The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality provide an ethical framework that defines and delineates the humanitarian space within which relief agencies are supposed to operate. Current experiences, however, show that these traditional principles were not designed to cope with the development underlying the increasing merging of humanitarian aid and politics. To avoid political manipulation, relief organizations must rethink these traditional principles and face the responsibility of getting more involved in the broader political arena to be able to take appropriate action, and to avoid longterm damages on a society.
The ‘Sphere’ project, which was launched to improve the quality of humanitarian action and to put relief aid on a legal basis as set forth by international law, acknowledges the dependence of humanitarian aid on external political decisions. Still, it emphasizes traditional principles and expresses agencies’ commitment to act in accordance with them. ‘Sphere’s actual value must therefore be seen in defining a common basis around which agencies, donors and governing authorities can potentially agree on. It provides a basis for defining core humanitarian responsibilities that recognizes the limits of humanitarian action, while setting an agenda for individual and collective action.
Even though the attempt to define humanitarian principles that serve as blueprints in every global emergency for all humanitarian organizations does not seem to be achievable, the importance of ethical guidelines and benchmarks still exists. The heterogeneity of relief work is just a phenomenon, which is based in the nature of humanitarianism and this will always put a stamp on attempts to find common standards, principles and codes.
Contents
I. List of acronyms
II. Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to the topic
1.2. Methodology
1.3. Setup of paper
2. The humanitarian sphere
2.1. Humanitarian threats
2.1.1. Natural disasters
2.1.2. Complex emergencies
2.2. Environment of humanitarian response
2.3. Principles and standards
2.3.1. The ‘Red Cross Code of Conduct’
2.3.2. The ‘Sphere’ project
2.3.2.1. ‘Sphere’ minimum standards
2.3.2.2. ‘Humanitarian Charter’ and humanitarian principles
3. The political environment of humanitarian aid
3.1. Western humanitarian aid
3.1.1. Influence of Western foreign policy
3.1.2. Perception of Western NGOs
3.1.3. Faith based NGOs
3.2. External involvement
3.2.1. Donor influence on humanitarian aid
3.2.1.1. Donor activities and ‘Sphere’
3.2.1.2. Bilaterization of humanitarian aid
3.2.2. Responsibilities of host governments
3.2.2.1. Host governments and ‘Sphere’
3.2.2.2. Difficulties of governmental interaction
3.2.3. Conflict regions
3.2.3.1. Humanitarian agencies in conflict regions
3.2.3.2. Local armed forces
3.2.4. Military involvement
4. Humanitarian principles in a political environment
4.1. Humanity
4.2. Impartiality
4.3. Neutrality
4.3.1. Controversies surrounding neutrality
4.3.2. Neutrality and local politics
4.4. Ambiguous approach of principles
4.4.1. Afghanistan
4.4.2. Serbia
4.4.3. Iraq
4.5. Solidarity
5. Conclusion
6. Annex
7. Bibliography
I. List of acronyms
illustration not visible in this excerpt
II. Abstract
The humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality provide an ethical framework that defines and delineates the humanitarian space within which relief agencies are supposed to operate. Current experiences, however, show that these traditional principles were not designed to cope with the development underlying the increasing merging of humanitarian aid and politics. To avoid political manipulation, relief organizations must rethink these traditional principles and face the responsibility of getting more involved in the broader political arena to be able to take appropriate action, and to avoid long-term damages on a society.
The ‘Sphere’ project, which was launched to improve the quality of humanitarian action and to put relief aid on a legal basis as set forth by international law, acknowledges the dependence of humanitarian aid on external political decisions. Still, it emphasizes traditional principles and expresses agencies’ commitment to act in accordance with them. ‘Sphere’s actual value must therefore be seen in defining a common basis around which agencies, donors and governing authorities can potentially agree on. It provides a basis for defining core humanitarian responsibilities that recognizes the limits of humanitarian action, while setting an agenda for individual and collective action.
