This past year has seen a frightening persistence and intensity of conflicts that affect an unprecedented number of innocent civilians. The reality of contemporary warfare is that more than 90 per cent of casualties are non-combatants who are often deliberately targeted because of their ethnic or religious affiliation. As a consequence, victims continued to flee their homes and communities in staggering numbers in 1995, reaching a global total of some 25 million refugees. A still larger number of persons have been displaced or are directly affected by warfare within their own countries.
Increasingly, humanitarian organizations are compelled to operate in war-torn societies where conflicting parties are often openly contemptuous of fundamental humanitarian norms. In such circumstances, a major challenge is the need to safeguard the well-being of civilians while providing assistance in a manner consistent with humanitarian principles.
In addition, the international community is faced with the paradox of needing ever larger resources to address the immediate survival needs of victims, while simultaneously recognizing that such action may deflect attention and support from initiatives essential to undoing the root causes of vulnerability and strife. Faced with these conflicting trends, humanitarian organizations have been reassessing the processes that shape the nature and impact of their interventions.
Recent experience illustrates the importance of a well-organized and adequately resourced mechanism for coordination, both within the multi-actor humanitarian arena and with other elements of the international system involved in crisis management and pre-emptive action. This is particularly evident in rapid and simultaneous mass population movements, where it is often difficult to move quickly enough to mobilize and deploy resources in a manner that will prevent avoidable deaths. However, notwithstanding the importance of support from the international community, it is the people of the country directly affected who are primarily responsible for their own recovery and that of their communities.
The volatile context within which humanitarian assistance is provided is a major determinant in the overall capacity of the United Nations system to pre-empt and respond to crises in a manner that minimizes avoidable suffering.
The scale and depth of suffering in conflict situations confronting the international community today is too often a consequence of a disregard for fundamental humanitarian principles. In many instances, the suffering endured by civilians is not an incidental element of political and military strategies but constitutes its major objective. The conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda are alarming examples of what occurs when civilians are subjected to the full brutality of contemporary warfare and gross violations of human rights. Determination must be shown to enforce the rule of law and to hold accountable those who are responsible for heinous crimes.
The limited means of humanitarian organizations to provide protection is particularly glaring in conflict settings and in situations characterized by extreme violations of human rights. The Rwandan experience illustrates the way in which the capacity of the United Nations to provide protection and assistance is undermined when inputs and distribution mechanisms are used for purposes that are inimical to humanitarian objectives. Finding the means to reach those in need without entrenching the power of abusive elements is one of the most difficult challenges facing the humanitarian community in recent times.
The indifference of warring parties for even the most basic humanitarian principles has continued to make conditions under which relief workers must operate extremely dangerous. As the number of conflicts increases so too does the number of practitioners who have been killed or wounded, sometimes deliberately, while carrying out their humanitarian tasks. Frequent disruption and diversion of emergency relief supplies have occurred. Access has on many occasions had to be negotiated. Dependence on the agreement of armed groups often makes the provision of humanitarian assistance tenuous and subject to unacceptable conditions. If this trend continues, it could undermine the capacity of the agencies to carry out humanitarian work. Safeguarding both the concept and the reality of "humanitarian space" remains one of the most significant challenges facing the humanitarian community.
Another major obstacle facing humanitarian organizations is the absence of sufficient political will and support for action to address the underlying causes of crises. The provision of humanitarian assistance in a vacuum is tantamount to managing only the symptoms of a crisis. Experience shows that, in most instances, the effectiveness of humanitarian endeavour in conflict settings is predicated to a considerable extent on successful action by the international community to resolve the problems that provoked the crisis.
In some situations, such as in Angola and Mozambique, a determined effort has been made to stop the fighting and to consolidate the peace. In other settings, such as Haiti, assertive action has been taken to end oppression and the potential for violent conflict. This is in dramatic contrast to other settings, such as the Sudan, where conflict has smouldered for 28 of the last 39 years. In Burundi and Liberia, a volatile mix of circumstances points to the need for action to strengthen the push for peace.
