 |
|
| Speeches and statements |
|
|
|
|
IDRL:
Improving legal frameworks for international disaster response
Statement
by Ms Susan Johnson, Director of the IFRC National Societies and Field
Support Division, at the Side Event on Improving legal frameworks
for the facilitation, coordination and regulation of international
disaster response, during the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
in Geneva
17
July 2006 |
|
I would like to begin by thanking you for coming today, to discuss
the important issue of the effectiveness of legal and regulatory
frameworks in disaster response. For better or worse, law permeates
much of what we do as individuals and organizations; it is a
primary means of bringing order out of chaos, this is no less
true in disaster settings.
It is my pleasure today to give you a brief sketch of how the
International Federation has become increasingly involved with
exploring the role of law in international disaster response;
report on the conclusions of some recent case studies we have
commissioned and consultative meetings we have organized; and
outline for you how we propose to proceed from here.
Starting first with our role -- as most of you are well aware,
the International Federation and its member societies have since
their foundation been active in the promotion of appropriate
standards for disaster relief, examples include the Red Cross
and Red Crescent NGO Code of Conduct and Measures to Expedite
International Relief.
Most recently, in 2001, we our International Disaster Response
Laws, Rules and Principles (or "IDRL") Programme to more closely
study the existing legal frameworks at the domestic and international
levels, identify problems and gap areas, and recommend solutions.
In 2003, the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent (including all the components of the Red Cross/Red
Crescent Movement as well as all state parties to the Geneva
Conventions) welcomed this initiative and mandated the International
Federation and national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies
to "lead collaborative efforts" with governments, international
organizations and non-governmental actors in the research and
advocacy on these questions.
The Conference also asked us to report back to the 30th International
Conference in 2007. We are therefore now in the process of developing
the findings and recommendations to be delivered at that Conference,
and then look forward to working over the course of next year
to involve the widest range of stakeholders in the refinement
and development of these recommendations.
What therefore have been our findings thus far?
I am sure that we all share a vision of what ideally humanitarian
assistance should look like. In non-conflict disaster settings,
international aid should only be sought out when a disaster
is too large for domestic governments and civil society to handle.
When international actors do become involved their aid should
be brought in quickly and efficiently. It should be appropriate
to the circumstances and of high quality. Operations should
be well coordinated, respectful of the dignity of beneficiaries,
and complementary to the role of domestic actors.
Unfortunately, as we know many operations fall short of this
ideal. These lacunae are shown not only in our own research
but in many of the evaluations of recent major operations, including
for example the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition Report that was
launched here on Friday.
This is of course not be breaking news to anyone experienced
in this field. There are numerous initiatives, such as the new
Clusters approach, designed to bring us closer to this ideal.
Addressing the legal or regulatory aspects of international
assistance is also an important part of this effort.
We recently commissioned external researchers to undertake case
studies concerning the tsunami operations in Indonesia, Sri
Lanka and Thailand. The draft reports are now with the respective
governments and other study participants for their final comment
and should be available on our website in a few weeks. However,
let me provide you with a preliminary indication of their findings.
While great strides were made by all three of these governments
to facilitate the entry of international aid, to a greater or
less extent applicable legal frameworks, particularly at a national
level, were seemingly ill-equipped to handle the influx of assisting
organizations resulting in over-regulation in some areas and
under-regulation in others.
New structures had to be developed 'on the fly' in the early
stages of the operation and were revised as gaps or new challenges
arose. This resulted in confusion and delays not only for the
governments themselves but also for relief providers, in particular
in terms of their trying to identify the appropriate authorities
with whom to coordinate their efforts.
Another common challenge related to the inflexibility or inadequacy
of normal procedures to deal with emergency situations. This
related particularly to issues such as the registration and
reporting requirements for foreign organisations in-country,
the availability of visas and work permits, customs requirements
and import duties, tax obligations and recognition of foreign
medical qualifications.
Many relief providers encountered additional costs and delays
in trying to comply with cumbersome regulations, or alternatively
became lost in the confusion of new rules which were introduced,
then amended or rescinded at different stages during the response.
