 million children, and 1.5 million people were provided with shelter. In addition, 1.1 million families received agricultural starter packs with the aim of SFEVDJOH
UIFJS
EFQFOEFODF
PO
FNFSHFODZ
BJE
CZ
JODSFBTJOH
UIFJS
BCJMJUZ
UP
QSPEVDF
GPPE
GPS
UIFNTFMWFT
5IFTF
measures, along with others, helped to save lives, alleviate suffering and prevent further escalation of humanitarian crises.

In 2011, a comprehensive five-year evaluation of CERF for the period 2006 to 2010 was presented. CERF’s strength and added value lie in making rapid payouts during humanitarian crises and intensifying humanitarian responses, QBSUJDVMBSMZ
JO
UIF
DBTF
PG
VOEFSGVOEFE
EJTBTUFST
5IF
FWBMVBUJPO
NBEF
TUSBUFHJD
BOE
PQFSBUJPOBM
SFDPNNFOEBUJPOT
to strengthen CERF’s effectiveness and relevance within the humanitarian architecture. It also proposed measures to improve the administration of the fund further, and identifiedmeasures to strengthen accountability vis-à-vis CERF’s JNQMFNFOUJOH
JOTUJUVUJPOT
5IF
$&3'
TFDSFUBSJBU
JO
0$)"
IBT
EFWFMPQFE
B
GPMMPXVQ
QMBO
XIJDI
XJMM
CF
VQEBUFE
PO
a ontinuous basis. 38 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

High emergency preparedness – NORCAP new nation of South Sudan from July 2011 onwards), i5IF
SJHIU
QFSTPO
JO
UIF
SJHIU
QMBDF
BU
UIF
SJHIU
UJNFw
1BLJTUBO
UIF
1BMFTUJOJBO
5FSSJUPSZ
)BJUJ
"GHIBOJTUBO
5IJT
JT
UIF
NPUUP
PG
/03$"1
UIF
TUBOECZ
SPTUFS
SVO
CZ
Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, the Norwegian Refugee Council and fully funded by *SBR
+PSEBO
&HZQU
4ZSJB
BOE
5VOJTJB
5IFTF
DPVOUSJFT
UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
"òBJST are some of NORCAP’s most important deployment targets. *O
"QSJM

UIF
.JOJTUSZ
PG
'PSFJHO
"òBJST
DPODMVEFE
a three-year cooperation agreement with the 5IF
QSPöMFT
PG
SFRVFTUFE
QFSTPOOFM
SFWFBM
UIBU
UISFF
Norwegian Refugee Council on the operation of types of expertise are particularly in demand: NORCAP, which aims to improve the ability of the protection (including the protection of children), humanitarian system, and not least the UN, to provide logistics and coordination. Other types of expertise rapid, effective humanitarian aid and protection include education during crises, information services, UISPVHI
TFDPOENFOUT
PG
LFZ
QFSTPOOFM
5IF
BHSFFNFOU
water and sanitation, food security and livelihoods. replaced the many individual, sometimes geographi- 5IF
QJDUVSF
JT
NPSF
DPNQMFY
BT
SFHBSET
EJTUSJCVUJPO
cally delimited, secondment agreements which had by gender and geography. Of the approximately 850 been used since 1991, when the standby roster was people who are currently on the standby roster, 40 % established under the auspices of the Norwegian are Norwegians, while 60 % come from the global 3FGVHFF
$PVODJM
5IF
UISFFZFBS
BHSFFNFOU
IBT
4PVUI
5IF
IJHI
QFSDFOUBHF
GSPN
UIF
HMPCBM
4PVUI
improved efficiency by reducing bureaucracy, and has reflects a deliberate recruitment strategy on the part of introduced more predictable conditions for the the Norwegian Refugee Council, as does the Norwegian Refugee Council. It has also given both QSPQPSUJPO
PG
XPNFO
XIJDI
JT
DVSSFOUMZ


