Exploring the nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism ...

Exploring the nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism: Opportunities & Challenges

Horn of Africa Regional Programme (HARP) Life & Peace Institute

Life & Peace Institute Wollo Sefer, Ethio-China Friendship Avenue   Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: + 251 (0) 115 51 36 70 Fax: + 251 (0) 115 51 81 67

An International Ecumenical Centre for Peace Research and Action

Exploring the nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism: Opportunities & Challenges Introduction While natural disaster induced humanitarian crises, especially drought-related ones, are not uncommon in Africa, much of the continent’s humanitarian crises are induced by conflict. In the 2015 Global Humanitarian Overview1, all African countries in focus for humanitarian assistance (DRC, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, CAR) all were contexts where the crises were induced by conflict and/or exacerbated by it. As traditional interstate conflicts, where there are clear sides to the conflict, are increasingly replaced with intrastate conflicts with multiple conflicting parties, even seemingly noble deeds such as provision of food, shelter and medicine to preserve life, and alleviate human suffering can negatively influence the conflict dynamics at hand if done in a manner that does not take into the complexities of a conflict situation in the planning and implementation of the humanitarian intervention. This reality demands that humanitarian actors better understand the conflict dynamics in which they operate, acknowledge their potential role, and respond in ways that are informed by this understanding and in a manner that contributes to peace positively. While this may sound like a responsibility beyond the mandate of humanitarianism, the appeal is not for humanitarian actors to build peace but rather to contribute towards it. The nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism: understanding the concepts Efforts to reconcile humanitarian action and peacebuilding on the ground especially during complex humanitarian emergencies are fraught with tensions and challenges. These are compounded by definitional problems and operational paradoxes, including the sheer ambiguity of the humanitarian agenda, the nature of humanitarian space, and competing agendas. One such challenge arises from a lack of clarity in the humanitarian community about what “peacebuilding” is and how it is being delivered. For many humanitarians, peacebuilding is inherently a political process. This perspective makes it impossible for them to be part of peacebuilding initiatives because humanitarian principles dictate that humanitarian actors be independent, neutral and impartial in delivering humanitarian assistance. Thus, there is a need for common understanding of definitions and basic concepts, primarily to dispel any misunderstandings about the nature of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding is a comprehensive and integrated strategy that encompasses a wide range of political, developmental, humanitarian and human rights programmes and mechanisms. It is a long-term process that occurs at different levels (grassroots, mid-level and political level) 1

UNOCHA, Global Humanitarian Overview 2015. A consolidated appeal to support people affected by disaster and conflict.

1


across multiple sectors and in different time frames (shortterm, mid to long term). Hence, unlike the common assumption that peacebuilding starts the day after a peace agreement, peacebuilding occurs at different stages of a conflict cycle in various forms.

1 Linkages and Grey Areas. Source: UNPDPO

2

Further, the objective of peacebuilding is comprehensive and goes beyond ensuring the cessation of not only physical violence, but also structural violence caused by deep rooted cultural and institutional frameworks. Hence, peacebuilding aspires to end violent conflict (negative peace) while also working to address root causes of conflict such as economic despair, social injustice, and political oppression with the ultimate aim of creating ‘positive peace’ where harmonious relationships prevail. In short, humanitarian action is a needs-based emergency response aimed at preserving life, preventing and alleviating human suffering and maintaining human dignity. However, this understanding of humanitarianism is also evolving as humanitarian actors operate in more complex crises, which has brought about changes within the humanitarian sector itself as it tries to respond to these challenges. Increasingly, integrated approaches or ‘new humanitarianism’ are called for – as well as problematized - where there is a closer integration between humanitarian action and political and development objectives. With these definitions clarified, several points of convergence between peacebuilding and humanitarianism can be identified. The first point of convergence is a shared value in the most fundamental principle of preserving humanity, which is a key principle in both disciplines. Further, humanitarian action and peacebuilding both aim to build resilience at the community and societal levels so that national actors develop the ability to cope with current and future crisis. In this manner, the nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism is further strengthened where humanitarians address the core needs of people, while peacebuilders focus on preventing relapse to violence – which can trigger a new or further complicate a current - humanitarian crisis. In essence, the broader mandate of humanitarian assistance and of peacebuilding is essentially the same, as both ultimately aim at affected populations’ protection and well-being. Another convergence between the two fields was reinforced by global patterns such as the increased politicization and militarization of aid in general in the post 9/11 period. The Global War on Terror and counterterrorism trends have challenged both the humanitarian 2

UNDPO. United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Principles and Guidelines, 2008; p. 19