However, relief organisations cannot always be considered hapless
victims of legal complexity. As in any large scale relief operation,
there are those few that choose not to coordinate their activities
and operate outside accepted rules and humanitarian principles.
There are also those which, despite good intentions, do not
have the knowledge or expertise in disaster management and fall
dismally short of the requirements expected of competent and
accountable organisations. Thus there remains a clear need to
have better systems in place to protect people from sub-standard
behaviour and activities and prevent unnecessary duplication
or gaps in assistance.
Instead, the studies found that, in many cases, the few 'bad
apples' are treated no differently in the eyes of the law than
those organisations conducting high quality and professional
operations. In fact, the poor activities of the few sometimes
prompt governments to increase restrictions and obligations
on all relief providers and thus unnecessarily reduce the effectiveness
and timeliness of the response as whole.
A final important finding is the lack of recognition and application
of the various international laws, rules and principles which
have been developed in this area.
Despite the multitude of instruments which provide guidance
on many of the legal issues encountered in the field, establish
standards of behaviour and set out (at least partially) benchmark
for the rights and duties of the various stake-holders awareness
of these instruments remains disappointingly low.
Few, if any, were mentioned either by governments, international
relief agencies or academics in the course of our research.
I want to emphasize that these problems are in no way confined
to these three countries or this one disaster, but in fact are
common and widespread. This was emphasized, for example, at
a recent regional forum we organized together with the Turkish
Red Crescent Society, focused on Europe.
As you will see in the report we have distributed today, participants
there included governments, national Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, UN agencies, NGOs and other experts.
The Forum's participants identified a number of common legal
and regulatory issues in international disaster relief similar
to those I just mentioned, including both access and operations
issues as well as problems in the coordination and quality of
some international aid efforts.
There was a general consensus at the Forum that governments
should facilitate international aid operations to enter and
legally operate in their countries to respond to disasters,
when they need that outside support.
This facilitation would most likely involve giving non-traditional
actors, like NGOs, certain of the same kind of benefits, like
exemption from customs duties that UN agencies are currently
entitled to receive as a matter of international law.
However, there was debate as to whether and how it might be
possible to identify organizations and relief items that should
receive these benefits, in light of the increasing variety of
entities responding to major disasters.
At the same time, the participants recognized that law cannot
solve everything, and that developments in this area should
be accompanied by developing local capacity.
We heard many of the same ideas expressed at a workshop we organized
earlier this month in Bangkok, focused on regional offices of
humanitarian organizations government representatives and other
stakeholders based there.
This smaller workshop was a preliminary step to sharpen issues
in the Asian context for the broader Asia-Pacific Forum on IDRL
which we are planning to hold in January.
As you will see from the report, at the Bangkok workshop, participants
were particularly concerned about the lack of implementation
of existing international norms on disaster response and failures
of coordination by international actors with recipient state
governments.
They were favourable to a concept that governments enact a sort
of legal "fast track" for international disaster assistance
from qualified organizations.
The Road Ahead
As you can see, there are still a number of open questions to
consider. Some of these are:
• How should legal and regulatory tools be developed to
facilitate disaster relief and bring us closer to our ideal
of humanitarian assistance?
• How can we balance the need for expedited procedures
and "humanitarian space" with the interest in better oversight
and coordination?
• How can we increase the positive impact and ensure better
implementation of existing international standards?
For our part, we will be grappling with these and related questions
this summer, as we wok on a desk study of existing law and practice
and a set of draft recommendations, to be discussed in the future
regional fora and other venues.
Our next regional forum will focus on Africa and is planned
for November in Kenya. We will organize at least two more, for
Asia-Pacific and the Americas, in early 2007.
On the basis of these and other consultations, we will refine
our recommendations in time for the 30th International Conference
next year.
We hope that many of your governments and organizations will
be interested to take part.
We also welcome further financial contributions which will enable
us to conduct the IDRL activities and forums preparatory to
the 2007 International Conference, as planned for in the IDRL
2006-2007 Appeal.
In the meantime, we are looking forward to your initial thoughts
today and would be more than pleased to discuss these questions
further outside this setting.
We would also invite you to participate in our questionnaire
and to make use of our web-based database of relevant international
and national law, both of which are available on our website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
News
