Measuring Commitment to Best Practice
HRI
NEWS
The Validity of the Principles and Good Practices of Humanitarian Donorship
“The objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises (…) and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations”.
Principle 1 of the Principles and Good Practices of Humanitarian Donorship
Over the past few decades, changes in humanitarian action have been both numerous and substantial. The 19thcentury concept of charitable work, almost exclusively dominated by churches, is long gone. So are the times where the tasks of governments and humanitarian organisations were clearly identified, up until the 1990’s. Instead, we find today a great and diverse number of actors involved, increasingly different types of crises and more funding allocated to humanitarian actions. All this has shaped a new reality in which responsibilities of those involved have become blurred.
In this context, interpretations and analysis can differ greatly, depending on the source. However, there is something that should not cast any doubt: the validity of the founding goals and objectives of humanitarian donorship. According to the Principles and Good Practices of Humanitarian Donorship, adopted in 2003, the main goal of any humanitarian response is to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of the crises. This means tackling rehabilitation and recovery of both communities and people affected by crises, ensuring an ongoing connection between prevention, recovery and development.
If one of the main goals of humanitarian actions is to prevent and strengthen the capacity of countries to respond, as stated in the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative (GHD), we must admit that this task goes beyond the emergency interventions after a crisis. Fostering rehabilitation and recovery of conflict-affected areas or natural hazards entails a long-term presence and a transition period from emergency to development, which needs to be implemented by highly-qualified professionals.
With multiple scenarios, different actors and different interests involved, achieving the goals of humanitarian action is no easy task. In recent years, there have been different initiatives aimed at homogenising concepts related to aid, increasing efficiency and promoting transparency. In this sense, the commitment to the Principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) expressed by the 23 DAC members represents a milestone to consolidate common criteria for donors, as it is the only initiative created by and for donors.
The GHD initiative reiterates that humanitarian action should be guided by the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Let’s analyse the meaning of these principles. Firstly, as previously indicated, actions must be geared towards saving lives and alleviate suffering. Also, all actions must be completely impartial, or designed according to the different people’s needs, irrespective of gender, age, religion, nationality, race or political ideology. Neutrality means not favouring any of the parties involved, whereas independence entails autonomy with respect to political, economic or military objectives from any actor involved in the area in which any humanitarian action is being implemented.
Practical application of the Principles
This is what the theoretical framework on humanitarian action considers essential for its proper functioning. In practice, however, applying these principles is not always easy. Currently, when it comes to allocating funding to humanitarian actions, geostrategic, political or economic interests of donor countries usually prevail over purely humanitarian ones. Another controversial issue is the intervention of armed forces in humanitarian actions. Occasionally, armed conflicts in which access to conflict areas is complicated or when the risk of violence is highly elevated, military presence may be required in order to guarantee assistance to the victims. In these cases, the tasks of humanitarian actors and the military forces must be clearly identified and outlined so that neutrality in all actions is not at risk. The very nature of the military requires the clear division of tasks. We must always bear in mind that armed forces represent the interests of the state to which they belong, and therefore, they can never be impartial.
The variety of institutions involved in humanitarian responses has triggered the adoption of different norms that have contaminated the very essence of humanitarian law. For this reason, today more than ever, we must recover a humanitarian scenario with clear rules of procedure which are respected by all the actors involved. There is still a long way to go. We must exchange relevant information, coordinate activities, identify priorities, challenges and needs and establish the different tasks to be played by the different actors involved in humanitarian action. We live in a rapidly changing world with demands that change just as quickly, and we must be able to provide immediate, joint, coordinated and effective responses to all of them. This is something that the donor community ought to do as a whole.