Even though the attempt to define humanitarian principles that serve as blueprints in every global emergency for all humanitarian organizations does not seem to be achievable, the importance of ethical guidelines and benchmarks still exists. The heterogeneity of relief work is just a phenomenon, which is based in the nature of humanitarianism and this will always put a stamp on attempts to find common standards, principles and codes.
1. Introduction
“To what extent do you justify sacrificing the humanitarian imperative to long-term political strategy? We are not debating this — it is in the “too difficult” tray.” (Michael Moller, Department of Political Affairs, in: Humanitarian Policy Group Report 8, ODI, London)
1.1. Introduction to the topic
The past two decades have seen a significant increase in frequency and intensity of complex emergencies and natural disasters, leading to a rapid transformation in the policy and the institutional context of humanitarianism. Humanitarian assistance, which once covered a very narrow set of basic relief activities carried out by a small group of relatively independent actors, has expanded significantly to an ever-widening and much more complex range of rehabilitation work. This includes the definition of aid as being a starting-point for addressing poverty or being a tool for peace-building in internal conflicts. A growing diversity of “non-humanitarian” actors in the field, such as various profit agencies, governmental and non-governmental armed forces, also changed the picture of humanitarian aid and the perception of its character. This transformation has created a broad variety of standards for performance in the field, and led to increasing uncertainties on the quality of humanitarian responses and its accountability.
Humanitarian catastrophes, like the Rwandan genocide, finally forced humanitarian agencies to think beyond traditional relief assistance based on the delivery of food, shelter or basic health care, and take a deeper reflection on how they actually perceive their own role and accountability in the humanitarian sphere. In 1997, the ‘Sphere’ project was launched to develop inter alia a so-called ‘Humanitarian Charter’, which tries to put relief aid on a legal basis provided by international law. It emphasizes humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality and expresses agencies’ commitment to act in accordance with them. These principles provide an ethical framework, which defines and delineates the humanitarian space within which NGOs are supposed to operate. ‘Sphere’ and its commitment to these traditional principles have both supporters and critics within the humanitarian system, especially when it comes to its usefulness in addressing the complexity of political factors surrounding an emergency situation.
Humanitarian assistance has always been a highly political activity, as it involves engaging authorities in conflict-affected countries or relying on financial support that can be driven by a donor’s political considerations. Nowadays, relief organizations seem to remain even less in control of their working environment due to expanding peacekeeping and “military-led” missions of the United Nations, regional organizations or major Western powers in armed conflicts. Furthermore, they are confronted with a growing scale of human rights abuses and the targeting of civilians, including humanitarian workers. However, the necessity to interact with armed groups started to blur the line between military policies and relief missions, making humanitarian action appear to be increasingly tied to the overall political response of donor countries to complex emergencies. This working environment is making it difficult for relief organization to maintain their neutrality and to avoid political manipulation.
For humanitarian workers, it is a moral obligation to provide aid wherever it may be needed, and the alleviation of suffering in humanitarian crises is supposed to be the basic motivation in this context. Despite the pronouncements and practices of relief actors to ensure that their actions confer no military advantage and that they are driven solely on the basis of need, the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality are under constant assault. Several developments, most importantly the fact that in many current wars belligerents reject the very notion that war has limits and attacks on civilians and other abuses of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is part of a deliberate strategy, have led to the question whether this ethical framework is still achievable in practice.
This paper examines the difficult realities in a heterogenic humanitarian environment, by addressing all the complex legal and political issues surrounding an emergency, including the impact of external actors like donors, host governments, and armed forces. It therefore provides a realistic understanding of the possibilities and limits of traditional principles, rethinks their value in current crisis responses, and delineates the attempt to create and clarify new ones. In this regard, the paper further analyzes the ‘Sphere’ process, which commits participating agencies to act in accordance to these principles, on how far it is taking political influences on humanitarian aid into consideration, and can thus actually be seen as a reasonable guideline for relief organizations in the 21st century.
