{"id":123665,"date":"2016-09-23T10:28:11","date_gmt":"2016-09-23T15:28:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/selasite.azurewebsites.net\/the-world-humanitarian-summit\/"},"modified":"2023-07-05T22:58:44","modified_gmt":"2023-07-06T03:58:44","slug":"the-world-humanitarian-summit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/the-world-humanitarian-summit\/","title":{"rendered":"The World Humanitarian Summit: winners and losers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Navigating the labyrinth of back corridors crammed with aides and security people was in and of itself a challenge, let alone making sense of the outcomes of thousands of people simultaneously discussing a range of issues in some 200 separate events. As one\u00a0observer<\/a>\u00a0put it: \u201cPart high-level political meeting, part public caucus, the meeting itself was schizophrenic by design.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the dust settles, here\u2019s our summary of what was \u2013 and wasn\u2019t \u2013 agreed. (Tweet us to fill in any gaps: @irinnews)<\/p>\n

And a reminder: Here\u2019s what was\u00a0on the table<\/a>\u00a0for discussion in the lead-up.<\/p>\n

What was agreed\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Aid financing must be more efficient:\u00a0The most concrete outcome of the summit was the top 30 donors and aid agencies signing a so-called \u201cGrand Bargain\u201d to make aid more efficient, including harmonising time-consuming donor proposals and reporting, reducing overhead costs, introducing collective needs assessments, and earmarking less funding to specific projects (See:\u00a0Is the Grand Bargain a Big Deal?<\/a>). A shift towards greater use of cash transfers as aid was generally endorsed, but specific targets were limited to individual pledges rather than collective agreement, and more so among NGOs than governments (though the UK and Italy were notable exceptions). For example, World Vision and the International Rescue Committee pledged that half and one quarter of their programming, respectively, would be in the form of cash by 2020, well above the current sector average of six percent. Some donors also began announcing\u00a0multi-year<\/a>\u00a0humanitarian grants for the first time, and\u00a0agreed<\/a>\u00a0to raise the ceiling of the Central Emergency Response Fund, which allows UN agencies to respond faster and more flexibly, from $500 million to $1 billion. Moving forward, the institutional responsibility for the Grand Bargain still needs to be settled, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee as possible convenors.<\/p>\n

Aid must be locally-driven:\u00a0As expected, \u201clocalisation\u201d came out a winner in the discussions, with a target agreed in the\u00a0Grand Bargain<\/a>\u00a0to direct 25 percent of humanitarian funding \u201cas directly as possible\u201d to local and national agencies. The summit also saw the\u00a0long-awaited<\/a>\u00a0launch of NEAR, a network aiming to \u201creshape the top-down humanitarian and development system to one that is locally driven and owned, and is built around equitable, dignified and accountable partnerships\u201d. Twenty-seven international NGOs also signed the new\u00a0Charter4Change<\/a>, committing to passing 20 percent of their funding to national NGOs by 2018 (and publishing that percentage transparently) as well as addressing the negative impact of recruiting local staff into international NGOs, thus draining local organisations of their capacity.<\/p>\n

Education is a humanitarian priority:\u00a0One former Save the Children staffer said she almost cried at the launch of the Education Cannot Wait fund, a recognition \u2013 after years of lobbying \u2013 that education is just as important as food and shelter in a crisis. \u201cThis is new,\u201d Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, told IRIN, \u201cand we shouldn\u2019t underestimate when such consensus-building happens in conferences.\u201d On average, less than two percent of humanitarian aid goes towards education (some donors pledged to individually raise that to 30 percent). The fund aims to raise $3.85 billion over five years, and already has $90 million in contributions from\u00a0Dubai Cares, the European Union, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK, and the United States.<\/p>\n