2


and peacebuilding sectors by for example defining and restricting who can be served or engaged. Similarly targeting of humanitarian workers has forced several aid agencies to take extreme, even militarized, security measures undermining the humanitarian imperative of neutrality and actively contributing the conflict dynamics at hand. These realities on the ground demand that both humanitarians and peacebuilders understand their context and respond to it in a way that is sensitive to the conflict and contributes to peace. Of course, this is easier said than done – and there are challenges and tensions in strengthening the nexus between the two sectors. The following section discusses some of them. Key challenges in the nexus between peacebuilding and humanitarianism One of the suggested tensions between humanitarianism and peacebuilding is framed as a principle-based divergence in the two fields where peacebuilding is equated with statebuilding and political negotiations, hence a political process that humanitarians cannot engage in. Indeed, mediation is one strategy used in peacebuilding and long-term institution building as well as contributing to statebuilding can be one of its aspirations. Nonetheless, as discussed above, peacebuilding is a much broader field that focuses on building relationships between different actors. Such relationship building occurs at different levels - at the grassroots level with communities as well as at a macro, political level (commonly called ‘Track I’ diplomacy) with warring parties - to address violence (physical and structural) and create conducive environments and relationships that allow for the peaceful resolution of conflict. Hence, while supporting or complementing ‘Track I’ diplomacy where political negotiations take place might compromise the legitimacy of humanitarian actors and might be beyond their mandate, humanitarian actors can still support and interface with grassroots and midlevel peacebuilding activities without compromising humanitarian principles. Besides challenges posed by the common perception of competing principles, technical and operational concerns also pose various challenges. In this regard, mainstreaming conflict sensitivity in humanitarian operations poses challenges given the immediacy and magnitude of most emergencies that often put aside analysis in favour of implementation. This same phenomenon - the reactive nature of humanitarian action - tends to exclude the possibilities for joint planning or making a long-term impact on the conflict-related root causes of a humanitarian crisis in addition to a lack of appropriate tools and institutionalised capacities for conflict-sensitive programming. In situations where humanitarian actors lack the inhouse capacity and resources to contribute to peacebuilding, peacebuilders could and should reach out to humanitarians to meet this gap. In connection with the above point, another challenge facing both humanitarians and peacebuilders is lack of information and resource–sharing (such as analysis) at the field level 3


between the two sets of actors. Limited staffing capacity and high turnover in both sectors also work to the disadvantage of organizational memory and capacity and synergy between organizations across sectors. Indicative ways forward: From ‘do no harm’ to 'do more peace’ Given the increasing number and protracted nature of crises and challenges the humanitarian community is facing, there is a need for peacebuilders to redefine their vision of peace to include peace in its broader sense (positive peace, or integrated peacebuilding that also includes social and economic aspects beyond the absence of violence) and to revisit their peacebuilding strategy to make it more accessible to humanitarians and development actors. Humanitarian actors should also re-evaluate how their humanitarian principles are applied in each context and how they can support peace processes that address the root causes of conflict by setting in place the preconditions for peace. As such, humanitarians and peacebuilders should strategize how humanitarians could go beyond “Do No Harm” to “Do more peace” by contributing conflict transformation and peacebuilding, in a way that does not compromise humanitarian core mandates and principles. The following are key strategies towards such a shift and manoeuvring said balancing act: 1. Conducting conflict analysis and mainstreaming conflict sensitivity Conflict sensitivity consists of: o Understanding the conflict through conflict analysis o Understanding the interaction between the conflict and the humanitarian actor and/or its operations o Acting on this understanding to both avoid negative (unintended) consequences of a humanitarian intervention (along the lines of ‘Do No Harm’) as well as identify opportunities to plan and implement humanitarian interventions in a manner that can prepare the ground for more substantial peacebuilding work to ensue. One way is to include conflict-sensitive approaches in Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and programming, and to establish monitoring and accountability mechanisms, in particular at senior level within organisations. In addition, conflict-sensitive approaches need to be institutionalized. Further, training on conflict sensitivity should be mandatory for humanitarians starting to work at the field level, as some humanitarians may not be aware of conflict sensitivity. Furthermore, complex emergencies in conflict zones do not develop overnight, but normally show various indicators and signs, such as widespread human rights abuses, breakdown of state structures, etc. In this regard, there is a room for humanitarian actors to integrate peacebuilding concerns and early warning data on peace-and conflict indicators before 4