5BSHFUFE
QBSUJFT
øFYJCJMJUZ
JO
BDVUF
DSJTFT
5IJT
JO
UVSO
IBT
efforts to recruit more personnel from the South, and facilitated a better dialogue on applicable overarching particularly women, are entirely in line with the TUSBUFHJD
QSJODJQMFT
5IF
PSJHJOBM
CVEHFU
XBT
/0,

.JOJTUSZT
QPMJDJFT million. In 2011, there were four situations in particular in By the end of 2011, the Norwegian Refugee Council which the NORCAP standby roster was frequently used. had concluded 1 134 individual contracts since the All four crises occurred on the African continent. establishment of NORCAP, equivalent to 1 469 labour NPOUIT
%VSJOH
UIJT
QFSJPE
BO
BWFSBHF
PG

QFSTPOT
In the winter of 2011, an uprising began in eastern have been on assignment abroad at any given time, Libya, directed against the incumbent president, while 850 people have been on the NORCAP standby .VBNNBS
(BEBó
5IF
VQSJTJOH
XBT
GPMMPXFE
CZ
B
DJWJM
SPTUFS
SFBEZ
UP
CF
EFQMPZFE
BU

IPVST
OPUJDF
.PTU
war and an armed intervention under a UN mandate. secondments were to UN agencies, such as UNICEF, .BOZ
UIJSEDPVOUSZ
OBUJPOBMT
XFSF
GPSDFE
UP
øFF
-JCZB
UNHCR, FAO and WFP, although many people have also .PTU
XFOU
UP
5VOJTJB
BMUIPVHI
NBOZ
BMTP
øFE
UP
&HZQU
CFFO
EFQMPZFE
UP
UIF
5FNQPSBSZ
*OUFSOBUJPOBM
5P
FOTVSF
UIBU
UIFTF
OFJHICPVSJOH
DPVOUSJFT
EJE
OPU
1SFTFODF
JO
)FCSPO
5*1)
BOE
UIF
*OUFSOBUJPOBM
close their borders, it was vital to help the refugees to 0SHBOJ[BUJPO
GPS
.JHSBUJPO
*0.  NPWF
PO
UP
UIFJS
IPNF
DPVOUSJFT
6/)$3
BOE
*0.
organised this with assistance from inter alia personnel NORCAP personnel must be ready to travel almost seconded through NORCAP. anywhere in the world, wherever a crisis hits. Between 2009 and 2011, many staff served in Sudan (and in the Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 39

A civil war-like situation also broke out in Côte d’Ivoire when the loser of the presidential election, Laurent Gbagbo, and his supporters refused to surrender power to the winner, Alassane Ouattara. 5IF
DPOøJDU
EJWJEFE
UIF
DPVOUSZ
JO
UXP
BOE
displaced many people, not least in the west of the country, where many fled to Liberia. In total, 23 secondments were made to Côte d’Ivoire and neighbouring countries.

In the summer of 2011, a famine arose in the Horn PG
"GSJDB
BT
B
SFTVMU
PG
B
MPOH
ESPVHIU
5IF
DSJTJT
struck particularly in al Shabaab-controlled regions in southern and central Somalia that were closed to IVNBOJUBSJBO
PSHBOJTBUJPOT
5IF
HSFBUFTU
OFFE
XBT
not for money and goods, but rather for qualified personnel to coordinate the aid efforts of organisations such as WFP, UNICEF and UNHCR. 5ISPVHI
/03$"1

FYQFSUT
XFSF
TFDPOEFE
UP
Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as to Somalia.

South Sudan became an independent state in 
5IF
GPSNBUJPO
PG
UIF
OFX
DPVOUSZ
XBT
accompanied by considerable uncertainty, not least as to whether war would break out and whether large numbers of people would be displaced. Overall, the transition was calmer than expected, although the new country clearly had capacity problems. It was largely dependent on the UN and other humanitarian organisations for the provision of essential services to its citizens. South Sudan received the most expert assistance through NORCAP in 2011, with 33 secondments.

