Introduction

Putting principles into practice - key to legitimacy

The humanitarian ethic is about saving the lives of those in greatest need. But, swamped as we are by the statistics of suffering, we must also respect the human dignity of every woman, man and child whose life is shattered by conflict, hunger, disease or disaster. Putting the two parts of this ethic into practice remains the greatest challenge facing not only humanitarian organizations, but all those with a stake in humanitarian crises.

The record, however, is very mixed. Humanitarian aid tends to favour high-profile emergencies at the expense of more invisible suffering far from the media or political spotlight. While countries targeted in the ‘war on terror’ have attracted unprecedented levels of humanitarian and reconstruction aid, other – arguably more pressing – crises languish in the shadows. Africa is besieged by droughts, floods, conflict, infectious diseases and – most deadly of all – the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which claimed an estimated 6,500 lives every day last year. Floods and snowstorms have wrecked hundreds of thousands of lives across the Russian Federation and Mongolia. Tens of millions of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans have been forced by violence, natural disasters or economic ruin to flee their homes in search of survival.

Humanitarian aid does not deal an equal hand to all those suffering under the shadow of conflict, disease or disaster. Within weeks of ousting Saddam Hussein, the US Department of Defense reported that it had raised US$ 1.7 billion in relief for the Iraqi people. While this will certainly be gratefully received, what about the 40 million people in 22 countries across the African continent on the verge of starvation? In Angola alone, more than 4 million people depend on aid to help them survive. In September 2002, the International Federation launched an emergency appeal for humanitarian assistance to 100,000 of the most vulnerable in the country. Four months later, the appeal was less than 4 per cent covered. Sadly, the story is repeated across West Africa, the Sahel and around the world.

New research into the connections between needs assessments and the allocation of relief aid suggests that the scale of humanitarian appeals is often slanted towards what the donor ‘market’ will bear – high-profile crises routinely attract higher appeals for aid, even if other forgotten disasters are more deserving. This trend must stop. There is an urgent priority to invest in credible, objective assessments of humanitarian needs across the globe, so that aid is allocated to those at greatest risk and need, not to those at the top of the strategic and media agenda.

Attracting sufficient resources to address the effects of disaster is only half the battle. We must also ensure those resources are properly used in a way that respects the dignity, capacity and aspirations of every person we seek to help. Again, the record is mixed. The recent history of humanitarian interventions is littered with examples of inappropriate aid, which reflect more the priorities and needs of donor agencies than the needs of those affected by crisis. The fledgling Afghan administration has complained that the billions donated in aid have been too focused on relief rather than reconstruction. Huge food imports have undermined local markets. Meanwhile the influx of hundreds of international aid organizations during 2002 has sent rents and salaries sky-high, driving local non-governmental organizations from their premises and sucking most skilled and experienced Afghans who remain in the country away from vital posts in government and civil society.

Getting the balance right between quick delivery of life-saving relief and a form of aid that supports local capacities and respects local participation is a complex task, calling for sound humanitarian judgement. This year’s report analyses many of the moral dilemmas which arise in working with local organizations in disasters and complex emergencies. Should human rights abuses be exposed, at the risk of sacrificing access to those in greatest need? Do agencies that declare their intention to build local capacities risk promising more than they can deliver? There are no simple answers. We can only develop this essential art of humanitarian judgement through openly declaring the ethical principles we believe in, trying our best to put them into practice and being prepared to measure the effects and reassess our decisions on a continual basis.

The legitimacy of the entire humanitarian enterprise is based on how successfully we are seen to be putting our principles into practice. We need to create an environment in which the key humanitarian value of saving lives with dignity – according to need alone – is widely recognized, understood and prioritized. That means promoting our values with all those who have a stake in humanitarian crises – host authorities, donor governments, development agencies, civil society, military forces, private sector companies and the media.

But advocating adherence to humanitarian principles is only part of the story. Crucially, we must put our principles into practice – in partnership with those in need. Otherwise, we stand no hope of alleviating the suffering of millions beyond the political or media spotlight of the day.