entering into the response phase, i.e. emergency preparedness or conflict prevention phases. Despite the operational challenges of conducting conflict analysis (such as lack of skills, limited time frames for intervention that give little time for analysis and early planning) conflict analysis is key to helping humanitarians understand complex humanitarian emergencies better so they can fashion their interventions accordingly. Making good use of conflict analysis and mainstreaming conflict sensitivity in humanitarian interventions is one step towards ‘doing more peace’ without having to add explicit peacebuilding activities as additional tasks to humanitarian interventions. Further, humanitarian actors can team up with peacebuilders to get the necessary assistance in conflict sensitive programming in humanitarian responses. 2. Capitalizing on humanitarian presence on the ground for advocacy Humanitarian actors can contribute to peacebuilding by capitalizing on their presence on the ground as impartial actors - not only to serve as witnesses but also as sources of information to decision makers. By gathering information on the ground and undertaking conflict analysis, humanitarian actors can highlight the plights of people in forgotten conflicts and draw attention to the root causes of conflicts that engender humanitarian crises, if not properly addressed. 3. Recognizing that the process of humanitarian intervention is as important as the intervention itself Just as conflict occurs at different levels (local, regional, national, international), peacebuilding also occurs at different levels. Hence, even if humanitarian strategies may be put in place at the higher decision-making levels, it should recognize local voices and interests and be cognizant of local dynamics especially at the operational level of humanitarian action. It is not enough to ensure that relief is distributed to all relevant stakeholders, but also that it is distributed in a manner that is sensitive to local dynamics and in a way aligns with broader conflict transformation strategies that has potential to address root causes of the crisis at hand. o Building the resilience of communities to withstand the effects of conflict through service provision. o Understanding local capacities for crisis prevention, management and utilizing them. Putting local knowledge to use and engaging local communities in the decision making process when possible. Workshop Objectives This workshop on ‘Strengthening Conflict Sensitive Humanitarian Responses in Africa’ seeks to understand the nexus between humanitarianism and peacebuilding in order to explore 5


ways in which humanitarian actors ensure their humanitarian interventions are conflict sensitive and graduate from the ‘do no harm’ principle to the ‘do more peace’ ideal. 1. It seeks to deepen the conversation on conflict sensitive humanitarian response in Africa to contribute to the Common African Position on Humanitarian Effectiveness in the lead up to the Humanitarian Summit in 2016. 2. It brings together humanitarian actors and peacebuilders to discuss the linkages between peacebuilding and humanitarian action 3. Integrating conflict-sensitive approach into humanitarian action: challenges and opportunities 4. Best practices on using humanitarian actions as entry point for peacebuilding 5. Ways forward and recommendations on the said nexus for the Common African Position on Humanitarian Effectiveness. Workshop Outcomes The outcomes of the workshop will ultimately contribute to the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS)3 to be held in from 23 - 24 May 2016, in Istanbul, Turkey, by way of feeding into the Common African Position on Humanitarian Effectiveness4, that is being prepared in the lead up to the WHS.

3 In September 2013 at the 68th United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon announced the first ever World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) to be held in May 2016, in Istanbul, Turkey. The Summit is organized around four thematic areas: Humanitarian Effectiveness; Transformation Through Innovation; Reducing Vulnerability and Managing Risk and Serving the needs of people in conflict.

4

Considering that African humanitarian concerns will be at the centre of the Summit, the African Union Commission, on basis of Executive Council Decision EX.CL/Dec.817(XXV), has since been implementing an inclusive consultative political process in all regions of the Union, to reach a Common African Position on a humanitarian system. The objective of the consultation meetings is to stimulate discussion among Member States on the emerging issues concerning the global humanitarian landscape, as well as identify issues specific to their region that can be highlighted in the Common African Position. Regional consultations are expected to provide an opportunity for Africa to exercise leadership in shaping a future humanitarian system that is rooted in African values.

6


Resources A View from the Field: Humanitarian Action and the Search for Peace Moving Beyond Protection? June 2010. Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action (ATHA). N. Zicherman, A. Khan, A. Street, H. Heyer and O. Chevreau. October 2011. Applying conflict sensitivity in emergency response: current practice and ways forward. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) A. Mohamed-Saleem, J. Egan, R. Rydberg. July 2015. Meeting the needs of people in conflict: promoting peace while saving lives. A submission to the World Humanitarian Summit consultation process. International Alert. Informal Exchange on the Relationship between Peacebuilding and Humanitarian Action. A Contribution from the Geneva Peacebuilding Platform (GPP) to the World Humanitarian Summit Maison de la Paix, Geneva. 1 July 2015.

M. K. Rossier. June 2011. A Review of Practices and Expert Opinions: Linking Humanitarian Action and Peacebuilding. The Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding. Graduate Institute of Geneva. How to guide to conflict sensitivity. February 2012. Conflict Sensitivity Consortium. M. Rogers, A. Chassy and T. Bamat. 2010. Integrating Peacebuilding into Humanitarian and Development Programming. Catholic Relief Services (CRS). Key Messages from ALNAP’s Eighth Review of Humanitarian Action. ALNAP. July 2009.

Informal Exchange on the Relationship between Peacebuilding and Humanitarian Action. Geneva Peacebuilding Platform (GPP). July 2015. Conflict sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peacebuilding: Resource Pack. 2004 Conflict Sensitivity Consortium.

7