Humanitarian Principles and Bridging the Transition Gap: the Case of South Sudan)

Home , Humanitarian aid, Humanitarian principles

Strengthening Principled Humanitarian Response Capacities Project

The conference Principles in Practice: Safeguarding Humanitarian Action was part of a larger project dedicated to strengthening principled action.

Research: Evidence on how principles guide humanitarian action, how humanitarian actors adhere to them and how donors can challenge or support principled action was gathered in a series of four case studies carried out in Afghanistan, DR Congo, Pakistan and South Sudan. The results are analyzed and summarized in the joint NRC and HPG report Tools for the Job: Supporting Principled Action. Roundtables: Perspectives on principled action and funding were gathered through a series of roundtables held in London (The Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative: Ten Years On), Geneva (Principled Humanitarian Action: What does it mean today?), Dubai (Gulf perspectives on Humanitarian Action), Oslo (The humanitarian principles and bridging the transition gap: The case of South Sudan).

Guidance: a decision-making tool aiming to assist humanitarian staff to make principled decisions has been developed and piloted by NRC field staff in three countries.

Statement: a draft statement on principled funding has been drawn up by a drafting committee composed of members from several NGOs and NGO consortia. The draft is intended to result in a joint NGO statement in relation to the 20th anniversary on 2014 of the Red Cross/Crescent and NGO Code of Conduct in Disaster Relief. Advisory group The project benefitted from the advice of a group of international experts. The group was also consulted while developing the conference programme, in order to ensure selection of the most relevant agenda items. The members of the advisory group were: Fabrizio Carboni (ICRC), Andrew Marshall (Independent), Ross Mountain (DARA), Paul O’Brien (Concern) and Kathrin Schick (VOICE).

Contents

Foreword 4 The humanitarian principles 5 Introduction 7 Opening plenary remarks 8 - Principles matter 9 - Humanitarian principles: more important than ever before 10 - At a crossroads 11 - New actors, new principles 12 Breakout sessions 13 - Humanitarian principles: interpretations and dilemmas 14 - Funding principled action: the role of donors 16 - Accountability in relief operations 18 - Counter-terrorism measures and principled humanitarian action 20 - Filling the gap: transition from crisis response to sustainable development 22 - Stabilisation mechanisms and humanitarian space 24 Chairperson’s summary 26

also very much an opportunity to engage with so- called “non-traditional” actors across the world. Foreword: The fact that the Principles in Practice: Safeguarding It is about trust Humanitarian Action conference gathered 150 high- level donors, experts and practitioners from around the world indicates the fundamental importance of Elisabeth Rasmusson, Secretary General, Norwegian the humanitarian principles. The conference also Refugee Council provided some clear directions for how this debate can move forward: The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence are not new; they 1. The humanitarian principles are as important have underpinned humanitarian action for many today as they have been in the past. They are years. Equally long-standing are the debates on their not a theoretical concept, but concrete tools relevance, which have continued for decades. endorsed by States that effectively guide humanitarian action. We must improve our The core principle of humanity recognises that every adherence to them, use them to build trust with human being has the right to be treated with dignity all actors and communicate them openly and and to access assistance and protection during crisis. effectively. Impartiality reflects a commitment to prioritise those who are in most need, or most vulnerable. Neutrality 2. Principled humanitarian action cannot solve all and independence represent tools which enable problems, nor is it intended to do so. Finding humanitarians to negotiate and build acceptance political solutions and promoting peace and with armed and political actors in volatile and stability are necessary for achieving longer-term unpredictable contexts. These principles are codified solutions. It is therefore unhelpful and in international law and have been repeatedly unrealistic to posit a false choice between endorsed by States and humanitarian actors. humanitarian action versus peace-building and Moreover, they are practical tools which guide and stability. What is important is that where they underpin humanitarian operations. are being implemented in parallel, the distinct character of principled humanitarian action is Yet our ability to fully implement the principles is maintained. routinely challenged by political and security agendas such as the pursuit of counter-terrorism, 3. We need to stand together as a humanitarian international military operations and stabilisation community and foster a sincere dialogue based initiatives. These agendas can impede the ability of on mutual respect between actors that come humanitarian actors to deliver assistance in a from different traditions. principled way. The extent to which of the principles are practically applicable is also sometimes 4. We need to engage in a more effective and questioned. Yet I can say that for my own transparent way with actors who do not organisation, NRC, these principles have helped us to understand or share our dedication to stay and deliver in some of the most volatile and principled action. The basis for this is: unpredictable contexts like Somalia and Pakistan. strengthening our own performance; ensuring that we clearly communicate the humanitarian I believe that the time is right for the humanitarian principles and what they mean in concrete community to move forward together and reclaim terms; and building trust by ensuring that what the humanitarian principles as a common platform. we do, say and promote is understandable and This is a key moment not only for Western NGOs, but transparent for all.

action. It states that ‘humanitarian assistance must be provided in accordance with the principles of The humanitarian humanity, neutrality and impartiality’. Over the past two decades, subsequent General Assembly and principles Security Council resolutions have consistently called on member states and all other parties to respect (Extract from Tools for the Job: Supporting Principled and uphold the humanitarian principles to ensure the Humanitarian Action – NRC/HPG 2012) effective delivery of assistance.