%VSJOH
UIF
UISFF
ZFBST
PG
JUT
FYJTUFODF
/03$"1
IBT
been adapted to new challenges, not least the prevention of natural disasters. Attempts have also been made to respond to the UN’s increased need for expertise in complex crises that require a combination of instruments, such as peacekeeping troops and political missions.

Mine clearance in Uganda. Photo: Danish Demining Group, Pete Mueller 40 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Part III: Selected humanitarian aid results

As an administrator of humanitarian funds, the Somalia and migrant workers in Liberia. Alt- Ministry of Foreign Affairs is required to ensure hough the two crises are entirely different, that resources are used effectively, that grants well-documented results have been achieved are consistent with the objectives set by the in both cases. Storting (the Norwegian parliament), and that aid results are sufficiently documented. All Two further examples illustrate that results are partners are required to report on their results not necessarily easy to measure. We all want to and achievements. Information on Norwegian ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches humanitarian aid results is found in partner those who need it most. That is why we want to reports and independent evaluations and know how many lives have been saved and how analyses, and obtained through steering dia- many people have received food and protection. logues with UN agencies with humanitarian These types of results are easy to communicate. mandates. Such things are easy to quantify and the result is immediately apparent. Two examples in this Normally, obtaining information is not difficult. year’s report – support for landmine victims in Although the Ministry receives annual reports Bosnia and Herzegovina and contributions to from all of its partners, the Ministry can only efforts to combat under-reporting of armed provide good examples if partners have reliable violence in Liberia – show that the long-term systems in place for documenting their results. effects of aid are not necessarily easy to mea- Tracing Norwegian contributions is difficult in sure. Measuring long-term results can be both the case of large UN agencies to which Norway difficult and resource-intensive. makes core contributions, but which also have many other supporters. However, Norway is a Three of the examples concern support for member of these organisations’ boards, and refugees and civilians provided through the uses this position actively to monitor their Norwegian Refugee Council and UNHCR, and activities. Norway helps these organisations to for the ICRC regional delegation in Côte improve their results-reporting systems and d’Ivoire. One might assume that quantifying the make more effective use of them, so that protection afforded to individuals is easy, not Norway can report on the results that are least because considerable information is often achieved. Sometimes, a proportion of the results available on the number of people who have can be ascribed to Norway, but in most cases received help. However, it is important to bear in the organisations’ reports provide general mind that humanitarian crises are difficult, and information on results to which Norway and that emergency aid situations are by their very other donors have contributed. nature highly complex. The example from Côte d’Ivoire illustrates how difficult it can be to gain It is difficult to provide a comprehensive account access to those requiring humanitarian assis- of the results achieved using Norwegian tance in conflict situations. There are many humanitarian funds in a particular year. The obstacles on the road to satisfactory results. available information is simply too extensive and Overcoming these requires adaptation, shrewd- varied to allow this. We still have to select just a ness and experience. few examples from a wide portfolio of results. In this year’s report, we have highlighted six examples. Two relate to the two largest humani- tarian crises of 2011, involving refugees in Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 41

Somalia: the Norwegian Refugee Council assisted more than one million displaced people