1.2. Methodology
The research for this master’s paper delves into contemporary literature regarding the topic of how traditional humanitarian principles cope with current political influences on humanitarian aid. During the course of this study, a broad variety of literature resources have been analyzed, including publications from multilateral institutions like the UN, editorials from humanitarian experts in different academic institutions or NGOs, to field reports from local practitioners. A wide spectrum of opinions is covered in this paper, with the call for extreme political dominance over humanitarian issues at one end, to pure humanitarianism, with its emphasis on neutrality and independence, at the other. Publications and research papers published by the ‘Humanitarian Practice Network’ (HPN), an independent policy research group, have served as a very competent source throughout my work on this topic. HPN is part of the ‘Overseas Development Institute’ (ODI), Britain’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues.
The ‘Sphere’ process has been integrated into this paper by analyzing how it actually has been aware of the phenomenon of humanitarian aid becoming increasingly politicized. In preparation for this paper, I appreciated the opportunity of interviewing Alison Joyner, Sphere project manager; and Veronica Foubert, Sphere Materials and Training Support Officer, at the ‘International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) headquarters in Geneva. Both have been very helpful in clarifying the actual meaning of the ‘Sphere’ process, which supported the aim of giving a comprehensive analysis on this project through robust literature reviews and various sources of information.
1.3. Setup of paper
After this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the working field in which humanitarian action is taking place, especially the impact of natural disasters and man-made complex emergencies on societies. It further focuses on the attempt to find international humanitarian standards to consolidate and regulate humanitarian action, taking the ‘Sphere’ process as the recently most prominent example. The main focus here resides less on the agreement of certain minimum standards, which aim to put a theoretical foundation into practice, but more on ‘Sphere’s ‘Humanitarian Charter’ and the leading humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality. Chapter 3 gives an overview on the context and scenario of the political environment, which both influences humanitarian work and sometimes even dominates the perception of relief aid in recipient states. This section also points out the geopolitical trends in aid policy and the extremely complex realities that put humanitarian actors in danger of being misused to assert political, military or strategic objectives. Chapter 4 focuses on the limits of traditional humanitarian principles in terms of recent political developments and strategic choices that occurred. It also gives new perspectives on how NGOs can reinterpret these principles without limiting their ethical value. Finally, Chapter 5 provides overall conclusions and recommendations.
2. The humanitarian sphere
2.1. Humanitarian threats
Since the end of the Cold War, an increasing occurrence of natural and human-caused disasters, including armed conflicts, has become a central issue for the international community. These humanitarian emergencies have led to an extensive loss of life, damage to property, and the long-term destruction of the environment. Many times, disasters have forced countries to postpone national development programs and exasperated already difficult social, economic, and environmental conditions, particularly in human settlements.
Even so, every single emergency is accompanied by a high amount of human casualties, with over 1.5 million people being killed by natural disasters in the past two decades. The destructiveness of extreme natural events usually depends more on the number of vulnerable people impacted in the disaster region than on the magnitude of the event per se. Annually, drought affects some 220 million people, flooding 196 million, cyclones 119 million, and over 130 million people live in earthquake risk zones (UNDP, 2004: 1-8).[1]
Figure 2.a. Economic losses caused by natural disasters, 1950-2002
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2.b. Number of fatalities (2002)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: Benson, C., Clay, E. (2004) Beyond the damage: probing the economic and financial consequences of natural disasters, in: HPN Humanitarian Exchange 27, ODI, London, pp. 44-45.
An additional 31 million people are affected by conflict, leading to approximately 2.3 million casualties between 1991 and 2000, leaving 4.400 people dead every week (Oxfam, 2000: 2). The number of people actually “of concern” to the ‘United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) rose up by 6 percent to 20.8 million, from the 2005 total, which already saw an increase by 13 percent from 2004:[2]
Figure 2.c. Persons of Concern to UNHCR – by Region
Source: http://www.unhcr.org.