Humanitarian response must better include people with disabilities:\u00a0Nearly 100 governments, aid agencies and others signed on to another\u00a0Charter<\/a>, this one committing not to discriminate against people with disabilities in humanitarian action, to better meet their needs, and to include them in the design of aid programmes.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
\"Un<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
UN Photo\/Eskinder Debebe<\/div>\n
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a Special Session on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities into Humanitarian Action<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The world must invest in prevention and risk mitigation:\u00a0It is a long-established factoid that investing $1 in preparing for crises will save you $7 responding to them, and yet it has proven very difficult to make that shift. The UN\u2019s disaster risk reduction body had called for a \u201cmarker\u201d to track DRR spending, though no specific target was set. A (bigger) conference in Sendai last March\u00a0tackled<\/a>\u00a0this subject, but how prevention and cure can be combined (and where \u201cresilience\u201d fits in) nudged forward in the World Humanitarian Summit process. Several new initiatives reflect a greater consensus around the need to shift focus. The finance ministers of the Vulnerable 20 Group launched, alongside the World Bank and the UN, a new\u00a0partnership<\/a>\u00a0to help their countries better prepare for shocks, including better access to risk analysis, contingency plans and social protection schemes. The International Federation of the Red Cross is leading a separate\u00a0coalition<\/a>\u00a0to mobilise one billion people to be \u201cresilient\u201d by 2020.\u00a0Another\u00a0alliance,\u00a0on urban crises<\/a>, includes a focus on preparing for crises in urban settings, particularly with local municipal actors. Ban said the UN would focus on improving its risk analysis and Liberia announced a regional early warning system for West Africa.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Innovative financing mechanisms must be tested:\u00a0Facing a funding gap very roughly estimated at $15 billion in responding to crises, the summit emphasised the need for innovative approaches to financing. Several initiatives were announced, including a\u00a0humanitarian impact bond<\/a>, in which private investors make an initial investment into a humanitarian response programme and are reimbursed (with a profit) by traditional donors only if certain outputs are met; an autonomous, global Islamic endowment fund for humanitarian needs; and a private-sector led\u00a0initiative<\/a>\u00a0to increase risk financing in the most vulnerable countries (backed by a fund to help pay the premium). Hundreds of companies also signed up to a\u00a0new initiative<\/a>\u00a0to better coordinate the private sector\u2019s involvement in humanitarian action. While one financial analyst noted that some of the \u201cvogue\u201d financing innovations were not always rigourously sound in their economic theory, the summit reflected clear donor support for these kinds of initiatives.<\/p>\n

Regional organisations have a role to play:\u00a0Regional inter-governmental organisations have long complained that, despite being well-positioned to respond to crises in their regions faster and in a more culturally sensitive way, they do not have enough of a place at the humanitarian decision-making table. Recent years have seen efforts to build the capacity of groups like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Arab League (often to limited effect), but this summit went further, giving birth to a Regional Organisations Humanitarian Action Network (ROHAN), which aims to formalise the role of regional organisations in the international humanitarian architecture. \u201cEarly days,\u201d said Oliver Lacey-Hall, who heads the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Jakarta and has worked closely with ASEAN, but \u201cmy sense is that this represents increasing confidence that regional organisations (and their member states) have a role in humanitarian affairs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The humanitarian sector is an eco-system, not a system: In some ways, the summit\u2019s structure was both its strength and its weakness. Unlike COP21 and most big UN summits, the WHS was not an inter-governmental process in which governments try to agree a specific text in advance. Rather, it sought a range of ideas from all actors involved in aid, including civil society organisations and the private sector. This meant it was unwieldy and unfocused. But it also meant that many voices that do not traditionally have power were heard. The fact that the summit took place in the chaotic and directionless way that it did was in itself a tacit recognition of a narrative that has become increasingly popular: the humanitarian sector is an \u201ceco-system\u201d rather than a top-down, command-and-control system, requiring a stronger shift to collaboration and \u201cinter-operability\u201d (yes, I used the term!) among all its actors. By bringing such a variety of actors to the table, the summit also helped put humanitarian issues higher on the agenda in the politics, business and society at large. One UN staffer called it a \u201ccoming of age\u201d for the sector, and several participants noted a positive energy and real momentum in both the coming together of such a range of people as well as the ideas discussed. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n

The World Humanitarian Summit – in a few words<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

The humanitarian sector must better respond to conflicts:\u00a0The humanitarian sector\u2019s best organisational set-up, financing and approaches \u2013 largely built in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami \u2013 are tailored for responding to natural disasters. But 80 percent of humanitarian response takes place against a backdrop of protracted conflict. And there, the system struggles. For Yves Daccord, director-general of the ICRC, the Syrian war and resulting refugee crisis have forced the realisation that protracted conflict must be at the core of humanitarian work \u2013 and this summit has crystallised that point. The WHS is \u201creinforcing and accelerating a pivot\u201d, added Jeremy Konyndyk, director of the Office for US Foreign Disaster Assistance, \u201ctowards a system that is focused more on that and can address that in a more coherent and systemic way.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n

