Europa > European Union in the World > European Union @ United Nations > Commissioner Nielson's Speech on humanitarian assistance

Site map | A-Z Index | Internships/Jobs | Links | Contact us

English Español Français

 

 

Commissioner Nielson's Speech on humanitarian assistance

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to be here as European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid to address this Intensive Programme for the new NOHA students today in Groningen.

I am pleased to see so many young people dedicated to one of the most challenging but also most rewarding professions one can imagine: to prevent and alleviate human suffering around the world.

As a European Commissioner I am proud that my institution is contributing actively to the NOHA programme. We all know that helping people to survive is not only a noble, but a challenging task. It may even involve personal risks to those who provide that help. This is why good intentions are not enough. Smart aid and professional people are needed who are able to perform and deliver, both at headquarters and in the field. The Commission has supported NOHA for many years and we know that you will receive a quality training here that will provide you with the intellectual tools you need to meet the humanitarian challenge.

In my speech today I will talk about the Transition from Humanitarian to Development Aid. The concept of this transition is not new it has been known to those who are working in the humanitarian area for quite a long time. In common humanitarian jargon it is known as L-R-R-D, an awful tongue-twister which stands for 'linking relief, rehabilitation and development´, sometimes also called "the transition gap" or "grey zone". The concept of LRRD originated in the eighties when both academics and practitioners voiced concerns about the "grey zone" between humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and development.

The main problems identified at the time were the inability of development aid to quickly restart programmes in post-crisis situations. This is why ECHO and other humanitarian actors were pushed into longer-term engagements that stretched their humanitarian mandate too far into the area of developmental activities. Development cooperation, on the other hand, too often ignored the risks of droughts or conflicts and the need to protect vulnerable households by helping them to establish coping strategies. If relief, rehabilitation and development are better linked, avoiding gaps and duplication, these deficiencies can be eliminated.

My presentation will therefore focus on linking the provision of relief and rehabilitation with longer-term, sustainable, development. I will look into how we at the European Commission approach the subject of LRRD, how we manage it, and how we hope to increase co-operation with other international institutions or civil society organizations that are active in this field.

The EU, as you know, is a key actor in the global aid system. The European Commission, and, particularly, its Humanitarian Aid Office, better known by the name of ECHO, is actively involved in the provision of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable and suffering of the world. The numbers speak for themselves: last year, ECHO alone deployed 544 million Euro for humanitarian projects in about sixty countries reaching millions of beneficiaries. With this amount, ECHO is one of the biggest donors of humanitarian aid worldwide, only surpassed by the U.S., which provided slightly more in 2001 (729 million USD) and the EU-15, which together account for 858 million Euro.

ECHO's mission is to fund the coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance and protection through partner humanitarian organizations in order to save and preserve life, reduce suffering and safeguard the integrity and dignity of the populations of third countries thrown into the midst of humanitarian crises.

ECHO's primary role therefore is to provide direct response to a man-made humanitarian disaster or a natural catastrophe by - if I may use this somewhat simplistic analogy - driving its 'ambulance' of first aid to crisis-torn parts of the world. Although ECHO is an experienced "ambulance driver", able to provide quality first aid, it also cares about the further condition of its patient. That is why ECHO aims at contributing positively to the establishment at the international level of a more integrated and sustainable approach when dealing with complex crises. That is to say, ECHO not only cares about what happens after its patient receives immediate first aid but also whether the patient improves after the initial treatment. Sadly, not all patients receive follow-up treatment and this is why ECHO has to remain involved in what we call "protracted" crises. Thus, while ECHO´s core mandate is to provide emergency humanitarian aid, it is also concerned about short-term rehabilitation in the immediate post-crisis phase.

Let me now speak about the main differences and similarities between both humanitarian aid and longer-term development aid. The key concept of humanitarian aid is the following: humanitarian interventions are governed by the need to act speedily to save lives and alleviate extreme misery and suffering. In all instances, their emphasis is often on providing basic goods or services to the people in need for a limited period. This is done to ensure that people do not starve or die of exposure, hunger or disease. Support is offered directly to people who are suffering, irrespective of their ethnic, religious or political affiliation.

Development aid differs from humanitarian interventions. First of all, the very name 'development' suggests that this type of aid is targeted at achieving long-term tasks, because the concept of development involves such sustainability. Apart from the concept of sustainability, development assistance is also based on the concept of partnership. This means an effective dialogue between public institutions in donor and recipient countries, and to a more limited extent, between civil society actors who are working together to help a certain country reach a certain, obviously higher, level of development. Unlike humanitarian aid, which is short-term and first-response oriented, the emphasis of development cooperation is on medium and longer-term programmes. Such programmes aim at reducing poverty and increasing the standard of living of beneficiaries in the process of such development through better integrating them into the global economy.