This increase reflects differing patterns of movement among the various groups assisted by the agency, including refugees, civilians who have returned home but still need help, persons displaced internally within their own countries, asylum seekers, and stateless people.[3]
2.1.1. Natural disasters
Natural disasters exist in great variability and can have a severe impact and inherent risk on a society and its development process; as a civic leader in Bangladesh pointed out: “We have floods most every year. This year’s floods, however, have been more damaging than most, setting the whole country back by a full decade.”[4]
Figure 2.d. Number and Cost of Weather-Related Disasters, 1980-2003
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: The Feinstein International Famine Center, 2004: 13.
Although natural disasters like floods, droughts, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis exist in both developed and developing countries, the poorest and most marginalized urban and rural societies will be least likely to recover livelihoods and rebuild assets quickly. Several reasons have led to this weak coping capacity, which puts large populations of the poorest inhabitants chronically at risk. Often research and investigations carried out to identify and understand the risk zones in these countries are usually insufficient, leading to a fragmentary local knowledge on possible preventive measures, like land use planning, appropriate building codes, safety regulations and response plans. But even if the expertise in risk reduction exists in local institutes and universities, an appropriate financial mechanism is often not used and therefore necessary steps are not taken (UNU-EHS, 2005: 9).
This lack of knowledge, or at least the lack of competent action, has resulted in a visible increase of hazards, which are influenced by human activities. For instance, the devastation from flooding is often compounded by preexisting environmental conditions such as deforestation or farming on steep hillsides, which can lead to mudslides, causing many additional deaths and injuries.[5] In particular, population pressure and poverty have been identified as key aggravating factors, leaving people in subsistence economies no other option then to exploit their environment (UNU-EHS, 2005: 9-10).
Future predictions, driven principally by climate change, unsustainable land use, and improved technological means of exploitation posit an increase in the fragility of the environment and a growing number of natural disasters.[6] Furthermore, the distribution of populations, primarily in Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, has its influence on global scenarios. The UN estimates that by 2025 half of the world’s people will live in areas subject to major storms and excessive flooding, leading to even more communities not able to cope with that fragility (The Feinstein International Famine Center, 2004: 11-14).[7]
2.1.2. Complex emergencies
In some regions of the world, deformed and failed processes of modernization and transformation have caused a fundamental development crisis. Ethnic struggles, failing states, and social processes of chaos lead to warlike conflicts and political structures have to be installed while the economy and the society are influenced by force. The ‘Inter-Agency Standing Committee’ (IASC)[8] defines a complex emergency as “a humanitarian crisis in a country, region or society where there is total or considerable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or external conflict and which requires an international response that goes beyond the mandate or capacity of any single agency and/or the ongoing United Nations country program” (McHugh, 2006: 7). With a focus on, often only formally existing, states of Sub-Saharan Africa, a World Bank Discussion Paper even describes the current status of many of these countries as a “stable situation of instability” (Michailof, 2001: 3). A situation that often leads to so-called “political economies of threat and combat,” includes a growing number of people who have an interest in the maintenance of the conflict and a high propensity to violence. The past decade has seen a frightening persistence and intensity of conflicts and half the wars that were thought to have ended have since resumed (World Bank, 2004: 4).
The nature of war is also changing as conflicts become increasingly inter-related (whether at local, national, or regional levels) and the means of warfare evolves, including the deliberate targeting of civilians and the waging of war for specifically economic motives. More and more conflicts involve the targeting or forced displacement of civilians, as warring parties fight over territorial control as a means to weaken enemy forces by targeting host or supportive communities or access to natural resources. The parties involved are changing and proliferating, including non-state actors with uncertain chains of command that make dialogue and negotiation difficult and dangerous (OCHA, 2003: 2).
Figure 2.e. Wars and Armed Conflicts, 1950-2003
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source: The Feinstein International Famine Center, 2004: 53.