The humanitarian principles are based on Today, the four principles continue to provide the commitments made by states; they have been ‘fundamental foundations for humanitarian action’. repeatedly reaffirmed via national policies, the UN They are not specifically referred to in the European Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with Red Cross codified these principles in 1965 to international humanitarian law, although these do legitimise and support the movement’s engagement reaffirm the importance for EU member states of in conflict situations. This framework reflects ensuring compliance with international humanitarian obligations under international humanitarian law law. (IHL) — including the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and sections of Additional Protocol I (1979) — The humanitarian principles directly informed the to protect civilians affected by armed conflict and to main inter-agency charter for humanitarian action provide them with assistance and medical care. [the Red Cross/Crescent and NGO Code of Conduct] Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which was developed in 1994 and to which nearly applicable in international and non-international 500 organisations are signatories. armed conflict, states that ‘an impartial humanitarian body, such as the ICRC, may offer its services to the The humanitarian principles are also incorporated in Parties to the conflict’. a number of other global policies and frameworks, such as the “Do No Harm” framework (which helps There is no provision that specifies that humanitarian humanitarian actors to identify indicators that relief should be independent or neutral, but it is assistance may make, or is making, conflict worse), inferred from the fact that ‘authorities may refuse the Sphere Project and Inter-Agency Network for humanitarian action if it interferes with a military Education in Emergencies Minimum Standards strategy or aids the other side of the conflict’. In this project (both initiatives aimed at improving the context, neutrality aims to avoid offering military quality of humanitarian assistance and accountability advantage to any side in a conflict. underpinned by the principles). In addition, many humanitarian organisations have incorporated the The principles were substantively reaffirmed in a humanitarian principles into their policies and 1991 UN General Assembly resolution that procedures. establishes guiding principles for humanitarian

The four principles commonly accepted as key foundations for humanitarian action, as set out by the ICRC, are:

 Humanity: to ‘prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being.’  Impartiality: to ensure ‘no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours only to relieve suffering, giving priority to the most urgent cases of distress.’  Independence: to ‘always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with Red Cross principles’.  Neutrality: not to ‘take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature’.

Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief 1. The humanitarian imperative comes first. 2. Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone. 3. Aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint. 4. We shall endeavour not to act as instruments of government foreign policy. 5. We shall respect culture and custom. 6. We shall attempt to build disaster response on local capacities. 7. Ways shall be found to involve programme beneficiaries in the management of relief aid. 8. Relief aid must strive to reduce future vulnerabilities to disaster as well as meeting basic needs. 9. We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources. 10. In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we shall recognise disaster victims as dignified human beings, not hopeless objects.

Some of the key questions discussed were: Introduction  What are the opportunities and challenges related to principled action? The humanitarian principles provide a foundation for  How can humanitarian aid policy be humanitarian action in situations of conflict and reconciled with foreign policy agendas complex emergency. The principles of humanity, whilst maintaining its autonomy? impartiality, independence and neutrality assist  What are the challenges and best ways of humanitarians to navigate various political, security working to co-exist with other operations? and physical challenges when seeking safe access to  How might donors and their implementing partners work to improve principled people in need of assistance and protection. allocation of humanitarian funding? Whilst many donors recognize the importance of principled humanitarian action, a range of direct and In addition, specific topics were discussed in six indirect conditions linked to funding can erode break-out sessions: 1) Humanitarian principles: interpretations and dilemmas; 2) Funding principled adherence to these principles in practice, presenting action: the role of donors; 3) Accountability in relief a key challenge for humanitarians. Examples include operations; 4) Counter-terrorism measures and efforts to portray humanitarian action as a crisis principled humanitarian action; 5) Filling the gap: management tool or link it with stabilisation transition from crisis response to sustainable activities; evolving counter-terrorism measures development; and 6) Stabilisation mechanisms and which complicate the operating environment where humanitarian space. proscribed groups are active; and donor preferences and mandates directing where, how and to whom This report provides a summary of the presentations aid is delivered. made during the high-level panel and closing remarks, as well as each of the six break-out As a foundational element guiding the funding and sessions. Moderators, panellists and speakers are delivery of humanitarian action, humanitarian listed. The opening and closing sessions can be principles require continuous safeguarding. To streamed in full through the conference website: promote discussion of the challenges to the www.principlesinpractice.org, where additional principles and promote means to address these materials and full speeches are available. More challenges, NRC, with support from the European information on NRC’s work on principled action can Commission’s department of Humanitarian Aid and also be found on: www.nrc.no Civil Protection and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hosted a one-day conference for "Because delivering humanitarian assistance in representatives of the humanitarian community and adherence to humanitarian principles is the most officials from the EU, Member States, and third effective way to deliver aid." countries on 4 December 2012 at The Square in Brussels. The conference gathered more than 150 Lise Grande, conference chair participants from all over the world.

Opening plenary remarks

The opening panel featured:

Elisabeth Rasmusson, Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway Kristalina Georgieva, European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross Atta Almanan Bakhit, Assistant Secretary General for International Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs, Organisation for Islamic Cooperation

