Speakers:Adele
Harmer, Research Fellow, HPG, ODI Randolph Kent, Centre for Defence Studies, King's College,
London Chair:Tony Baldry MP - Chair, International Development
Committee, House of Commons
1. The second meeting in the series was held on Thursday
6 May 2004. Tony Baldry MP, Chair of the International Development
Select Committee in the House of Commons chaired the meeting.
The two speakers were Randolph Kent, Centre for Defence Studies,
King's College London, and Adele Harmer, Research Fellow at
ODI.
2. Adele Harmer spoke first, to a presentation.
She noted that the international humanitarian system was distinguished
by complex governance, both legal and institutional. In effect,
it was not one system, but many. There had been a marked increase
in spending, with the level reaching $5.5billion in 2001.
There was a high degree of concentration of donors, with the
US providing 20-25% of the total.
3. The reason why reform of the humanitarian
system was on the agenda lay in concerns about poor performance,
including on the ground, but also inadequate strategic planning
and weak capacity to coordinate in the UN system. This had
led to a lack of trust in the system and increased ear-marking
and direct intervention by bilateral donors.
4. A series of reform initiatives could be identified. Current
initiatives included the "Good Humanitarian Donorship
Initiative", discussion about the reform of the Inter
Agency Standing Committee, work through the UN Development
Group and the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs
on Transitional and Post-Conflict Situations and a body of
work on humanitarian partnership aimed at broadening the donor
base.
5. For the future, Adele Harmer identified humanitarian dialogue
with the G77, the further development of "integrated
missions", security in operational responses, and new
developmental forms of engagement in conflict situations and
protracted crises. Underlying discussion about many of these
was the international security agenda associated with the
war on terror.
6. Randolph Kent spoke mainly about the conflict between
the regulatory and operational roles of the UN humanitarian
system. He began by describing the effect of the competitive
aid environment in which UN humanitarian agencies had to work.
There were many actors involved in humanitarian work, including
the private sector and the military as well as NGOs and a
number of UN agencies. The UN was often seen as "just
another actor" and this was very undermining of its authority.
The emphasis in the UN on operational activities had led it
to compete for funding in the aid market and inevitably to
mission creep. Donor influence often encouraged this, for
example by insisting on UN presence in every emergency.
7. There was of course a good deal of self-regulation in
the humanitarian sector, for example through the Sphere Project
and the Humanitarian Accountability Project, but the overall
impact was limited. Randolph Kent argued that the humanitarian
system needed an overall regulator, an authoritative advocate,
and a body paying attention to the core causes of vulnerability,
for example global warming or poverty.
8. He was sensitive to the criticism of his position that
a focus on "standard bearing" rather than operational
work would leave the UN merely as a talking shop and would
further undermine its position. However, he did not accept
the criticism. His view was that a focus on the over-arching
advocacy and the deeper causes of poverty and vulnerability
would lead the UN into a deeper engagement with operational
work.
9. In conclusion, Randolph Kent summarised his recommendations:
there should be an over-arching review of humanitarian work
by the UN, through a review of General Assembly Resolution
46/182 and the role of the Inter Agency Standing Committee;
more funding should be provided for the standard bearing roles,
including advocacy; there should be substantial changes in
administrative practices, including hiring (for example to
provide more local knowledge through longer assignments);
there should be more conditionality on humanitarian activity
by NGOs; and, above all, governments should promote the legitimacy
and accountability of the UN system.
10. Opening the discussion, Tony Baldry said that he felt
the performance of the humanitarian system was perhaps less
important as an issue than weaknesses and shortcomings on
the political side. In the crisis countries he had visited
with the Select Committee, the main constraint was not humanitarian
competence, but the management of political crisis. This view
was questioned, however. It was certainly true that there
was a political shortfall (as the previous week's meeting
had demonstrated); however, the two speakers had demonstrated
that there were very real shortcomings in the humanitarian
system. This was something that ought to keep policy makers
awake.
11. Other points made in the discussion included:
The question of how to drive regulatory change was again
discussed, with the proposal that this be through financial
allocation noted. A strong parallel was noted between the
UN reform discussion and the parallel discussion about achieving
change in national budgetary and political systems, for example
through the use of budget support.
Some important points were made about the need to provide
the UN with greater flexibility. Afghanistan was cited as
a case where UN coordination was working reasonably well,
but it was noted that, in Iraq, the UN had been ready to intervene
many months before it was finally allowed into the country.
The case of food aid to Afghanistan was cited, where cash
would have been a more appropriate input.
There was some discussion of what was meant by the regulatory
function of the UN. Randolph Kent clarified that perhaps 'moral
authority'would be a better term, implying the capacity to
adjudicate on emergencies and bring together the necessary
response.