The combination of armed conflict, state southern Somalia. In addition to continuing its collapse, the repeated failure of rainy ongoing efforts, the Norwegian Refugee Council seasons and sky-high food prices produced intensified its focus on those affected by famine. a famine in southern Somalia in 2011. It organised the provision of clean water for The famine cost many lives and displaced 125 000 people, the distribution of emergency thousands of people. The Norwegian aid equipment packs to 270 000 people, the Refugee Council provided more than 1.2 construction of 10 000 latrines, the erection of million people with emergency aid in the 2 000 fireproofed tents, the distribution of 26 000 Horn of Africa in 2011. blankets and the provision of educational support to 7 500 children in the war-torn parts Somalia has been affected by armed conflict for of southern and central Somalia. decades. The country has suffered under state collapse since the fall of President Siad Barres In southern and central Somalia, the Norwegian in 1991. The resulting power vacuum has been Refugee Council reached almost 130 000 people exploited by various guerrilla groups and by means of an innovative food voucher pro- Islamic fundamentalists. Preventing aid from gramme. The aid recipients were registered falling into the wrong hands is a constant using an id card bearing the holder’s picture, challenge when operating under conditions as name and an individual number. Each family demanding as those in Somalia. The security received 25 kilograms of rice, 25 kg of wheat situation for civilians and aid workers is extre- flour, 10 kg of sugar, six litres of cooking oil and mely precarious in many areas. International 11 kg of pulses per month. The Norwegian efforts in Somalia are highly politicised, and Refugee Council ensured that the local market numerous actors are offering various forms of was supported by using local suppliers. At the support. To ensure that help reaches the right height of the crisis, the intensification of the recipients, it is important to use humanitarian food aid programme across southern and central actors with a local presence and access. Somalia saved many lives. Accordingly, the banning in November of 16 humanitarian The Norwegian Refugee Council has maintained organisations, including the Norwegian Refugee a presence in Somalia since 2004, and in the Council, from operating in al-Shabaab controlled south of the country since 2007. Primarily with areas was a major setback. The Norwegian the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Refugee Council is working to re-establish the organisation is running an extensive aid access to these areas. programme not only in Somaliland, Puntland and central Somalia, but also in the refugee In Puntland and Somaliland, the Norwegian camps in Dadaab, Kenya and Dolo Ado in Refugee Council continued to protect and Ethiopia. The Norwegian Refugee Council is provide humanitarian assistance to the long- seeking to ensure that the basic needs of term displaced, with a focus on sustainable, displaced persons are met by focusing on the permanent solutions. In Puntland, where the five priorities of shelter, education, food security, question of land rights constitutes the greatest legal advice and access to clean water and barrier to permanent solutions, the Norwegian sanitation facilities. Refugee Council negotiated land and property rights for displaced persons, and developed a More than 13 million people were affected by new housing design for over 55 000 people. the drought in the Horn of Africa in 2011. In In Somaliland, the Norwegian Refugee Council Somalia alone, 750 000 people were at risk of began the construction of permanent homes for starvation at the height of the crisis, mostly in returning refugees and internally displaced 42 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

persons, in a unique partnership with UNHCR In tandem with efforts in Somalia and Ethiopia, and the authorities, who provided free labour the Norwegian Refugee Council intensified its and materials. activity levels in the 20 year-old refugee camps in Dadaab, Kenya. While the population of the The Norwegian Refugee Council maintains camps equalled that of the city of Bergen before a strong regional presence on both sides of the famine, the capacity of the overfilled camps Somalia’s borders, so that assistance can be was completely exceeded when 155 000 new provided as close to those in need as possible. refugees arrived between January and October In 2011, hundreds of thousands of refugees of 2011. With funding from Norway, the Norwe- flooded across the borders with Ethiopia and gian Refugee Council erected 5 800 tents, Kenya. In Ethiopia, more than 100 000 new constructed 2 300 clay houses with tin roofs, refugees crossed the border to the camps in built latrines for 50 000 newly arrived refugees Dolo Ado, where the Norwegian Refugee and provided occupational training to young Council quickly established an aid programme people. in the summer of 2011. In just a few weeks, the organisation erected large family tents for 27 000 Providing humanitarian assistance in conflict Children in refugees, and led efforts to ensure that the areas is a challenging and highly complex task. Dadaab refugee famine refugees had roofs over their heads in Many factors have to be taken into account, camp in Kenya, the intense heat. Drawing inspiration from including security, “gate keepers” and the fact where thou- traditional building practices, the Norwegian that different actors all want access to resources. sands of Somalis Refugee Council developed a design for semi- A good understanding of the conflict and wait for help. 15 permanent houses that utilises environmentally dialogue with all actors has enabled the Norwe- August 2011. friendly, locally available materials like bamboo. gian Refugee Council to secure acceptance and Photo: The design was quickly adopted by all of the the requisite access to displaced persons, Shutterstock other humanitarian actors on the ground. enabling it to help more than one million people. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 43