The reality of contemporary warfare is that more than 90 percent of the victims are innocent civilians who are often targeted because of their ethnic or religious background. As a consequence, a large number of the affected population flee their home and their community, and this forces humanitarian organizations to operate in war-torn societies where conflicting parties are often openly contemptuous of fundamental humanitarian norms (United Nations, 2002: Report of the Secretary-General).
2.2. Environment of humanitarian response
Complex emergencies and to a lesser degree natural disasters have a large impact on countries and people, like hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and net decreases in Gross National Product, which usually lead to a macro-economic collapse. People face episodic food insecurity, which frequently deteriorates into mass starvation, followed by movements of displaced people and refugees escaping conflict or searching for food. Finally, both central government authority and at least parts of civil society deteriorate or even collapse completely (Dijkzeul 2005: 15). Jose-Miguel Albala-Bertrand, Senior Lecturer on the Political Economy of Development at the Queen Mary University of London sees the fundamental difference between natural and politically induced disasters in the way institutions are affected:
“In natural disasters, there can be some significant interference with society and therefore institutional change arising from both the impact effects and the responses, but this is infrequent, mostly incidental and not normally widespread or long-term. In complex emergencies, most aspects of the impact and effects have deliberate institutional aims and overtones. Likewise, the response to this type of calamity is also bound to cause significant interference with society, which may be intense, long-term and mostly deliberate” (Albala-Bertrand, 2000: 215).
Parameters of complex emergencies are characterized by:
- Refusal or inability by governments (or other effective authorities, rebel movements etc.) to comply with their humanitarian relief responsibilities in relation to populations under their control through their own relief action.
- Refusal to grant humanitarian access to international humanitarian relief agencies.
- Multiple factions – weak or dissolving government structures may require negotiation with numerous factions making it impossible to obtain centralized and authoritative consent for relief action.
- Ongoing internal armed conflict which contributes to the humanitarian emergency or even generates it indirectly.
- Armed campaigns to obtain political benefit by inflicting horrendous human suffering upon civilian populations as part of that armed campaign.
- Ethnic and/or religious factors that led to forced displacement (ethnic cleansing) or even genocide.
- Potential to increase suffering through inappropriate or misused aid assistance.
- Increased competition for limited resources.
Source: Weller, 2005: 41; Janz, 2000: 2.
While traditional responses to natural disasters generally occur in stable working environments and lead to a rapid return to normal conditions, experiences of humanitarian crises during the 1990s have changed the humanitarian endeavor significantly. Humanitarian actors were forced to think beyond traditional relief assistance based on the delivery of food and shelter, and basic health care, and had to recognize the root causes of vulnerability and strife. A development in humanitarian action that made social, cultural, and especially political constraints and complexities increasingly viewed as a real and vital aspect of any response. In crisis regions, it became an important challenge to the international community to provide aid in these settings without worsening the current conflict situation (IRIN, 2006: 6). This, in turn, led to an increasing complexity of aid services that put humanitarian organizations in the dilemma to act in an external environment over which it has little control. Faced with these conflicting trends, agencies have been “reassessing the processes that shape the nature and impact of their interventions” (United Nations, 2000: Report Secretary General). Notably, the genocide in Rwanda[9] in 1994 increased awareness among aid agencies for more professionalism regarding evaluations, operational research, training, and improvement in systems. Since then, open debates and the exchange of experiences, both within and between agencies, have become integral parts of the relief sphere and have allowed discussion and thinking on the accountability of aid agencies (Dufour, 2004: 124).
