WUNRN
Multiple Gender Dimensions to
Humanitarian Agenda - Enterprise Report
Direct Link to Report:
Website Link:
Humanitarian
Agenda 2015: The State of the Humanitarian Enterprise describes the challenges
faced by humanitarian actors striving to maintain fidelity to their ideals in a
globalized world. The report highlights persisting tensions in the relationship
between “outsiders” and local communities, encroachments of political agendas –
particularly as a result of the war on terror – and the deteriorating security
climate for humanitarian workers on the ground. Humanitarian action, the
authors argue, needs to be more in sync with the aspirations of the people it
aims to help and more open to non-western humanitarian coping strategies and
traditions. Talking "principally to the like-minded, shunning different or
dissenting voices" ultimately undermines humanitarian principles and
causes "misunderstanding, false expectations, and delusions of
grandeur."
The report builds on 12 case studies of local perceptions of the work of
humanitarian agencies, conducted in as many countries. The country studies and
final report are based on interviews with more than 2,000 recipients of
humanitarian aid, as well as aid agency, donor and government staff.
Download this report (1.65 mb)
______________________________________________________________
Fearing for the Future of the Humanitarian Enterprise
The
Humanitarian Agenda 2015: Principles, Power and Perceptions research project of
the Feinstein International Center recently issued its final report. Since
early 2006, a multi-disciplinary team from the Center canvassed perceptions of
the work of humanitarian agencies from the bottom up – focusing on the
perceptions of communities and individuals who benefit from or observe the
functioning of, the humanitarian enterprise. The State of the Humanitarian
Enterprise, (Antonio Donini, et al), summarizes the findings of the research –
the constraints, challenges and compromises affecting humanitarian action in
conflict and crisis settings. The building blocks were 12 case studies of local
perceptions conducted in 2006 and 2007 in Afghanistan, Burundi, Colombia, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Liberia, Nepal, northern Uganda, the
occupied Palestinian territory, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Sudan. The approach
was evidence-based. Findings were distilled through an inductive process
involving interviews and focus group discussions at the community level aimed
at eliciting local perceptions. Additional data was collected from aid staff
and other observers at the country level. More than 2,000 people provided
inputs into the research. The findings are analyzed around four issues: the
universality of humanitarianism; the impact of terrorism and counter-terrorism
on humanitarian action; the thrust toward coherence between humanitarian and
political agendas, and; the security of humanitarian personnel and the
communities benefiting from humanitarian action. The findings highlight a
crisis of humanitarianism in the post 9/11 world. International action aimed at
assisting and protecting the most vulnerable is, for the most part,
inextricably linked to a northern security and political agenda. Nevertheless,
principled humanitarian action, though battered at times, constitutes an
essential safety net for people in extremis deserving of nurture and
protection. Such action occupies a crucial but increasingly precarious position
at the intersection of (a) international political / security agendas and (b)
the coping strategies of people affected by crisis and conflict. It is
instrumentalized and torn between principle and pragmatism as perhaps never
before, particularly in high-profile crises. Though the traditional values of
humanitarianism still resonate among affected communities in all of the
settings studied, the humanitarian enterprise itself is divided on the extent
to which core principles should be respected, particularly in the more
asymmetrical and intractable crises they have to confront. This disquiet affects
the quality and the coherence of the assistance and protection provided. To
confirm that humanitarians need to be wary of politics, even as they do their
work in highly politicized settings is nothing new. What is new in the
post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras is that the stakes are much higher because the
extent of need has proliferated, the awareness of need has become more
instantaneous and more global, and humanitarian action has become a
multi-billion dollar enterprise. When it occupied the margins of conflict – as,
for example, in refugee camps outside conflict areas – humanitarian action was
an activity of generally minor consequence to belligerence. Aid agencies were
accepted or tolerated as beneficial, or at least non-threatening. Now
humanitarian action is very often at the center of conflicts and of
international concern. It influences, as well as reflects, public opinion and
the views of governments at the national and global levels. Moreover,
politicization, militarization and privatization nowadays represents more of a
challenge for those parts of a diverse enterprise striving for a modicum of
fidelity to principle. Many mainstream agencies have been drawn implicitly or
explicitly into the service of political agendas. Only a minority have exhibited
the policy determination and financial wherewithal to resist. It thus remains
debatable whether the assortment of agencies and individuals that comprise the
humanitarian enterprise can – or should – maintain the fiction that they are
all parts of the same movement, functioning as parts of a common apparatus. The
research data also confirms that the humanitarian enterprise has become much
more institutionalized. Standards have gained currency, programs have become
more contextualized, and professionalism has improved. Yet despite the rhetoric
of downward accountability to beneficiaries, mainstream humanitarians continue
to talk principally to the like-minded, shunning different or dissenting
voices. Much that is local and non-western in humanitarian action goes
unrecognized: the coping mechanisms of communities, the parallel life-saving
universe that includes zakat, migration and remittances. These constitute the
unrecorded assistance flows of groups and countries that are not part of the
northern-drive humanitarian system. The wider meaning. The HA2015 findings
confirm the good news that humanitarian action remains an essential – and
sometimes dominant – element in the international response to crisis and
conflict. Increasingly, it is a factor in the undertakings and calculations of
political and military players. However, the bad news is that humanitarianism’s
high profile status entails a constant risk of misunderstanding, false
expectation, and delusions of grandeur. There is a persistent and worrying perception
gap between outsiders and insiders – that is, between aid agencies and the
communities they aim to help. Despite examples of creative problem-solving,
humanitarians have not acquitted themselves well in protecting the integrity of
humanitarian interests and operations from recurrent infiltrations of political
and military actors. As the authors conclude, “Absent the cultivation of
greater resourcefulness and resilience, therefore, we fear for the future of
the humanitarian enterprise.”
================================================================
To leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.