Bosnia and Herzegovina: victim assistance works, but the long-term effects are difficult to measure

The Mine Ban Convention and the Conven- through its wide definition of the term “victim”, tion on Cluster Munitions obligate states and through its own legally binding obligation to to assist victims in a non-discriminatory assist. The picture is completed by the Conven- manner, using a rights-based approach. tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Large amounts have been spent on medical (CRPD), which was adopted in 2006. rehabilitation, social and economic inclu- sion, aid and equipping victims to take Adopting a rights-based approach to victim control of their own lives again. One organi- assistance means recognising that disabled sation active in this area is the Landmine persons, including victims of armed violence, Survivors Initiative in Bosnia and Herzego- are both entitled to inclusion in society on an vina, through which survivors help other equal basis with other citizens and entitled to people injured by landmines. At the same influence decisions affecting their lives. Adop- time, perception-based research has shown ting a non-discriminatory approach means that the large majority of victims believe avoiding differential treatment based, for that their situation has not improved. What example, on the cause of the disability. All is the true effect of victim assistance, and treatment must be based on medical and social how can it be measured? needs, and be adapted to the differing needs of girls, boys, women and men. Assistance for victims of landmines, cluster munitions and other forms of armed violence Together, these three conventions have contri- accounts for a significant proportion of the buted to a more comprehensive and integrated funding Norway provides for humanitarian focus on the rights of disabled persons. How- disarmament efforts, approximately NOK 60 ever, in part through the agreements, the million per year. This support is provided international community may have created through various channels, including the mine unrealistic expectations as to how quickly the appeal and Special Fund for the Disabled of the disabled, including victims of armed violence, International Committee of the Red Cross, can be given necessary support and assistance Norwegian and international civil society and be included as full citizens in all parts of organisations and local survivor networks. The society, given the social and economic condi- Ministry of Foreign Affairs also makes conside- tions in many developing countries. Research rable contributions to social and health budgets and studies show that the main priority for most of developing countries that also benefit dis- landmine victims is to be able to provide for abled persons, including victims of armed themselves and their families. At the same time, violence. employment and economic growth lie far beyond the scope of what the Mine Ban Conven- The international cooperation and assistance tion can deliver. provision in the 1997 Mine Ban Convention includes a reference to assistance for victims. The participation of victims in national and Through practice and policy documents, the international efforts is both an important understanding has developed that the member principle and a right. Norway is supporting states are obliged to provide necessary help to several organisations through which survivors landmine victims. The states parties have also conduct lobbying and provide assistance and reached agreement on who falls within the support to other survivors – activities referred definition of “victim” and is thus entitled to to as peer support. The main principle of peer support, and what form such support should support is that people who have themselves take. The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions suffered trauma and know what having a took this understanding one step further disability involves are better equipped to reach 44 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

