Summary: November 11, 2004: STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY MR. KOEN DAVIDSE, MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY, PLENARY. Agenda item 39: Strengthening of the Co-ordination of Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance of the United Nations, including Special Economic Assistance (New York)
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union, the Candidate Countries, Bulgaria, Croatia*, Romania and Turkey, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro, and the EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.
The issue of humanitarian coordination is at the core of the ongoing debate about improving the quality and effectiveness of humanitarian aid. The EU, with others, have put coordination at the top of the humanitarian agenda. However, the EU believes that humanitarian coordination should not be limited to humanitarian actors alone. An effective response to today's humanitarian challenges requires us to broaden our view, and to include political, military and developmental partners in our
dialogue on humanitarian issues.
Humanitarian coordination
Mr. Chairman,
In humanitarian crises, more than in other situations, coordination is of paramount importance. Good coordination literally saves lives. I truly believe we can congratulate ourselves with the progress made in this particular field over the last years. I refer to the Consolidated Appeals Process and the way in which OCHA has been taking the lead in coordination matters. The European Union wants to reiterate here its commitment to both the CAP's and OCHA. Moreover, I would like to explicitly
express our support for the SG's Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland, and his unwavering efforts not only to deal with humanitarian suffering, but to make the rest of the world deal with it to. His work in relation to the Darfur crisis, but also for Northern Uganda or Colombia, are good examples of this.
The Darfur crisis has not yet come to an end; time is running out for even more people. During the Ecosoc meeting, the EU commended UN/OCHA attempts to ensure access for humanitarian organizations, and to ensure coordinated humanitarian action. Presently, we witness vastly improved access and far better coordinated action. However, human suffering in Darfur is still terrible, and progress is too slow. The EU calls upon the Government of Sudan and other parties to the conflict to better protect
the civilian population. The EU urges the international community to do what we failed to do sufficiently in the beginning: make the relief operations possible financially.
Broadening the discussion
Mr. Chairman,
As I said, coordination should be inclusive rather than restricted to only some of the stakeholders. Over the last years, the discussion on humanitarian action and coordination has mainly been a debate between UN-agencies and donor governments. It is time for others to join the debate in a more systematic way so as to strive for more effective aid delivery and for more sustainable results.
Transition
Firstly, I would like to look at links between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation. Developments in many countries and regions force us to do so. We have to make the transition from emergency aid to development in countries like, for example, Afghanistan, Liberia and Angola, in order to give the people of those countries a new perspective. When it comes to transition, the EU welcomes the work done by the UNDG-ECHA working group on Transition, although we realize that more work
needs to be done. In transition, even more than during the relief phase, national governments should be given the opportunity and means to assume their responsibilities, and civil society should be given the chance and capacities to make their own positive contribution to the rebuilding of post-conflict countries.
*Croatia continues to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process
If governments and non-government actors play these roles, the UN-role should be limited to support and capacity building.
Clearly, more funding is required for transition and reconstruction purposes, if only to prevent countries from falling back into conflict. Well-established funding mechanisms that exist for humanitarian and development purposes are lacking here. The EU is aware of this and is working on ways to improve its performance in countries in transition. The European Commission's concept for linking relief to development (LRRD) will provide guidance.
Coordination with the population, national authorities and NGO's
Humanitarian coordination not only has to include national and local governments. Equally important is that the affected populations themselves are better listened to by not only just the UN and NGO's, but also by their own governments. Until now, in too many cases, we all have been focussing on working for, rather than working with the people.
By better listening to and coordinating with governments, NGO's, and affected populations, and by building local capacities we can ensure better ownership and participation, and increase the chances for sustainable results.
The voices of NGO's, international as well as national, can and should be better listened to, for instance in the framework of the CAP, and the Common Humanitarian Action Plan. NGO's have often been present in crisis areas longer than the UN, and may have a better knowledge of tailor-made solutions for the population at risk. The EU wants to build on NGO experience, and wants to further include them in humanitarian coordination. One way of doing so might be to ensure that discussions within
UN-Country Teams include, whenever appropriate, all IASC-partners.