It is important to recognize those differences, which are also reflected institutionally in the Commission where matters of humanitarian aid are under the supervision of ECHO, and matters of development aid under the supervision of DG Development, DG RELEX and EUROPEAID. Such a separation of tasks, of course, is done for the reason of better management, but there is, certainly, a constant flow of information between different departments, and a great deal of co-operation.

Although dealing with development aid and humanitarian aid involves different approaches, I do acknowledge that there are also similarities. Together with rehabilitation assistance, they involve an interlocking series of activities which need to be looked at together.

To put it into simpler terms, we need to ensure a smooth transition between humanitarian aid, rehabilitation and development assistance in order to get the best possible, effective return from international aid resources.

Disasters disrupt economic and social development, and often throw countries back several years or even decades in terms of their economic development, as is, for example, the case in Afghanistan which now needs billions of Euro in development aid to undo the devastating effects of twenty years of civil war. Emergency humanitarian operations can take into account long-term development issues only to a limited extent. This is why development policy, at the same time, should be better prepared to cope with natural disasters, conflicts and other crises, and the need to protect vulnerable households by helping them to develop coping strategies. For many years, this aspect has been missing in many development cooperation programmes but, be assured we are getting better at it.

Angola is a recent example for a successful transition in that respect. In the wake of the peace process, the Commission has drawn up an extensive response strategy to support that process. This plan, in which LRRD plays a central role was drawn up in close consultation between ECHO and DG Development, including joint field missions. The Angolan LRRD strategy proposes short-, medium- and longer-term interventions to contribute to:

• The furtherance of the 2002 peace process, national reconciliation and the consolidation of democracy, including the creation of conditions for free and fair elections;
  
  
• Good governance and development of civil society ;
  
  
• Poverty alleviation, through a gradual concentration of the EC's aid in the focal areas of food security and social sectors.

The Commission has already identified 125 million € from both humanitarian and development assistance to help deal with immediate needs, including de-mining, and undertake essential rehabilitation, to be followed up by substantial development support over the longer term.

Out of this package, an amount of 54 million Euro has already been earmarked to support displaced people and to begin rehabilitation, particularly of accessible social infrastructure, in areas where the level of security is increasing. This concerns in particular the populous zones of the Central Highlands and other areas affected by the war, just to mention one example.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Linkages are indeed as crucial in Angola as in many other places and in many sectors. Going back to the conceptual level and looking at LRRD from a sectoral point of view, say in the health sector, humanitarian aid may be provided in the direct aftermath of a political conflict or natural disaster to get a hospital running, offering basic but vital life-saving treatment. What kind of situation may one find oneself six months after such a hospital starts operating? Six months later, the immediate crisis situation has passed and the humanitarian agency has in principle fulfilled its relief mandate. What is the next step that should be taken? What if the local or national authorities do not have the human or financial means to keep the hospital going? In this situation, chances are that the facility may close down.

The buildings can quickly deteriorate and the equipment is dispersed or becomes unusable simply because of the lack of maintenance.

What can be done in the case of such a rather pessimistic scenario? The initial humanitarian aims may have been achieved, but the capital investment which could serve the community long after the crisis has ended risks being rapidly lost. This hospital needs to continue working, providing further help to initial victims of a political crisis or a natural disaster. And there should be someone to keep it running for an extended period of time. This is precisely the moment when development aid should step in with programmes that have already been prepared before and that are ultimately designed to enable national authorities to run the hospital themselves.

I think that this is a good example of why it is so important to establish effective linkages between the different phases of aid.

Now, how is this concept managed and supported at the policy level within the European Union? The European Union, in fact, attaches a great deal of importance to the linking issue. This strong stand of the European Union on the issue of LRRD was well expressed in a Commission Communication on this subject in April 2001. This Communication is not only a broad strategy document, but also a practical tool after all, it sets out a series of practical measures that are designed to bridge the gap between emergency and development assistance. For instance, the Communication discusses what measures should be taken in countries prone to natural disasters, and in countries torn by political conflict. In those countries where natural disasters happen frequently, more attention should be paid to disaster preparedness and to enhancing the self-help capacity of the population both in the relief phase and, even more importantly, in development cooperation.