out to other survivors, gain their trust and homes accessible and safe. LSI also arranged assess their individual needs. a number of different activities to increase awareness of the situation and rights of the One such peer support organisation is the disabled in Bosnia, among both the authorities Landmine Survivors Initiative (LSI) in Bosnia and the population at large. The organisation and Herzegovina, which Norway has supported also played a major role in the national mecha- for several years. In 2011, the organisation nism for coordinating victim assistance. received NOK 975 000 to provide peer support, engage in lobbying activities, train survivors and Most organisations supported by Norway report direct them to service providers, build capacity their results in a similar manner, describing how in other organisations, channel donations to many victims have received help, for example in victims in need and run various information the form of prosthetics, training or financial campaigns. The main aim of the project was the advice. The long-term effect of this work in empowerment of survivors and their families. terms of improved social and economic welfare The focus was on improved physical and mental for individuals is difficult to document and health, awareness-raising and increased econo- measure in most cases, and the conclusion is mic self-help. therefore often implied. Although survivor networks of this kind cannot always report the Bosnia and Herzegovina has registered over direct effect of their work, organisations like LSI 6 000 landmine survivors since 1992. LSI appear to provide important and helpful assis- conducted individual follow-up of 288 victims tance through a wide range of activities that in 2011, in the form of 1 557 visits. Sixty-one benefit the victims of landmines and cluster survivors were visited for the first time, and munitions, for relatively small sums of money. included in LSI’s programme. Of these, 43 had suffered the amputation of a limb, and received information and guidance on accessing available rehabilitation and health services. More than 50 survivors were trained in starting a business. A total of 62 survivors received direct support, for example to start a business or make their

Mine victim in Bosnia-Herce- govina gets assistance through the Landmine Survivors Initiative (LSI). Photo: Brett Van Ort Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 45

Liberia: knowledge about armed violence has a preventive and mitigating effect

Knowledge about the incidence and conse- This is why Norway decided to give AOAV quences of armed violence and attitudes support totalling NOK 2.8 million for a project to towards it is important for identifying its gather data on armed violence in Liberia (the true causes. Knowledge is a prerequisite Liberia Armed Violence Observatory, or LAVO). for the design of measures to prevent and The project was implemented in cooperation reduce armed violence. Many of the coun- with Liberian state institutions and NGOs, and is tries that have suffered most under armed the beginning of a national, standardised system violence lack reliable systems for collecting for measuring and monitoring armed violence. data and publishing information. The long-term aim of the project is to help reduce and prevent armed violence by impro- Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) is one ving data collection and the understanding of of Norway’s most important partners in the armed violence among key civil society actors. context of armed violence work and the imple- mentation of the Oslo Commitments. The In 2011, LAVO succeeded in collecting all organisation, which is based in the UK, emphasi- available information on armed violence in ses a combination of field work, analysis and Liberia in one place. This had not been done efforts to influence political processes. All of previously, and has enabled LAVO to produce these things are important for achieving results more comprehensive reports than had been in the field and influencing policy development. published in Liberia previously. It is likely that this has provided politicians and other decision- As part of its implementation of the Oslo makers with useful information. Commitments on Armed Violence, Norway produced a report on armed violence in Norway A lack of data on armed violence may be due in 2011 (see chapter 3). In doing so, Norway set both to capacity limitations and to the fact that an important example. Such reports can provide such information may be sensitive, meaning that a comprehensive picture of the nature of armed there is little willingness to register and publish violence in a particular country, who is affected it. Such sensitivity may arise, for example, if and how. They can also facilitate documentation national authorities do not wish to appear to lack of victim follow-up and measures implemented control or to be unable to protect their popula- to combat the problem. A national report also tion. Alternatively, groups within the society offers an excellent opportunity to identify may not want attention to be focused on their relevant actors in the public, private and civil own use of armed violence. The data collection society sectors, and to establish partnerships for conducted by LAVO in 2011 showed that there information-sharing and operational cooperation. was still a large discrepancy between the A report is not an aim in itself. The objective is assumed true level of armed violence in Liberia to promote greater transparency and publish and the reported level. This is illustrated by the information about a social problem, hopefully fact that in 71 % of reported instances of armed resulting in improved measures and efforts to violence, the media were the only source of data. prevent violence. Many countries with major This was also the case with serious examples of armed violence problems lack such documenta- armed violence such as murder and armed tion and analyses of the causes of armed insurgencies. The Liberian Ministry of Justice violence. Moreover, the national capacity to and Liberia’s national police force, which are measure and monitor armed violence often has participants in LAVO, have begun to examine to be improved before comprehensive national the causes of this failure to register and report reports can be prepared. armed violence. AOAV expects measures to be implemented. These include measures to 46 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

improve the public’s view of the police, so that development of LAVO will continue in 2012. threats or actual use of armed violence are AOAV is planning to withdraw from the project reported to the police more often, and the gradually, so that LAVO can become a wholly deployment of more police officers in areas with nationally owned institution in Liberia. a high incidence of armed violence.