The humanitarian sector became actively concerned about the quality of humanitarian interventions, even though tensions between “conviction-driven social action and studied professionalism with its standards, systems and accountabilities” has energised humanitarianism since its founding years (Walker, 2004: 101). Oxfam realized as early as the 1980s that competition between agencies could lead to lower standards, and a number of initiatives have been launched internally within the sector that aimed to enhance the quality of humanitarian work and the accountability of humanitarian organisations (Vaux, 2006: 246). European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in particular, were concerned that if they did not take the lead in implementing their own system of standards and accountability, they would find themselves forced to accept systems defined by their governmental donors (Walker, 2004: 101). A process was initiated to target the “perceptions of weakness and inconsistency of the humanitarian enterprise” and to search for an agreement on common principles based on international law and strategies to build capacity to respond to the changing humanitarian context effectively, including its social, economic, political, technological, environmental, and legal issues (The Feinstein International Famine Center, 2004: 2).
2.3. Principles and standards
2.3.1. The ‘Red Cross Code of Conduct’
In the beginning of the 1990s, humanitarian agencies tried to summarize decades of practical experience by codifying what they had learned and use it to influence new agencies that were constantly forming. This process led to the ‘Red Cross Code of Conduct’, published in 1994. This code put up a framework in which “saving lives”, the basic aim of relief aid, was seen as the immediate need, but not as the sole objective of emergency operations anymore. A “developmentalist position” was adopted by supporting local capacities, reducing future vulnerabilities, and involving those affected by a crisis in the decision making process (Vaux, 2006: 240-47).
The Code of Conduct -
Principles of Conduct for the ‘International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement’ and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes:
The humanitarian imperative comes first.
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.
Aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint.
We shall endeavour not to act as instruments of government foreign policy.
We shall respect culture and custom.
We shall attempt to build disaster response on local capacities.
Ways shall be found to involve programme beneficiaries in the management of relief aid.
Relief aid must strive to reduce future vulnerabilities to disaster as well as meeting basic needs.
We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist and those from whom we accept resources.
In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we shall recognise disaster victims as dignified humans, not hopeless objects.
Source: The Sphere Project, 2003: 317-320.
Although the ‘Code of Conduct’ was envisaged primarily as relating to relief in natural disasters, it has always been viewed as applying to NGO humanitarian work in armed conflicts too.[10]
The ‘Code of Conduct’ was soon criticized for “consisting principally of abstract statements about the aims of humanitarian relief” and not addressing in any way the critical issue of how to protect vulnerable populations and aid activities. Donor governments and NGOs appeared to be addressing humanitarian issues in a “pious and abstract manner far removed from the harsh dilemmas resulting from wars” (Roberts, 1996: 60-61). Further, the critics argued that no mechanism was set up for monitoring compliance, for interpreting the code, and for making it widely known among decision-makers and practitioners. So the ‘Code of Conduct’ had little practical impact and was almost immediately overtaken by the genocide in Rwanda, which is seen nowadays as one of the defining events of 20th century humanitarianism. Although aid agencies were present in Rwanda at that time, they had shown little awareness of the tensions building up in the region and that genocide was being planned. The response of the international humanitarian community was not only chaotic and competitive, with hundreds of organizations pouring into the camps in eastern Zaire, but also too late. Furthermore, the UN gave mandates to small organizations with no significant experience, causing unnecessary deaths of refugees (Vaux, 2006: 240-47).
2.3.2. The ‘Sphere’ project
Faced with such an unparalleled crisis in Rwanda, agencies came together to produce a joint evaluation and to document the failures that occurred in detail. Therefore, the ‘Sphere’ initiative was launched in 1997, with the participation of over 700 individuals from over 200 organizations in over 60 countries, including the ‘Red Cross and Red Crescent movement’ (ICRC). The aim was to find a way to combine practical humanitarian work with the body of International Law and to clarify what it actually means to live a ‘life in dignity’, which Article 1 of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ assures: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (http://www.un.org).
The participating agencies came up with a technical elaboration of the ‘Code of Conduct’ and a ‘Humanitarian Charter’ to reassert the so-called ‘humanitarian imperative’: the right to receive humanitarian assistance and to provide it wherever it is needed, to all citizens of all countries (Slim, 2002a: 4). ‘Sphere’ was supposed to be “a tool for humanitarian agencies to enhance the effectiveness and quality of their assistance, and thus to make a significant difference to the lives of people affected by disaster” (The Sphere Project, 2003: 14). The agencies committed themselves to be held accountable against specified levels of good practice and, in a broader sense, the entire international community against sufficient support in financial and political ways (Vaux, 2006: 247).