In situations of political conflict, the Communication recognizes that the link between relief and development must be seen in a broader economic, social and political context. I should say that the category of violent crises poses the greatest challenge to ensuring an effective linkage, particularly for countries in protracted crises or long-lasting wars, or where there are recurrent outbreaks of fighting. We should be realistic: it is very difficult in such a context to convince donors to provide development assistance. Development needs a certain degree of stability. If stability can not be guaranteed or if the political conditions are such that local governments can not ensure a minimum of good governance, linkages are difficult to achieve, if not impossible.

In such complex and unstable situations, one of the most important aspects set out in the Communication is the need for strengthened co-ordination at different levels. Obviously, as a donor involved in the full range of aid activities, the Commission must ensure that its own co-ordination mechanisms are as effective as possible. For instance, ECHO gives a lot of attention to managing "phase out" strategies in an attempt to stop the provision of humanitarian aid at the most appropriate moment when work is fully completed, and when ECHO can either be sure that providers of development aid can step in. ECHO co-operates closely with colleagues who work in the field of longer-term assistance to ensure a hand-over, when humanitarian assistance is phased out. The ultimate goal for ECHO is that the design of emergency aid must be as consistent as possible with long term development objectives and sustainability. On the other hand, appropriate longer-term instruments should anticipate and be mobilized in good time, i.e. way before ECHO announces and starts its withdrawal.

The Commission has decided that, as soon as a crisis erupts, it will review its co-operation strategy and adapt its development programme. This will imply the adoption, with Members' States' approval, of "addenda" to the so-called Country Strategy Papers (CSPs). These addenda operate as a kind of contingency planning providing for instruments and mechanisms to accelerate the phase-in of development co-operation.

In some cases development aid and humanitarian aid can be present simultaneously in one country, either in different geographical parts, when the humanitarian crisis is limited to a specific area, or in different sectors, when it is possible to phase out humanitarian aid, for example, from the health sector whilst it is necessary to continue in other sectors. Such mixed situations, called "contiguum", existed in the Balkans or in Angola, just to mention two examples.

Timing is crucial to successful linking of the different types of assistance. The implementation of a development project generally involves a minimum of two years between identification and execution. In the context of its wider reform process, the Commission is committed to simplifying and decentralizing its decision-making processes. This is done in order to reduce time delays as far as possible and speed up the delivery of development aid. This approach should also help to avoid a hiatus between the phasing out of humanitarian aid provider and the stepping in of the development aid institution that will start doing its work in the field.

Another major challenge relates to the type of partners ECHO is working with. In some situations, the persistence of political instability after the crisis can prevent development Cupertino from resuming. The necessary approval of projects by governments can therefore sometimes represent a constraint. A change and broadening of implementing partners may be required in the transition phase. One way to cope with this is to look beyond NGOs and UN agencies to other bodies, including local NGOs, the private sector and consultants for technical studies.

Where linkages are not possible due to political constraints or lack of appropriate instruments at Commission level, ECHO attempts to hand-over to the local population. Such hand-overs can be prepared, for example, through self-reliance projects.

Furthermore, ECHO and the development services in the Commission are constantly working towards improving co-ordination and complementarity with Member States. The aim is to have a division of labor which ensures a better overall EU response to existing needs in different phases of work.

Beyond well-coordinated EU action, international co-ordination is a key issue. It is a vast area that involves work with various multilateral, regional and non-governmental actors. The Commission has called for strengthening the so-called "Friends of" approach which has been developed in the context of UN initiatives on a country by country basis. This approach involves the broadest possible number of international donors co-ordinating their actions in the same country.

To conclude, the departments of the European Commission which are involved in international aid programmes are very conscious of the need for "joined-up" policies that maximize the effectiveness of aid and ensure the best possible value for money. We try to minimize the "grey zones" between humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and development. We have already made significant progress and we are committed to continuing with the process.

Since ECHO´s core business is to preserve and save life in humanitarian disasters, it will continue focusing on this mandate. LRRD is not only a crucial issue for humanitarian aid but, more importantly even, for development Cupertino. The main challenge for development Cupertino instruments is to identify the appropriate instruments that can take over from humanitarian assistance and to mobilize them in a timely fashion.

To conclude with, there is no unique model or blueprint to address the transition gap. Each individual situation is likely to influence and test the capacity of external donors to ensure linkages. However, our common goal remains constant to reduce poverty and to improve the quality of life all over the world. The European taxpayers who pay for the aid programmes, and the millions of beneficiaries all over the world, deserve nothing less.

Thank you for your attention.

| Top |

Advanced search