and distinction between humanitarian, development and military efforts. Multi-mandate organisations Principles matter should also be very clear on when they are part of humanitarian efforts – which should be in close Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs, adherence to the humanitarian principles – and Norway when they engage in development efforts – which are not necessarily principled. Conflicts and disasters today are increasingly complex and the humanitarian principles are being The fundamental purpose of humanitarian assistance challenged in many ways. These include: the is to save lives, alleviate suffering and safeguard integrated approach or the three “D”s (defence, human dignity regardless of ethnic background, diplomacy and development) which may be an gender, age, religion or political affiliation. At the effective approach in some cases, but also poses same time, humanitarian crises require political challenges for humanitarian actors; people who do solutions. Norway, as a political actor, can be not care about the principles and are driven by what impartial but is not neutral. Norway takes the side of they consider to be more important agendas are the victims and will not remain silent about challenging them; and the continuing consequences maltreatment or abuse of power. We actively of the so-called global war on terror. Anti-terrorist promote the normative frameworks of international rules and legislation limit the freedom of action of humanitarian and human rights law. humanitarian actors. Funding for humanitarian assistance should be based Humanitarian principles matter more in certain on humanitarian needs and not on political contexts and at certain times than in others. In highly considerations. Norway has increasingly focused on complex conflict situations a principled approach is the need to provide more flexible and predictable essential for ensuring acceptance for humanitarian humanitarian funding to ensure a principled action and to enable humanitarian actors to operate response. on the ground. Once peace is restored in a country or region, the main task becomes reconstruction. The The financial crisis is leading to budget cuts in many focus becomes development rather than countries. In this situation it is also important to take humanitarian action and the need for humanitarian note of new actors entering the arena, some with actors to demonstrate their autonomy decreases. new ideas and ways to do humanitarian assistance. It is important to broaden ownership of humanitarian For the Norwegian Government, its humanitarian principles, fundamental humanitarian values and policy is separate from but linked to other policy human rights. Humanitarianism and human rights areas. We believe that there should be coordination, are shared values. but with a clear division of roles and responsibilities

about what ethnic group we belong to or what political party we support. We simply want them to Humanitarian help us – with no strings attached. principles: more This very basic notion of “no strings attached” is even more important in the difficult contexts we work in now. In Syria, for example, with a important than multiplicity of actors and a constant shift in battle- lines, we have a situation where humanitarians need more than ever to be beyond any suspicion of siding ever before with one party or another. States have the primary responsibility to respond and assist their own Kristalina Georgieva, European Commissioner for population. But this means that when international Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection organisations come in to offer assistance, there cannot be any hidden agendas. The issue around the humanitarian principles is often phrased as: "Are the humanitarian principles Within the EU-specific context there have been still valid today"? And then people refer to the important developments. In 2010, the humanitarian emerging role of 'new actors' engaged in principles were firmly anchored in the Lisbon Treaty humanitarian response: national governments, (in Article 214) and humanitarian aid was regional organisations, the military, faith-based established as a self-standing objective of EU organisations, and the like. Many refer to external policy – not subordinated to any other developments such as "comprehensive approaches" political or development objective. or whole-of-government doctrines as evidence that we need to move on from the principles. This has come alongside a strengthening of the political profile of the EU, which is welcomed as I I think that this should be framed differently. The would like to see the EU strongly engaged in conflict issue is not whether the principles are still valid. The prevention, resolution and mediation. In many issue is that the principles are actually more cases, this engagement will involve the EU taking important than ever before. It is about values and it sides at the political level. But of course a more is about solidarity. We are all in this together and visible EU presence on the political front means that need to stand united when crisis happens. As we as the humanitarian wing of the EU, we have to be saw in Japan with the Tsunami – a crisis can happen absolutely consistent and credible in abiding by the anywhere and when it does, we all unite to help: the principles, if we want to continue to be able to work EU provided assistance to Japan, but so did many where it matters: with the most vulnerable people African countries. affected by conflict.

The principles do not discriminate or attach strings Because the principles are so important for to the help provided. They do not impose a wider humanitarian work, the humanitarian community political agenda. When we – the people in this room can never be complacent about them. We need to - need an ambulance, our house is on fire or a communicate their importance to partners in other disaster happens: we want the ambulance or the parts in the world, within our internal structures, in fire brigade or the Red Cross to come and help us. the EU or at national level. We do not want them to come and ask questions

other objectives. The principles help prioritise those most in need, without discrimination. It is a At a crossroads pragmatic approach; neutral to the political and the security dimension; independent from institutional Peter Maurer, President, International Committee decision-making, and without the objective of of the Red Cross transforming society.

We have seen a considerable change in the ICRC’s modus operandi is not the right way for international humanitarian community. Operations everyone. “Neutral, impartial and independent” is have grown significantly and there are about 200,000 not the solution to every problem or situation, but it active humanitarian workers. Pluralism has taken its is useful in specific contexts. It shows the need to toll on the humanitarian sector: there is no unity – implement distinct, complimentary and separate no consensus of what it means to apply the activities and roles. ICRC will strive to maintain its principles. This creates new opportunities as well as principled stand. This does not preclude others potential challenges. engaging in peace-building and human rights. Yet, distinction is needed and we should not confuse We need to reflect on the humanitarian principles as these different approaches. ICRC and as a community. We are standing at the crossroads, between integration of the international There is a cost for humanitarians when we engage in response on one hand and the integrity of a transition and when we try to remain at the principled humanitarian response on the other. crossroads. Organisations need to decide what they want to be and not remain with their head on one The primary responsibility lies with governments to side and their feet on the other. provide assistance and protect the population. Assistance should be distributed based on needs and Communication is then of crucial importance: not without discrimination. A principled response is only what we do, but how clearly we communicate about how and under what terms aid is being what we do and who we are. delivered. These activities cannot be conditioned by

harmony into the community. Is there a way to blend foreign policy, military and humanitarian activities New actors – new without compromising perspectives? OIC is currently debating rules and regulations, and discussing ideas principles that we can add to the principles. A paper containing the outcome of these debates will be published next year. Atta Almanan Bakhit, Assistant Secretary General for International Cooperation and Humanitarian Principles are important, and the debates about the Affairs, Organisation for Islamic Cooperation interpretation and application are pertinent in complex crises. Diplomats and humanitarians serve The debate on the humanitarian principles is the same end – to improve the lives of the people on important and we want to engage with actors from the ground – but they use different tools. The real the West. In order to have a fruitful dialogue, we all test for the humanitarian principles is whether they need to listen carefully. If we want a sincere debate really improve the life of the people on the ground. we really need to understand how others see things. September 11th had a big impact on Islamic Organisations from OIC member states have become organisations as accusations of supporting terrorism crucial responders in places like Syria and Somalia, flourished. It has taken a long time to recover, but where they often operate in areas where there are we have emerged more efficient, more organised no Western organisations. and more determined.