LAVO has only been active for a year, and it is as yet difficult to say whether it has helped to reduce and prevent armed violence, and whether it has had a material influence on national decision-makers. LAVO was established as a formal working group at the beginning of 2011, incorporating representatives of the authorities and civil society (media, academia, NGOs). In the longer term, the hope is that LAVO will become an independent national institution that cooperates with the authorities and civil society to collect and analyse data on armed violence, and that develops the capacity to produce national reports on armed violence in Liberia. Norway’s support for the ongoing

Liberian police watching supporters of the opposition, close to the opposition’s headquarter in Monrovia, Liberia 8 November 2011. Photo Scanpix Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 47

Libya – migration crisis and air bridge

When war broke out in Libya, there were around and Libya was an additional complicating factor. 1.8 million foreign workers in the country. In total, 36 594 people returned to Bangladesh Approximately 800 000 of these fled the country from Libya. Norway helped to fund cooperation during the conflict. This made the Libyan between the Norwegian Directorate for Civil conflict one of the largest migration crises in Protection and Emergency Planning, UNHCR modern history, according to the International and IOM. The Directorate established reception Organization for Migration (IOM). Accordingly, centres for Bangladeshi refugees in Tunisia on the crisis in Libya also put the protection and behalf of the UN, while IOM established an air rights of foreign workers in crises high on the bridge to evacuate them. During the most international political agenda. intense period, from 2 500 to 3 500 people were being repatriated daily. Although most of the foreign workers in Libya came from neighbouring countries, the migra- tion crisis was also a global phenomenon. The 800 000 or so foreign workers who left Libya during the crisis came from over 120 different countries. One of the largest groups comprised workers from Bangladesh, who were particu- larly vulnerable because they came from a country with limited resources to conduct an evacuation. The distance between Bangladesh

A Malian, that has fled from Libya, stretches out close to UNHCR’s tents at the Choucha transit camp. Photo: Scanpix 48 Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011

Protection needs

During UNHCR’s 60-year history, the In total, 532 000 refugees returned to their home global number of refugees has risen drama- countries voluntarily in 2011. This was a consi- tically. In recent years, the number has derably higher number than in previous years, stabilised and even fallen in some years and represented a doubling of the number of but, on the other hand, the number of returnees in 2010. The trend was also positive internally displaced persons has continued for internally displaced persons. More than 3.2 to rise. UNHCR uses the term “people of million IDPs returned home – 10 % more than in concern” to refer to refugees, internally 2010. The number of those returning in 2011 displaced persons (IDPs), stateless per- included many Sudanese (from both the north sons and people in refugee-like situations. and the south), Afghans, Ivorians, Iraqis and Congolese. Many received help from UNHCR to The following is a summary of UNHCR’s report make a new start in their home countries. for 2011. The total number of IDPs fell from 27.5 to 26.4 In 2011, more than 21.5 million people received million in 2011. The largest number of IDPs some form of protection from UNHCR, inclu- were located in Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, DR ding six million refugees and 15.5 million Congo and Somalia. The drop was partly due to internally displaced persons. The total number reclassification. In 2011, South Sudan became an of stateless persons is estimated at almost 12 independent country, and so many southern million worldwide. UNHCR has global responsi- Sudanese staying in the north were redefined as bility for protecting this group of people (with refugees rather than internally displaced the exception of Palestinians, who fall under the persons. remit of UNWRA), but only has access to 3.5 million registered stateless persons. In 2011, almost 61 000 people were resettled via UNHCR as quota refugees. This represented a Some 75 % of the world’s refugees live in drop from 73 000 in 2010. Just over 1 400 countries that border their country of origin. refugees came to Norway with the assistance of Two million refugees live in the world’s least UNHCR, primarily from Eritrea, Afghanistan, developed countries. As at the end of 2011, more Myanmar, Bhutan and Iran. This number also than seven million people were caught in what includes refugees who were in Libya when the are referred to as “protracted refugee situa- conflict started, but who succeeded in crossing tions”, i.e. situations lasting longer than five the border into Tunisia. More than half of the years in which there are no prospects of a quota refugees resettled in Norway were durable solution. Afghans constitute the largest women, reflecting the Norwegian Government’s group of refugees for which UNHCR is responsi- stated objective. ble. Most Afghan refugees live in the neighbou- ring countries of Pakistan (1.6 million) and Iran (about 1 million). Other large refugee groups are Iraqis, Somalis, Eritreans, Sudanese and Burmese. Norway’s humanitarian policy. Annual report 2011 49