What wasn\u2019t agreed<\/strong><\/p>\n

All told, some 8,000 people attended the summit (including the exhibitors), representing 173 countries (including 55 heads of state), as well as representatives of UN agencies, NGOs, civil society organisations, philanthropy, the private sector and academia.<\/p>\n

\u201cAligning such a constellation of actors is inherently challenging,\u201d Ban told journalists at the close of the summit.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where they didn\u2019t make much progress. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Political will to end conflicts:\u00a0<\/strong>Perhaps the biggest disappointment of a summit aimed at finding ways to prevent and end conflicts was the absence of world leaders, particularly the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Konyndyk defended US President Barack Obama\u2019s no-show this way: \u201cI don\u2019t think there\u2019s any questioning the US commitment to this issue\u2026 the president just wasn\u2019t able to personally come to this summit.\u201d But his and others\u2019 absence made the high-level roundtable on \u201cpolitical leadership to end and prevent conflict\u201d a bit hollow, despite some interesting pledges (France, for example, said it would not use its Security Council veto in cases of mass atrocity). \u201cThat it was \u2018OK\u2019 for them not to turn up at senior levels and to receive no blow-back other than a very\u00a0gentle admonishment\u00a0<\/a>from the secretary-general reflects pretty poorly also on the state of power relations,\u201d one UN official commented.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Un<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
WHS\/Metin Pala<\/div>\n
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Turkish President Erdogan shake hands during the closing ceremony<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

A better deal for refugees, displaced people and their hosts:\u00a0In the lead-up to the summit, the UN secretary-general had proposed a fairer approach to sharing the burden of refugees with host countries, and a target to reduce internal displacement by 50 percent by 2030. While migration was discussed in a refreshingly \u201csober way\u201d, as Maurer of the ICRC put it, participants only \u201cresolved to pursue a new approach\u201d to address the needs of internally displaced persons and refugees, according to the\u00a0official summary<\/a>, without anything more concrete. Former UN high commissioner for refugees Antonio Guterres was vague when asked whether any real progress had been made, telling IRIN: \u201cI think that there is a lot of progress being made in this regard but there is still a long way to go.\u201d Jeff Crisp, a refugee analyst and former head of policy at the UN Refugee Agency, was more direct. Regarding forced displacement, he said, \u201cboth expectations and achievements of the WHS were very modest.\u201d Diplomatic ammunition may be conserved for twin UN and US events on the subject of migration on the margins of the General Assembly on 19-20 September.<\/p>\n

Protecting civilians in war:\u00a0For Jan Egeland, special advisor to the UN Special Envoy for Syria, the test for success was whether the summit\u2019s outcomes would change anything for civilians being bombed in Syria\u2019s Aleppo city. \u201cThere is more [emerging from the summit] in the area where we are already fairly good, which is assistance,\u201d Egeland told IRIN. \u201cIn protection, I have seen less, unfortunately, because it\u2019s more difficult. And that was where I had hoped we would have focused more,\u201d he said, echoing the views of several NGOs. Maurer was more nuanced, saying that while he couldn\u2019t speak of \u201cspectacular advances\u201d, he did see a broader consensus that respecting the rules of war was important. Manuel Bessler, head of the Swiss government\u2019s humanitarian aid unit, noted a lot of \u201crallying around the flag\u201d during a session on respect for international humanitarian law,\u00a0but \u201cit was a bit \u2018preaching to the converted\u2019,\u201d he told IRIN. \u201cThere were a lot of commitments, but commitments of those who are committed. We need commitments of those who are not, or not yet, or have to be convinced. On this front, we have to do more; do better.\u201d That the summit even had to ask for commitments to uphold internationally agreed norms is a reflection of how far there is to go.<\/p>\n

Bridging the humanitarian-development divide:\u00a0One of the biggest focuses in the lead-up to the summit was breaking down the \u201csilos\u201d of humanitarian response, climate change mitigation, and development work, towards a more coherent approach to aid. The big UN agencies all signed on to a new \u201cCommitment to Action<\/a>\u201d on collaborating in a \u201cNew Way of Working\u201d (yes, with capitals) together towards collective outcomes consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals over multi-year timeframes. And yet the summit failed to crystallise what exactly that convergence means. As one UN staffer put it, \u201cthere is space for a joined-up approach, but why don\u2019t you bloody-well define it?\u201d The issue remains contentious, particularly for humanitarian \u201cpurists\u201d who worry humanitarian action will become politicised if merged into development work. Germany led a heated debate in one\u00a0session<\/a>\u00a0against the push for convergence, saying it would \u201cmake sustained funding to humanitarian organisations conditional on the inclusion of respect for humanitarian principles in internal policies and training as well as transparency on how humanitarian principles are upheld in practice.\u00bb<\/p>\n