Integrated missions
One of the symbols of improved and broadened coordination are the UN integrated missions. The EU accepts the concept of integrated missions as a more coherent and efficient approach to crises. However, it is clear that such missions bring along the risk of UN humanitarian action being perceived as part of a larger, political agenda. Subsequently, the UN and its Member States have to organize integrated missions in such a way that there can be no misunderstanding about the independent, impartial
and neutral character of the humanitarian part of the mission.
Security for humanitarian workers
Mr. Chairman,
More than ever, the security of humanitarian workers is at stake. We have to find answers to the new security threats that we encounter in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The changing security environment, and the UN's response to new security challenges are extremely important for the future of humanitarian assistance. We have seen an unprecedented increase in attacks on relief workers and in the number of casualties. In various countries, UN and NGO's have been forced to suspend their
actions.
The EU welcomes the opportunity to discuss this issue in the GA. We acknowledge that, although the situation is more threatening in some crisis than in others, new threats need to be taken into account worldwide. We therefore welcome the work done by the UN to reassess the changing security situation and to come up with new answers. The EU would urge however, that risk management does not turn into risk aversion! Risk aversion will lead to a reduction of the UN's response capacity and hence,
affect its credibility!
It is our firm belief that respect for International Humanitarian Law is not only the best way to forestall suffering of innocent people in conflict, but also the best protection for relief workers. For the safety of relief workers, it is essential that humanitarian action and responsibility are clearly separated from military or political actors. Therefore, Member States should ensure coherence between their humanitarian and military policies and actions, inside the UN as well as outside, and
should in general further the debate between the humanitarian and military actors. We welcome in this respect the new IASC Reference Paper on Civil-Military Relationship in Complex Emergencies.
Humanitarian financing
Mr. Chairman,
A few words on financing. When it comes to financing, OCHA's 2004 Mid Year Report highlights a number of sobering trends. Thus far, in 2004, less humanitarian financing seems to have been made available than the previous two years. And unfortunately a new major crisis was required to increase the overall level of funding. We call upon all countries and governments to help alleviate humanitarian suffering, and to transfer pledges into payments.
Even more important from a coordination point of view is the uneven distribution of funding, with some appeals being better funded than others, or one sector being better covered than others. This uneven distribution justifies the UN's call for more unearmarked funding, which, in turn, justifies our call for better and comparable needs assessments.
The EU, participating in the 'Good Humanitarian Donorship process', is deliberately looking for ways to fund according to needs. In order to attract more funding, UN-agencies should better coordinate, prioritise and ensure quality.
Disaster response
Mr. Chairman,
Every year, natural disasters cause more victims and suffering than man made crises. Moreover, there is reason to believe that in the future there will be an increase in natural disasters such as floods and droughts. For these reasons and others, the EU welcomes the renewed attention given to disaster response by the ERC. We also support the work of the ISDR-secretariat, especially its endeavours to prepare for the Kobe conference on Disaster Reduction. We believe that the decision to focus the
conference on capacity building, preparedness, coping mechanisms and ownership is a right one, because this will best limit damage and loss of lives in the long run. It is time to divert attention from disaster relief to disaster reduction, and to give an important role to national and local governments, and to the people in disaster prone areas themselves.
The EU recognizes that the international community is failing to invest sufficiently in disaster preparedness and disaster reduction, and that to do so might prove more cost effective than investment in disaster response. However, such investment should be accompanied by governments giving priority to disaster reduction policies, as well as to implementation of those policies.
On disaster response, the EU reaffirms the leading role played by OCHA, UNDAC and INSARAG. Recently, a collaboration arrangement between the existing UN-instruments and a new EU disaster response mechanism has been worked out and we look forward to seeing this implemented in the field.
Thank you.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page