The humanitarian principles are the cornerstone of Still, we are worried. Worried that the Syria situation the humanitarian community. However, is humanity, will create a new problem for Muslim charities that neutrality, independence and impartiality a final and are currently working in Syria where access is difficult conclusive list or can we add others? As the and dangerous. The situation on the ground is Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, we have added chaotic and the normal procedures of due diligence other principles. cannot be followed. In order to ensure a proper response, maximise safe aid, and ensure that the We believe that the Western organisations work will not result in investigations, these rules monopolise the humanitarian game. They know the should be “relaxed” – as was done in Somalia. We rules and the concepts, which they have made. There need to work together to alleviate the suffering. is a need for a broad dialogue amongst donors, Western and OIC organisations to bring more

Break-out sessions

During two sets of parallel sessions, six different themes relevant to the current debate on humanitarian principles were discussed:

1. Humanitarian principles: interpretations and dilemmas 2. Funding principled action: the role of donors 3. Accountability in relief operations 4. Counter-terrorism measures and principled humanitarian action 5. Filling the gap: transition from crisis response to sustainable development 6. Stabilisation mechanisms and humanitarian space

principles in some contexts (e.g. in natural disasters or areas free from conflict, where access is less Humanitarian dependent on perceived neutrality). However such compromises can impact the overall reputation of an principles: organisation and thus the perception of humanitarians in other, more difficult environments. interpretations Humanitarian purists argue that you are either strictly principled at all times in all places, and therefore “humanitarian,” or you are not. However, and dilemmas the complete or perfect application of the principles is not possible, and there may sometimes be a need This session took stock of varying interpretations and to compromise between the principles in order to applications regarding humanitarian principles and save lives. The aim must be to take decisions that diverging perspectives on the ethics of humanitarian apply the principles to the maximum possible extent. action. With more humanitarian actors in the field than ever before, is it time for a new dialogue on For organisations with “mixed mandates” (a how to put the principles of humanitarian action into condition that the humanitarian purists – such as practice? ICRC – would not identify as “humanitarian”) it can be a choice between a number of “good” or worthy Key messages from the presentations: aims. For example, is it better to “stay” (to maintain access and deliver) or to “speak” (to speak out Humanity and impartiality are the principles at the against violations)? Humanitarians must sometimes heart of humanitarian action. The principle of pick their battles in order to effect concrete change. humanity is a goal in itself, while impartiality is a guide to ensure equity and human dignity. The Key messages from the discussion: principle of “neutrality” is not a goal, but rather a tool designed to secure access to politicised spaces. The view was expressed that the “humanitarian” The application of these principles in complex system is not, and should not be, monolithic. All environments gives rise to a range of dilemmas. actors must be careful not to cast the discourse in terms of being “with us or against us” and real For all the lofty theoretical discussion, the dialogue that respects a plurality of perspectives humanitarian principles are still seen by many as should be cultivated. more instrumental than intrinsic. Prior to 2001 only five organisations had signed the “Code of Conduct Impartiality and the equal value of all human lives for the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and (humanity) are often not observed in that the people NGOs in Disaster Relief,” whereas after 2003 many most vulnerable to harm and therefore most in need more organisations “shrouded” themselves in the of assistance – such as the elderly, and people with principles – as an apparent buffer against the disabilities – often have the greatest difficulty instrumentalisation of aid by powerful governments accessing assistance. in the wake of the September 11 attack in the U.S. With new actors playing a greater role in the Principles are a tool used to foster trust in international humanitarian response, there may be a humanitarian actors. To build that trust, adherence need to look at other principles and how they could to the principles must be steadfastly demonstrated contribute to humanitarian action. over time. It may be easier to compromise the

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Hugo Slim Mukesh Kapila Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute of Ethics, Law Professor of Global Health & Humanitarian Affairs, and Armed Conflict University of Manchester Ghanim Alnajjar Al Salam Centre for Strategic Studies and Development Fabrizio Carboni Deputy Head of Division for Multilateral Organizations, Policy and Humanitarian Action, International Committee of the Red Cross

response related to a specific event or “shock,” or else a response based on certain thresholds for Funding principled indicators deemed to be emergency levels also has an impact on what is considered to be the greatest action: the role of need. In addition, so-called “status-based” assistance can foster a misconception of what the determination of an individual’s legal status is donors intended to achieve and distract from a focus on assessing and recognising the specific vulnerabilities of different groups. This session reviewed the challenges faced by institutional donors in their adherence to good Funding decisions that are based on principles and humanitarian donorship policies, and how donor tied to needs, rather than influenced by foreign behaviour influences the ability of humanitarians to policy objectives or media attention, will allow staff deliver principled assistance. How can donors and in the field to focus less on fundraising and more on their implementing partners better ensure that the principled delivery through quality programmes. This institutional funding system supports principled is especially relevant in neglected and/or protracted humanitarian action? crises.

Key messages from the presentations: It is important that our understanding of

accountability reflects accountability to donors and In addition to the provision of funds, donors also play to tax payers in donor countries as well as to the a role in policy and standard setting (for example, in people the funds are meant to assist. Reporting accountability). Their impact on the principled requirements must be based on this understanding delivery of assistance is, therefore, significant. of accountability.