Putting people at the center:\u00a0For all the talk of putting people affected by crises \u201cat the centre\u201d of humanitarian action, the subject didn\u2019t feature much at the summit, having largely been left out of the secretary-general\u2019s\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0framing the summit\u2019s priorities, despite being a big theme in the preceding consultations. In the main\u00a0session<\/a>\u00a0designed to discuss it (which was tacked onto the agenda belatedly), \u201cthere was no mention of the word \u2018accountability\u2019,\u201d said one of the session\u2019s attendees. Organisers had hoped for a clearer way to allow the \u201cend-users\u201d of aid to have a real influence. These would include commitments to sign up to\u00a0CHS Alliance<\/a>\u00a0standards, adopt a common approach to getting feedback from affected communities, and make funding conditional upon projects acting on feedback from affected communities (as the US and UK already do). The \u201cparticipation revolution\u201d got a nod in the Grand Bargain, but compared to other aspects of that agreement, was \u201cvery vague and very aspirational\u201d, according to Kate Halff, executive secretary of Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response, which represents nine of the world\u2019s leading aid agencies. Several governments and organisations pledged to adopt the CHS Alliance\u2019s accountability standards and,\u00a0Lise Grande,\u00a0deputy special representative of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, made\u00a0specific and well-received recommendations<\/a>\u00a0on how they can be applied in the field.But accountability advocates were generally\u00a0disappointed<\/a>\u00a0by the priority given to the subject at the summit. As Oxfam put it in a\u00a0release<\/a>, \u201cgovernments have continued to only pay lip service to accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n

UN reform:\u00a0Like accountability to affected people, UN reform\u00a0featured low-to-invisible\u00a0<\/a>in the secretary-general\u2019s priorities, on which the summit agenda was created. \u201cOne of the biggest failures of the WHS process has been that we’re not having this honest conversation around reform of the UN Security Council, the reform of the UN agencies, the political reform required,\u201d said Degan Ali, co-founder of the NEAR network of southern NGOs. \u201cI think that has been an abject failure of the World Humanitarian Summit, I am sorry to say, and I think there are established institutions that don’t want to have these conversations.\u201d The Grand Bargain went some way to address some of the\u00a0structural reforms<\/a>\u00a0needed, for example by committing to coherent and \u201cimpartial\u201d needs assessments and less competition between aid agencies. But while governments and NGOs have had hard looks at reform, according to James Munn, head of policy at the Norwegian Refugee Council, \u201cI\u2019m concerned that the UN agencies are the ones still holding back on making strong changes to the way they do business.\u201d At a side-event, Nan Buzard, head of the NGO consortium ICVA, wondered if the rapid adoption of cash aid (which makes some UN agency specialisms moot) was a \u201cback door\u201d to UN agency and mandate reform.<\/p>\n

A roadmap for what happens next:\u00a0The unwieldy list of individual and collective commitments will be gathered into what the UN calls a \u201cCommitments to Action platform\u201d that will be publicly accessible \u201cand allow us to hold ourselves to account for commitments made,\u201d Ban said. Exactly how that will happen is not yet clear. The UN plans to \u201creview\u201d the commitments with the summit\u2019s participants over the summer before Ban presents a report to the UN General Assembly in September with recommendations for member states. \u201cI will propose ways on how to take commitments forward, including through intergovernmental and inter-agency avenues,\u201d he said, possibly through the UN Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC. Ban promised an annual update that will review progress made in implementing the summit\u2019s commitments. \u201cThe WHS must now lead to a robust framework of accountability and a roadmap for delivering on the commitments made by all actors that attended the Summit,\u201d World Vision\u00a0said<\/a>.\u00a0Many of those actors have admitted to not knowing exactly how they will implement some of the commitments they made.<\/p>\n

As Bessler put it: \u201cThere are some questions with these commitments: \u2018How do we do this now\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

With additional reporting by Ben Parker and Andrew Gully.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The World Humanitarian Summit: winners and losers<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":74019,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123665\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74019"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rmtsolutions.net\/sela\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}