The humanitarian agenda is often shaped by political attitudes to particular crises, strategic interests in specific areas and the attention span of the media. Such factors, which are for the most part beyond the control of humanitarian organizations, contribute strongly to the low level of attention and support provided to victims of "silent" emergencies. Ideally, and in a more humane world, assistance would be provided according to need and the core principle of impartiality would have greater relevance when responding to emergencies.
Other factors that have an impact on the effectiveness of relief and protection organizations include the relationship between the level of resources and attention devoted to the prevention of, preparedness for and recovery from disasters and the amount of resources required to meet the daily needs of people in camp situations (see fig. 15). Rwanda is but one example of current trends. Some $1 billion was spent in the first six months of the crisis. Most of this was used for the immediate survival needs of the millions who were uprooted and displaced in 1994. Although resources were requested at an early stage for confidence-building measures to facilitate and encourage the return of those who had fled and for action focused on the problem of genocide, only a minuscule amount has been made available for activities essential to ameliorating and resolving the underlying cause of the cyclical strife that now characterizes Rwanda and other parts of the Great Lakes region.
However, some vital progress has been made both in responding rapidly and effectively to the needs of victims and in generating a more cohesive approach within the United Nations system. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee has played an incisive role, having on many occasions enabled consensus and decisions on pressing country-specific issues to be arrived at quickly and with immediate impact. Its uniqueness and success stem in part from the presence of, and close working relations with, certain major umbrella non-governmental organizations. In 1994, the Committee agreed on a number of measures for strengthening field coordination of humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies, in particular in the pre-emergency and initial response phases. A set of guidelines relating to the humanitarian mandate as well as the appointment of and terms of reference for humanitarian coordinators were approved and the Emergency Relief Coordinator was also designated as the focal point for internally displaced persons. Most importantly, procedures for the most expeditious agreement on the division of labour between agencies have also been approved by the Committee.
Within the Secretariat, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peace-keeping Operations have established a mechanism for the joint analysis of early warning of a looming crisis, within a broader framework for the coordination of operational planning and implementation among the three departments. Among the United Nations agencies also, agreement as to the responsibility and criteria for "sounding the alarm" in impending crises has enabled appropriate preventive and preparedness actions (such as contingency planning measures, primarily at the in-country level) to be initiated.
Timing is also critical in the fielding of humanitarian assistance operations. The Department of Humanitarian Affairs has established a Rapid Response Unit to field experienced personnel to work with the United Nations resident or humanitarian coordinator and to build up systematic support for field-level coordination activities. At Kigali in April 1994, the United Nations advance humanitarian team, staffed by United Nations agency representatives and Department of Humanitarian Affairs personnel, re-established a United Nations humanitarian presence during a very difficult period and was able to lay the groundwork for the expansion of humanitarian activities as the situation permitted. In Haiti, a combined Department of Humanitarian Affairs/UNDP team was deployed to support the United Nations Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in the immediate aftermath of the United Nations action of September 1994. During the crisis in Chechnya, Department of Humanitarian Affairs staff were dispatched to neighbouring republics, where they worked closely with UNHCR and United Nations agency representatives in addressing the needs of internally displaced persons.
The Central Emergency Revolving Fund has consistently proved its value in facilitating both a rapid and joint response by United Nations agencies to fast-breaking emergencies. Delays in its reimbursement have, however, offset its usefulness on a number of occasions. The past year also saw the first use of the interest on the Fund to support immediate coordination arrangements in the field, with the establishment of the United Nations Rwanda Emergency Office at Kigali.
With a growing number of major emergencies of all varieties requiring international assistance, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, led by Under-Secretary-General Peter Hansen, has continued to strengthen its coordination support capacity and to act as a focal point for the development of new initiatives taken jointly by the international emergency response community towards the improved effectiveness of international relief operations. Activities since my last report include the expansion of the number of countries participating with members in the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team, including six disaster-prone developing countries from the Latin American region, and the development of guidelines and standards for the assessment of international relief requirements in multisectoral emergencies and for the mobilization of resources, the rapid initiation and support of field coordination, the exchange of know-how and techniques, and the development of standard operational procedures in the deployment of international response teams.
In this endeavour, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs has worked closely with and supported the activities of international networks of emergency teams such as the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group and the Standing Coordinating Group on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief. With regard to the provision of specialized human, technical and logistical resources to support the coordination of international relief operations, the Department has initiated memoranda of understanding with Governments and organizations to allow it expeditious access to their emergency relief capacities. This forward-looking, systematic approach used by the Department has proved its worth in a number of sudden-onset emergencies during the year.
Natural disaster reduction remains a core activity of humanitarian assistance, which tackles the root causes of disasters, and an essential ingredient of rehabilitation and reconstruction planning. The Under-Secretary-General has, therefore, brought together the Department of Humanitarian Affairs' Disaster Mitigation Branch and the secretariat for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction under the umbrella of a Disaster Reduction Division. Thus the Department is able to serve all aspects of natural disaster reduction at all levels within the framework of a coherent United Nations strategy (see table 1).
| 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of disasters | 45 | 8 | 75 |
| Number of dead | 6971 | 13542 | 7572 |
| Number of missing | 258 | 1631 | 1989 |
| Amount of damage | 2.06 | 15.80 | 9.00 |
| Contributions reported to DHA (a) | 257.4 | 77.5 | 114.0 |
| Contributions channelled through DHA (b) | 3.73 | 4.23 | 7.50 |
(a) -- Billions of United States Dollars.
(b) -- Millions of United States dollars.
Between May 1994 and July 1995, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs launched 27 appeals for international assistance on behalf of countries affected by natural, technological or environmental disasters. It coordinated international assistance following more than 85 disasters in 50 countries. Some 243 situation reports were issued on the consequences of those disasters, to which the international community reported contributions amounting to more than $115 million, $6.3 million of which were channelled through the Department. During the same period, the Department arranged 38 relief flights from its emergency stockpile at Pisa, Italy, in response to the immediate requirements of those affected by disaster.
However, while much vital progress has been made in augmenting the capacity of humanitarian agencies to respond quickly and coherently to the immediate needs of victims of all kinds of emergencies, the task of assisting countries to emerge from crises continues to pose significant challenges. This is particularly evident in situations of systemic breakdown when the task of rebuilding civil society is dependent on the commitment of the international community to address the underlying cause of crises. The ability of aid agencies to support a recovery process is, of course, largely determined by the extent to which affected communities engage in activities geared to making the transition from dependency on relief to sustainable development.
As is now widely acknowledged, the relationship between relief and development, particularly in conflict settings, is complex and needs constantly to be assessed to ensure that interventions are mutually reinforcing. In many instances, gains made by the humanitarian community in stabilizing a situation are not accompanied by the inputs necessary to nurture a recovery process. Indeed, protracted crises often experience funding shortfalls, thereby negating tenuous advances in the reduction of vulnerabilities of either a social, economic or political nature. The tragic experiences of people in Liberia, Rwanda and the Sudan illustrate the need for sustained and concerted action focused on breaking the dynamic of violence.
On a more positive note the experiences of Haiti and Mozambique during this past year demonstrate the advantages of assertive action that actively nurtures the quest for peace. Likewise, the opportunity to consolidate the long-awaited peace in Angola must be fully exploited and necessary support provided for vital rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. As in other post-cease-fire situations, it is important that the international community maintain the momentum for peace; too often, critical activities, including de-mining and the homeward return of refugees, the displaced and former combatants, are jeopardized because of insufficient support for programmes that are essential for the revitalization of community life. Aware of the challenges confronting war-torn societies, humanitarian and development staff of the United Nations system are currently reviewing mechanisms to ensure that their respective funding and operational activities are complementary and enhance peace-building initiatives.
Cooperation with regional arrangements or agencies
Relief operations in the Near East
To return to the Table of Contents