Development aid donors are paying more attention to countries in long-term crisis, which may help conflict-affected populations. However, it is difficult to distinguish between the forms of aid available, especially with donors now linking security and aid. How can and should the humanitarian community respond to the increasing involvement of development groups?

Since the 1990s, development agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank have been more involved in countries with protracted crises. This was done initially to link relief work to broader development programmes. The focus has now shifted to the link between security and aid. A report from the Overseas Development Institute’s Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) analyses the consequences for the humanitarian agencies traditionally involved in relief work.

Humanitarian agencies have smaller budgets and different objectives and working methods to those of development agencies. Development work itself is increasingly affected by the interests of donor countries, particularly in terms of security since the events of 11 September 2001. The humanitarian community, however, is concerned about the need to remain impartial and independent by focusing on individual rather than state interests.

On the role of development agencies in protracted crises, the authors find that:

• Aid budgets will grow significantly in states seen to be ‘poorly performing’.
• UN agencies are trying to improve coordination of development activities, but the interest-based politics of member states often determines the response to crises.
• The World Bank has taken over key UN functions in development and reconstruction (with over 80 projects totalling US$ 5.5 billion in 13 conflict-affected countries), and plays a dominant role in resource distribution.
• United States aid is increasingly tied to its foreign policy.
• The events of 11 September 2001 have reinforced links between aid and security policy, as policy statements by the European Union, the World Bank and USAID (United States Agency for International Development) indicate.
• Aid for protracted crises is likely to remain ‘relief­-like’ – based on individual projects rather than long-term programmes.

It will be crucial to reach a common position within and between organisations from the development and humanitarian communities. The authors recommend:

• improving and sharing understanding across the humanitarian and development communities of what to do about crises, including about the kind of staff that should be involved
• developing a shared understanding of protection of civilians from violence and human rights abuses and the roles and responsibilities of all aid groups under international humanitarian and human rights law
• humanitarian groups becoming more active in communicating the need to bridge the gap between relief and development work in a principled way
• that engagement with non-state groups such as NGOs – which has allowed the international community to distribute funds much more quickly – does not reduce state ability to fund and manage public services
• monitoring financial flows to find out if they are distributed equitably and effectively and to see which donors and agencies are funding responses to different types of crises
• the integration of security, development and humanitarian policies, without allowing aid to substitute for government responsibilities.

The development and humanitarian communities will need to decide how to position themselves politically in relation to national and international aid donors, and to what degree they are concerned with the interests of conflict-affected individuals as opposed to states in crisis.

Source(s):
‘Beyond the continuum: the changing role of aid policy in protracted crises’ by Adele Harmer and Joanna Macrae, HPG Report 18, Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, July 2004. Full document.
‘Beyond the continuum: an overview of the changing role of aid policy in protracted crises’ by Joanna Macrae and Adele Harmer, HPG Briefing 16 Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, July 2004. Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 12 May 2005

Further Information:
Adele Harmer and Joanna Macrae
Humanitarian Policy Group
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7922 0335
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: a.harmer@odi.org.uk

Contact the contributor: j.macrae@odi.org.uk

Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI, UK

Other related links:
'Dilemmas of aid delivery in the midst of conflict'

'Politics v humanitarianism on the front line – can the UN get its act together?'

'A troubling dilemma: capacity building in the midst of conflict'

'Reducing conflict and improving resource management for Kenyan pastoralists'