Protecting civilians in Côte d’Ivoire

The work of the International Committee of the As the only independent source, the ICRC Red Cross (ICRC) in Côte d’Ivoire was vital for reported killings and gross human rights the displaced civilian population in 2011. The violations by both parties to the conflict. One ICRC maintained the only international presence example is the massacres in Duékoué, where at in the country when the conflict was at its worst, least 800 people were killed on 29 March. In although it too had very limited humanitarian some neighbourhoods in Abidjan, particularly access to conflict areas. Abobo, home to an estimated 2 million people, the ICRC’s emergency aid operations and The deadlocked political situation in Côte medical assistance were vital for civilians, and d’Ivoire following the presidential election on 28 particularly the injured. Using mobile clinics, November 2010 caused widespread unrest and a the ICRC worked intensively to bring aid to difficult security situation in the country. The those in the greatest need across the country. independent electoral commission pronounced During the UN flight embargo, only the ICRC opposition leader Alassane Ouattara the winner flew in vital medicines. of the election. A few days later, the constitu- tional council declared that the sitting president, Following the arrest of Gbagbo, the conflict in Laurent Gbagbo, had won the election. Both Côte d’Ivoire entered a new phase. The ICRC candidates declared themselves president on 4 visited Gbagbo and other high-ranking political December 2010, triggering political instability prisoners in prison. The ICRC engaged in and violence. dialogue with the security forces, which were loyal to President Ouattara. This helped to The conflict between government forces and ensure that the forces respected the human President Ouattara’s “republican forces” from rights of Gbagbo and other high-ranking the north of the country displaced more than political prisoners, and to prevent abuse during one million people within Côte d’Ivoire. More their confinement. than 250 000 fled to neighbouring countries, primarily to Liberia, at the peak of the conflict In the absence of a UN presence, the ICRC took in February and March. a leading role in the provision of humanitarian assistance. In doing so, it performed a very Humanitarian access was very limited due to important task for the international community. military activity. Violence escalated, particularly Norway contributed NOK 15 million to the in Abidjan and western regions, including the ICRC’s operations in Côte d’Ivoire. cities of Duékoué, Danane and Man. With the exception of the ICRC, all humanitarian organ- isations, including UNHCR, had to evacuate the majority of their international staff. As a result, there were few international eyewitnesses to the increasing ethnic violence that occurred.

Published by: The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Public institutions may order additional copies from: Norwegian Government Administration Services Distribution Services Internet: www.publikasjoner.dep.no E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: + 47 22 24 20 00

Publication number: E-907 E Front page photo: iStockphoto Print: Andvord Grafisk 12/2012 Impression – 1 000

9 788271 778958