Figure 2.f. The ‘Sphere’ diagram
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The ‘Sphere’ project contains three things: “a handbook, a broad process of collaboration and an expression of commitment to quality and accountability” (The Sphere Project, 2003: 5). It was built on the existing humanitarian foundation and combined current best practices and existing universal standards, whether they were from Unicef, Oxfam or ‘Médecins Sans Frontiéres’ (MSF) publications.[11] An agreement was found on Minimum Standards in regard to peoples’ need for water, sanitation, nutrition, food, shelter and health care,[12] following the aim to "quantify the requirements given by the Humanitarian Charter for sustaining the lives and dignity of those affected by calamity or conflict” (The Sphere Project, 2003: 16).
2.3.2.1. ‘Sphere’ minimum standards
The Standards, as they appear in the handbook, are general statements that define the minimum level to be attained in a given context, and the indicators act as ‘signals’ that determine whether or not a standard has been attained. The Standards further meant to describe dilemmas, controversies, or gaps in current knowledge on humanitarian practice and to offer advice on priority humanitarian issues or help to tackle practical difficulties. The ‘Sphere’ committee advises users of the handbook to strive to meet these standards as well as they can and to use ‘Sphere’ as a starting point or as benchmarks. Most of the standards and the indicators are not new, but consolidate and adapt existing knowledge and practice (The Sphere Project, 2003: 6-14). However, the attempt to “cloth technical standards in the language of humanitarianism and international law” seems to be a general vulnerability and led to concerns that ‘Sphere’ is promoting a picture of humanitarian aid that is limited to providing water, food, health services and shelter in emergency situations (Dufour, 2004: 139).[13]
MSF, and in particular MSF-France, were extremely cautious of the ‘Sphere’ process and concept. They criticized ‘Sphere’ for not taking into account that human crises happen across such a wide range of environments, economies, and cultures that would make it impossible to set meaningful global standards. Furthermore, it has been argued that in the initial phase of an emergency response, or in a volatile context like an ongoing displacement, aiming ‘Sphere’s ‘Minimum Standards’ is “above and beyond” everything that can be achieved and only possible if unhindered access to an affected population and adequate resources were given (Tong, 2004: 182-3). Sphere’s technocratic approach was therefore seen as a “strain jacket” that would pull MSF and others away from being “a value-driven to a more supply driven business”, which could be provided by government donors to constrain agencies action (Walker, 2004: 106).
‘Sphere’ nevertheless outlines that it is clearly intended to be more than just a manual of good humanitarian practice and that it should not be reduced to its technical issues. In contradiction to all the criticism on ‘Sphere’s allegedly limited perspective, it does not dictate to any organisation what decisions to make, or to use their recommendations as an imperative or blueprint (Lowrie, 2001: 37-38). Instead it acknowledges that it is impossible to standardize the different approaches among humanitarian agencies on how to carry out relief activities because of their different identities, mandates and capabilities (The Sphere Project, 2003: 7). It also points out that in some instances, local factors may make the realisation of all standards and indicators unattainable, including a lack of access or security, insufficient resources, the involvement of other actors and non-compliance with international law (The Sphere Project, 2003: 14).
The project sought a common format and rationale for standards, covering minimum and relative essential goods and services, implementation of assistance and stakeholder accountability. Additionally, donors were suppose to take responsibility in order to provide adequate resources for future humanitarian operations and to force them to connect their “high statements of ideal”; they have signed up to international conventions, right down to what it practically means in the field (Walker, 2004: 101-5).
[...]