It is important to remember that the majority of The “Do No Harm” framework is highly relevant to donors are states or state-like entities with political, principled funding in terms of the political economy military, development assistance and humanitarian of aid. This implies working to free aid procurement departments. Field-based evidence and clear from purchasing restrictions, fostering innovative examples are essential for the humanitarian responses, and reducing in-kind food aid amongst departments to demonstrate the importance of other things. separating humanitarian mandates from military, development, stabilisation and other agendas or Multi-year commitments – i.e. longer-term contracts approaches. linked to impact rather than multi-year fund

transfers – may be useful in demonstrating donor Abuse of the word “humanitarian” is a major commitment to principled funding, and in challenge. It is easy at times for different agencies to encouraging implementing partners to take honest, secure funding for particular activities by labelling informed risks. them humanitarian. Where that is the case, it is important for the humanitarian departments to Key messages from the discussion: speak up. In dealing with foreign policy and military counterparts, clear and specific positions and red Humanitarian and donor language is continually lines are critical in order for humanitarian funding to evolving, and this adds to the complexity of the remain principled and linked to needs alone. Donor sector. Humanitarian policy makers and finance presence (with humanitarian representation) in the experts often speak different “languages.” It is field makes a significant difference to principled important that the finance people within donor funding decisions. agencies are part of discussions on humanitarian

policy. Defining humanitarian funding as strictly linked to needs is easy. The challenge arises in defining what Ear-marking of funds is important to ensure needs are and how they should be determined and assistance is directed to forgotten and neglected assessed. Defining “humanitarian” in terms of a crises. However, donors need to improve mapping

16 and coordination of where assistance is being tool for the humanitarian departments of donor provided and how. Based on that information, more governments, and GHD principles have even been principled decisions can be made. included in donor law and policy in at least one case. However, there remains a need for greater The Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative (GHD) is harmonisation of donor funding, reporting and both about improving performance and bringing accountability frameworks and guidelines, with a more actors on board. It has been a useful advocacy focus on promoting needs-based responses.

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Florika Fink-Hooijer Nicolas Borsinger Director for Strategy, Policy and International President, Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation Cooperation, DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection in Emergencies (VOICE) Rachel Scott Humanitarian Aid Advisor, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Ingrid Macdonald Resident Representative Geneva, Norwegian Refugee Council

crucial to ensure accountability, both towards the affected population and towards donors and tax Accountability in payers. Changing the way a programme is implemented when we see that it is not achieving the intended results is important to ensure relief operations accountability. Donors should support and allow this type of flexibility throughout the project cycle. This session examined how success of humanitarian aid can be determined. Improved accountability of all Donors could improve accountability by holding the actors is essential for ensuring aid efforts are Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) more principled and that aid is as effective as possible, accountable for the performance of the reaching those in greatest need. How do humanitarian community, and by harmonising humanitarians ensure accountability and what is the reporting requirements and making them more role and responsibility of donor governments? easily understandable for humanitarian field staff.

Key messages from the presentations: We need to better understand the impact of assistance on affected communities and make more Increased accountability for humanitarian response strategic decisions. Without proper needs can be characterised as a three-lane highway. One assessments, there will be little accountability, as we lane focuses on the rights of the recipients (e.g. the do not have a baseline to measure impact, nor a Humanitarian Accountability Partnership); a second foundation for making principled decisions. focuses on principles, ethics and behaviour (e.g. the Red Cross/Crescent and NGO Code of Conduct and Key messages from the discussion: international humanitarian law); and a third takes its cues from the public management sector (e.g. When talking about accountability, we do not concepts like “value for money” and “results-based necessarily all mean the same thing. Does management”). “accountability” refer to affected people, donors or tax payers? What do we mean by “affected Progress has been made when it comes to populations”? Who are they? Who represents them? accountability and yet we have many on-going international initiatives to improve accountability. Understanding who we are as organisations and Yet a number of basic questions remain: have these what principles we actually adhere to is an important initiatives actually made us any better at what we part of becoming more accountable. Such an do? Have they helped those affected by crisis? What understanding would help us define the benchmarks dilemmas do we continue to face? against which we should measure ourselves and where in the project management cycle we should Accountability is not only a target; it is also a tool assess our accountability. that helps with acceptance on the ground and negotiating humanitarian access. Accountability is Promoting accountability is not cheap. Initiatives to not only about indicators, it is about being present ensure that accountability mechanisms are when crisis hits and being transparent with the undertaken should be considered to be part of the communities we work with. More flexible funding is basic costs of humanitarian action.

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Ed Schenkenberg John Mitchell Executive Director, International Council of Voluntary Director, Active Learning Network for Accountability Agencies (ICVA) and Performance (ALNAP) Greg Puley Chief, Policy Advice and Planning Section, Policy Development and Studies Branch, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Hüseyin Oruç Deputy President, IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation

There are three broad types of restrictions; 1) international sanctions regimes; 2) country or region- Counter-terrorism specific sanctions regimes; and 3) national criminal law. These have impacted humanitarian action in measures and different ways. Reported negative impacts of counter-terrorism measures include: halts and decreases in funding for activities in areas controlled principled by listed groups; blocking or suspension of projects; change in program design; and delays in project implementation. Beneficiaries in areas and structures humanitarian under the control of the designated terrorist group are systematically excluded by some donors; and funding through Islamic charities, particularly from action the growing donor base in the Gulf, has been significantly obstructed. Moreover, the This session examined the status of counter- implementation of counter-terrorism laws terrorism measures and their impact on undermines the neutrality, both real and perceived, humanitarian action: How to ensure that the pursuit of humanitarian actors, and the impartiality of their of countering terrorism does not impact negatively operations. on principled action? Coordination has also suffered as humanitarian Key messages from the presentations: organisations, fearful that they may have contravened counter-terrorism regulations, are There have been two broad trajectories in recent reluctant to share information about their years relating to humanitarian engagement with programmes with other organisations and are self- non-state armed actors and the implications for censoring their activities. Coordination with humanitarian funding policies. The first is the authorities – particularly in places like Gaza, where recognition that effective humanitarian action Hamas, the de facto authority, is also deemed to be a requires engagement with non-state armed actors. terrorist organisation – has also been affected. The second is the expansion of counter-terrorism Misunderstanding of “non-contact” regulations has measures. These measures seek to restrict the flow sometimes caused organisations to avoid contact of goods, benefits, services and knowledge to groups with Hamas officials (for example) even when it may and individuals that have been listed as terrorists. not have been prohibited. Similar observations of These two trajectories intersect where a non-state self-censuring could be made about other aspects of armed group or individual able to grant or deny program implementation in countries in which listed humanitarian access is also classified as a terrorist groups are operating. entity. Yet, it is important to highlight that different Recent studies of the impact of counter-terrorism measures impact humanitarian action differently – measures on humanitarian action reveal that: some more than others. In order to address some of the challenges discussed, it will be necessary to 1. Certain types of counter-terrorism measures dissect the different legal frameworks and have a direct negative impact on understand which exact measures are the most humanitarian action. problematic. 2. These measures have also had an indirect impact by humanitarian organisation’s self- The U.S. policies (amongst the most restrictive) have censoring when sharing information and/or criminalised the provision of all support – including choosing partners and activities. international humanitarian law training – to terrorist 3. Counter-terrorism policies differ groups, regardless if the intent of the provider is to significantly from donor to donor – thus try and reduce civilian casualties. The representative assessing impact of counter-terrorism from the EU, on the other hand, stressed the measures in a generic way is unhelpful. importance of respect of human rights and international humanitarian law for the EU in the fight

20 against terrorism and explained that the EU crime is Key messages from the discussion: not called "material support to terrorism" (as in U.S. legislation), but “participating in the activities of a There has been little coordinated humanitarian terrorist group”. The EU crime, the representative response to counter-terrorism policies, with explained, includes supplying information or material humanitarians preferring to direct their energy at resources, or funding activities in any way but with managing the practical barriers on the ground, rather the important difference from the U.S. legislation than engaging in a debate at the policy level. that this has to be done “with knowledge of the fact Nevertheless, there is space for humanitarian input that such participation will contribute to the criminal into the counter-terrorism dialogue. The UN activities of the terrorist group.” Thus, it excludes Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force humanitarian assistance or other support (such as includes representatives from UN human rights, providing training in IHL) from the scope of the humanitarian and development bodies, and big offense and the EU still support such trainings. donors such as the EU remain open to humanitarian input on these issues. Similarly, the panellist from the EU stated that ECHO has not changed practices due to counter-terrorism It is necessary to collect the facts about different measures. For instance, while some other key donors measures and how these are applied and make have vetting requirements of staff and partners, distinctions between different national legislations in there is no vetting requirement from the EU with order to foster concrete discussions between the regard to beneficiaries. To the contrary, counter-terrorism and the humanitarian community implementing partners who has vetted beneficiaries – in which concrete situations could be discussed in have been told by ECHO to stop this practice to keep detail. And, best practices for how to operate in funding and the neutrality necessary for a environments where terrorist groups control humanitarian actor, she explained. Similar territories should be shared. differences have been found between other key donors. Standard humanitarian exemption clauses for EU and UN sanctions regimes, both country and counter- The leadership on the counter-terrorism agenda, as terrorism regimes should be considered. This could well as the capacity to monitor and address terrorist avoid haphazard approaches and delays with threats, lies primarily with states. As a global body, derogations, as well as clarify that humanitarian however, the UN plays an important coordinating action is not contrary to the sanctions regimes. role, addressing the cross-border nature of terrorist threats. The UN also has a particular role in the Counter-terrorism restrictions and demands should defence of humanitarian principles within the take the concerns of humanitarian actors into counter-terrorism dialogue. account. A focus on controlling and cutting off support to criminal behaviour might be a useful first step.

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Kate Mackintosh Naz Modirzadeh Consultant in International Humanitarian Law, Policy Senior Fellow, Harvard Law School and Practice Christiane Höhn Adviser to the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Mike Smith Executive Director, UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate

Transition often highlights the difficulties with interaction with host governments. While Filling the gap: humanitarian action is centred on impartiality and independence, development requires strong transition from involvement of government. Humanitarians should and do engage with authorities, but must engage with other parties as well. crisis response to The “Do No Harm” framework is relevant to both humanitarians and development actors. It has been sustainable underutilised so far, but could serve as an important tool for transition by providing a common analytical basis for both humanitarian and development development strategies. Efforts to ensure strong community participation could also provide common ground for This session reviewed the challenges presented by humanitarian and development strategies, ways of the transition period, where lifesaving, recovery and working, and impact. reconstruction as well as security-related and peace building activities struggle to co-exist. Is there a Resilience and disaster risk reduction should be built coherent approach that does not compromise into humanitarian response in conflict situations and humanitarian principles? not just be limited to natural disaster situations. Development work must also do better at integrating Key messages from the presentations and the resilience. discussion: It is important not to rush from humanitarian to ‘Families’ of principles – including humanitarian development programming; not to prolong principles, development principles and fragile state humanitarian action beyond what is required; and principles – have inherent clashes which, at first not delay the shift from development to sight, are difficult to reconcile. humanitarian response if the situation deteriorates.

Conceptually, there is a complementarity between The move from a humanitarian to a development development goals and the objectives of response is often a political decision. Both host humanitarian action based on a core of life-saving governments and donors often have an interest in objectives. At the same time, in many contexts, moving out of the humanitarian response phase. In humanitarian action is necessary because of these contexts, humanitarian needs have to remain shortcoming in reaching these goals through on the agenda, in parallel with addressing the root development tools. causes of such needs, be they political, economic or social. A key challenge in the transition discourse is the assumption that there is a continuum from Humanitarian and development coordination humanitarian to development. In reality, we often mechanisms – e.g. clusters and the sector working find situations move from development to groups – often do not talk to each other. But maybe humanitarian or run in parallel. the focus should be on implementation of each of the camps rather than communication between the Humanitarian work can contribute to development two. If done well, both humanitarian and goals by building resilience, and development work development would contribute to each other can reduce the need for prolonged humanitarian automatically. action by fostering coping strategies and building state capacity to deliver basic services. It is important Like humanitarian, development work also faces to find ways in which the two can function without challenges from stabilisation and state-building undermining each other. agendas. For example, in Afghanistan the state- building agenda absorbs the bulk of funds without consideration or alignment with the national context

22 or priorities. It is important for development actors development investment to lay the foundation for to advocate for space for development principles to sustainability or transition. be implemented. The way these various issues are defined and State absorption capacity and the local context are communicated is an important factor. How is critical factors in determining which sets of principles “emergency” defined, what is a “shock,” what is a apply. At the same time, we have situations where development concern? What are the principles we there are major humanitarian needs but no are using and why? What are the criteria for staying humanitarian assistance because there is no conflict or for leaving? Communication, clear explanations, or shock to trigger the provision of aid. Meanwhile and transparency are critical. Communicating there are massive humanitarian aid efforts focused effectively to donors and government is complicated, on responding to a shock yet no accompanying but also necessary.

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Alvaro Rodriguez François Grünewald Country Director for Afghanistan, United Nations Executive Director, Groupe URD Development Programme Andrea Koulaïmah Head of Unit, Central Africa, Sudan and South Sudan, DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

How can humanitarian actors co-exist with and yet be perceived as distinct and independent from other Stabilisation actors involved in stabilisation initiatives? This question is further complicated by the fact that the mechanisms and situation in conflict and post-conflict areas often fluctuates. While closer collaboration between humanitarian and stabilisation actors might be humanitarian possible in a context of relative peace and stability, the situation can rapidly shift back into full-fledged armed conflict. During conflict, humanitarian actors space will need a distinct and independent identity to ensure that it is possible to operate and deliver This session explored the impact of stabilisation across front lines. programming on principled humanitarian action and attempted to answer the question: how can In places like Afghanistan and Iraq it might be stabilisation mechanisms and humanitarian action, necessary to identify activities and actors that are which often involve the same actors and operational purely humanitarian. The core humanitarian niche space, practically co-exist? needs to be protected in order for humanitarian action to be possible and effective. Key messages from the presentations: At the same time, it is important that humanitarians The objective of humanitarian work is not to protect do not hide behind the humanitarian principles as an humanitarian principles, but to maximise the impact excuse for non-engagement in any kind of of our actions for the people affected. Principles are coordinated effort aimed at solving complicated not an ideological objective; rather we adhere to issues affecting the population. Longer-term them because they are effective. The key issue is solutions will require a wide range of activities, how we apply them in a particular context. including stabilisation initiatives. How humanitarian actors should relate to these initiatives and the In contexts in which humanitarian action is actors involved must depend on the context. undertaken alongside activities aimed at stabilising a conflict or post-conflict situation, applying principles It is difficult to develop generic guidance for the becomes particularly complicated. interaction between stabilisation and humanitarian initiatives due to the different needs, challenges and Stabilisation activities and humanitarian action are opportunities in different contexts. not necessarily in contradiction with one another. Humanitarians are interested in seeing the end to Yet some recommendations can be made: the conditions that necessitate their work: a  Distinction of and respect for different resolution of conflict and the creation of stability are actors’ roles is critical. crucial factors for putting an end to a humanitarian  Strong leadership and engagement of crisis. At the same time, humanitarian and senior-level representatives in continuous stabilisation agendas do not necessarily correspond. dialogue with other actors in order to build understanding and ensure respect of each Humanitarianism is intended to alleviate suffering, other’s differences and limits. protect the population and safeguard dignity without  No activities are “bad”, but not all activities taking sides in a conflict. Stabilisation, on the other should be undertaken by the same actor. It hand, is a concept that while often not clearly can be an added value that some actors do defined, routinely embraces the extension of state what others do not. authority, strengthening the rule of law and  Humanitarian actors need to invest more in promotion of development. The latter may often communicating who they are. Joint or entail supporting one party to the conflict. individual communication strategies that clearly explain the distinct nature of humanitarian action are necessary to ensure

separation from other actors involved in the in a situation in which it is implemented stabilisation initiatives. alongside stabilisation initiatives? Or will the  Investments should be made in policy perceived or actual link between development regarding stabilisation stabilisation and humanitarian actors and strategies that focus on rule of law and activities be too strong for humanitarian conflict resolution rather than economic action to maintain distinct and independent strategies and “hearts and minds.” The identity? latter are often particularly problematic  Is it possible to develop general guidance for when trying to distinguish between what is how stabilisation and humanitarian humanitarian and what is not. initiatives should coexist?  As situations may fluctuate between conflict  If humanitarians find it complicated to apply and post-conflict quite rapidly, there is a principles in situations in which stabilisation need to prepare for different scenarios as initiatives are ongoing, and in order to individual actors and as a community. How interact with stabilisation actors will roles change if the situation improves or themselves, does this bring into question deteriorates and can all actors implement the relevance of the principles in these the same activities or should more distinct contexts? roles be maintained?  If the international community is so fragmented (between humanitarian, Key questions from the discussion: development, political and military actors), how can it be effective at resolving local  Can humanitarian action remain fenced off tensions? and continue to be perceived as principled

PANELLISTS MODERATOR Antonio Donini Ross Mountain Senior Researcher, Feinstein Institute Director General, DARA Mark Bowden United Nations Deputy Special Representative and Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator for Afghanistan Jean-Philippe Ganascia Advisor for Civil-Military Relations, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

humanitarian action without a distinct identity will not be effective. Some of the political environments Chairperson’s that influence the framework within which humanitarian action is funded and undertaken – such summary as the parts of governments that work on counter- terrorism – do not have enough opportunity to engage with humanitarians. Lise Grande, United Nations Resident Coordinator and Development Programme Resident Counter-terrorism agendas have also been seen as Representative, India undermining the ability of humanitarian actors to provide principled aid by limiting the ability of This summary reflects the main discussions points humanitarians to engage with non-state armed and messages from the day, and was developed with actors in control of areas affected by crisis, and to the assistance of the panel moderators. provide aid to the populations living in the areas under their control. However, there has been little This conference has shown that the humanitarian coordinated NGO resistance to harmful counter- principles are still relevant and something that the terrorism policies, with NGOs preferring to direct humanitarian community consider important to their energy towards managing the practical barriers protect. First and foremost, this is because delivering on the ground, rather than engaging in a theoretical humanitarian assistance in accordance with the debate at the policy level. But there is space for humanitarian principles is the most effective way to humanitarian input into the counter-terrorism deliver aid. dialogue, which we will need to claim in order to prevent harmful practices and policies from The principles are not an ideological construct to be spreading. considered an end goal in itself, but are tools that help humanitarians navigate the many dilemmas Accountability of humanitarian actors towards they face when trying to support states in assisting affected populations, donors and tax payers is and protecting populations affected by crisis. important. But have we gone too far in trying to measure how accountable we are, and ended up Yet the principles are being challenged. External with more bureaucracy and reporting rather than forces contest the validity of the principles and the better programmes and delivery? Has the importance of principled action in ensuring that aid is bureaucratic burden that accountability frameworks delivered effectively. Other competing political become so great that humanitarian staff in the field agendas, such as counter-terrorism, stabilisation and end up spending more time in the office reporting on peace-building efforts have to some extent impact than being in the field with the beneficiaries instrumentalised humanitarian action. While the supervising implementation and ensuring impact? world is complex and requires a multitude of solutions and actors working towards different Despite the agreement on the importance of objectives, humanitarian action needs to be kept principles, the question remains: do we understand distinct, for the simple reason that if them and implement them in the same way? With humanitarianism is subsumed in other agendas and the explosion of the humanitarian sector over the strategies, it will no longer be effective. past decade and a multitude of new actors from different parts of the world, do we still have a With regard to stabilisation initiatives, we have common ground? Through the discussions we have discussed that they are not necessarily in heard that while new actors agree with the core contradiction with humanitarian action. Stabilisation humanitarian principles, they might want to add could in fact be seen as the exit strategy for some more to the list. Thus the discussion becomes: humanitarian actors. But where humanitarian and is the list complete or are we able to find room for stabilisation initiatives are undertaken in parallel, more principles and accept pluralism within the they need to be separate and distinct. humanitarian field?

In order to protect humanitarianism, we need to make critical decision-makers understand that

The way forward of counter-terrorism measures, international peace- Delivering humanitarian assistance in adherence to building efforts and promotion of human rights, humanitarian principles is the most effective way to humanitarian actors might be standing at a deliver aid, thus it is in everyone’s interest that crossroads: what will humanitarianism look like in principled action is defended. future?

Donors and policy makers have a role to play in Humanitarianism should not be regulated and we supporting principled action; ensuring that cannot limit access to the term. In a fractured world, competing agendas – such as counter-terrorism or where there are many external forces that challenge stabilisation – do not hijack humanitarian action. humanitarianism and the right of crisis-affected They should allow space for humanitarian action and people to receive assistance and protection without actors to be separate from other agendas, and not discrimination, we must see the principles as be used as tools towards non-humanitarian something that unites us so that we can move objectives. Humanitarianism is an end in itself, with towards a bigger and more inclusive the purpose of alleviating suffering and defending humanitarianism. We cannot all be ICRC, and we people’s dignity. probably should not. We are working in complex situations with complex challenges. There is a need In order to protect principled action, we as for multiple identities. humanitarians will need to do better at explaining why the principles are important and how we adhere Communication and trust will be crucial for the way to them in concrete terms. Together, the forward. We need to listen and we need to engage humanitarian community needs to communicate with those who do not necessarily have the same towards three main target groups: 1) those who do values and principles. We need to launch a dialogue not know the principles; 2) those who understand within the humanitarian community and but challenge their validity and importance; and 3) communicate clearly who we are and what we those who believe them to be important but do not believe in outside of it. Through a sincere dialogue know how to apply them in a particular context. we can find and build on common ground that will be the foundation for renewed trust amongst The humanitarian principles should unite us as a humanitarian actors. humanitarian community, not divide us. In the face