[1] It is important to note that the numbers of people killed by natural disasters is decreasing, in part due to better satellite forecasting, improved early warning systems, and improved community preparedness in some countries such as India and Bangladesh, apart from 2004 when numbers soared because of the tsunami effect (Oxfam, 2000: 2).
[2] See Annex 10: ‘Refugees and total population of concern to UNHCR 1981-2006’.
[3] The global refugee population has dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Over the period end-2000 to end-2004, the global refugee population has fallen by 2.6 million or 21 per cent. By the end of 2004, the global number of refugees reached an estimated 9.6 million persons. (http://www.unhcr.org).
[4] Civic leader in Bangladesh paraphrased from BBC broadcast on August 2nd 2004 (The Feinstein International Famine Center, 2004: 12).
[5] The flooding of the Yangtze River in China in 1998, which displaced over 200 million people, has been officially blamed on deforestation in the highlands of Sichuan by the Chinese government. The typhoon that swept across southern Africa in 2000, producing flooding that displaced millions especially in Mozambique and Madagascar, triggered destruction that was exacerbated by land use changes and deforestation.
[6] Especially the global warming issue tips the delicate balance between incoming and outgoing energy of the earth and leads to more frequent extremes, to more floods and more severe droughts and therefore to higher death tolls (Ginkel, 2005: 2).
[7] Population growth outside the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’ (OECD) region, primarily in Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, will make up practically the entire population growth from 1995 to 2020, during which time global population numbers will increase from 5.6 to about 7.6 billion. This increase over 25 years corresponds to almost the entire global population in 1950 (2.5 billion). Africa, China, and India should each have populations between 1.3 and 1.4 billion (United Nations, 2001: 12); see Annex 1: ‘World Population Growth by Region’.
[8] The IASC is a mechanism for inter-agency coordination of humanitarian assistance. Its forum involves the key UN and non-UN humanitarian partners. It was established in June 1982 in response to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182 on the strengthening of humanitarian assistance.
[9] The Rwandan Genocide was the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. It stands out as historically significant, not only because of the sheer number of people murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of how inadequately the United Nations failed to respond. (Recommended literature: Melvern, Linda (2004) Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community; Gourevitch, Philip (1998) We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families.)
[10] The first four articles of the ‘Code of Conduct’ are key restatements or re-workings of the first four principles of the Red Cross. The last six articles are more in the nature of statements of good practice in relief methodology (The Sphere Project, 2003: 312-322).
[11] When the concept of a broad NGO-led standards project was first mooted in early 1996, at least eight other similar initiatives were going on. For example, MSF had taken a lead in developing ‘Standard Response Packages’; Oxfam and UNHCR had been developing standards in water and sanitation; within the ‘Development Assistance Committee’ (DAC) of the OECD there are moves to develop common financial reporting standards for humanitarian agencies (Walker, 2004: 101-2).
[12] The focus on food, nutrition, water, health and shelter and their linkage to the Humanitarian Charter were not a foregone conclusion. There was robust discussion early on over whether a section on education should be included, with staff from UNHCR, Unicef and SCF arguing that the provision of education in refugee and IDP camps, on the edges of conflict zones, was an essential conflict-prevention measure and thus also an urgent life-saving provision (Walker, 2004: 109).
[13] ‘Sphere’ nevertheless took this critique during the revision process for the 2004 edition of the handbook into account, which now includes important issues that are relevant to all sectors, like Children, Gender, HIV/AIDS or Protection. These particular issues were chosen on account of their relation to vulnerability, and were the ones most frequently raised in feedback from users of ‘Sphere’ in the field. This also led to a new section in the handbook dealing with ‘Food Security’ and an additional chapter, which details a number of process standards common to all sectors, including participation, assessment, response, targeting, monitoring, evaluation, staff competencies and management (The Sphere Project, 2003).
- Arbeit zitieren
- Thorsten Volberg (Autor:in), 2006, The politicization of humanitarian aid and its effect on the principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/67908
-
-
-
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen.