The Secretariat building at the United Nations headquarters, New York, New York. (Photo credit: Rick Bajornas/UN Photo)

Recently, many have questioned whether the humanitarian system is still fulfilling its purpose.

The humanitarian response in Ukraine has seen a relatively successful and effective implementation of the guiding international humanitarian principles and has arguably seen a model response to civilian suffering, with an incredibly moving outpour of solidarity and support. However, while crises are never straightforward, the increasing impacts of climate change, and ongoing conflicts, have given rise to so called “multifaceted” disasters, where a new crisis arises in an already fragile context. These types of disasters will only continue to increase, become more complicated, and disproportionately impact fragile contexts. Add to all this, a very obvious lack of political will and capacity means you have a recipe for a slower and more fragmented humanitarian response which will inevitably give birth to more protracted crises.

Syria:

The earthquake in Syria – in particular northwest Syria, was described as a ‘crisis within a crisis’, because it impacted a region already on its knees after being ravaged by nearly 12 years of conflict, death, destruction and devastation. Much of northwest Syria is now under the control of opposition groups and was also incidentally, the area most affected by the devastating earthquake and therefore had no infrastructure or capacity to respond to such a big destructive earthquake. Most people in northwest Syria were already internally displaced and living in desperate conditions due to the impacts of the war and climate change.

After the earthquake, a catalogue of devastating delays and unnecessary bureaucracy hindered the humanitarian community, including and in particular the United Nations, from providing a coordinated humanitarian response, to an already devastated country. Heavily delayed aid shipments took days to reach northwest Syria in the aftermath of the earthquake, and when they did arrive, it was clear that they were not sent in response to the earthquake. These inadequacies were further compounded with bureaucracy when Bab Al-Hawa, the gateway for aid between Turkey and Syria, became a hostage in a geopolitical game that led to an entirely avoidable loss of life.

While waves of international search and rescue teams, using life-detecting dogs and heavy machinery were pouring into Turkey, local rescuers and volunteers were the only ones searching through mountains of rubble in Syria. In the words of Mohamed al-Shibli, a member of the White Helmets, a civil defence group that operates in opposition-held parts of Syria “…had international rescue teams come into Syria in the first hours or even the second day, there was a big hope that these people who were under the ruins could have been brought out alive”. 

Incidentally, the only glimmer of hope that northwestSyria had was The White Helmets, who have specialised in search and rescue operations. They have been north west Syria’s knight in shining armour, but the scale of destruction caused by the earthquake was unprecedented and as such, required a much bigger response. Unfortunately, the Syrian people were left to their own devices with the international community turning their backs on this “complicated” and “political” region, meaning their only source of help and assistance was with local civil society and themselves. 

Sudan: 

Most recently, the conflict in Sudan has once again raised questions about the efficacy of the humanitarian system, after hostilities erupted between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Sudan has faced overlapping and protracted crises and displacement and much like Syria, the humanitarian response in Sudan has been paralysed by insecurity, access and bureaucratic challenges. So far, the international community hasn’t provided adequate assistance across the board- “I feel the people of Sudan are betrayed by the international community,” said a Sudanese diaspora medic. “We are facing this crisis on our own.”

This has meant that the Sudanese civil society and Sudanese diaspora, have been the lifeblood of the response. These organisations have been providing food, facilitating evacuations, and cleaning up damaged hospitals so that medics can work. Yet while active Sudanese diaspora communities and Sudanese civil society are ready and willing to help, they lack the means and access to engage with the established infrastructure of large-scale aid agencies, limiting their potential for impact.

The Horn of Africa: 

Eighteen months before the level of deaths reached a catastrophic level, humanitarians knew about the imminent onset of a devastating famine in The Horn of Africa. Much of the research suggests that the famine and the lack of rain in the region was directly as a result of climate change. As is seen with most climate related crises, news always came to the media when the situation has reached crisis level, because the deaths and impact are ‘slow burning’. However, humanitarians knew, and were aware, so it begs the question as to why action wasn’t taken sooner to prevent the scale of the crisis reaching catastrophic levels. This was especially neglectful because unlike conflict related displacement, climate related displacement can be anticipated, and the devastating impacts can be limited and mitigated- if humanitarians found the political will and viable ways to invest in local humanitarian action, resilience and capacity building.

Pakistan:

Likewise, the 2022 floods in Pakistan- also a climate related disaster, saw a below par response to the demand. Over 17,000 people lost their lives, 30 million were directly impacted, and the economy and people’s livelihoods were destroyed. Speaking to an anonymous source close to the disaster zone, I was told that there was a lack of media attention and attempts to convince The Disasters Emergency Committee to launch an appeal, fell on deaf ears and Pakistani civil society stepped in to help. This led to a very slow response and once the response came from international INGO’s, it very quickly disappeared after providing emergency humanitarian aid. It will take years for Pakistan to get over the damage caused by these floods while it still tried to recover from the earthquake in 2005. Pakistan has been one of the worst hit countries by climate change, and the probability of it suffering a further climate induced disaster remains high. 

Conclusion: 

All the examples above, have many complicated layers, but what they do demonstrate is that there are many instances in recent history where the humanitarian sector has struggled to uphold the principles of humanitarian action and struggled to serve its purpose. The response in The Horn and Pakistan demonstrates an absolute need to do more – to equip communities with the tools to look after themselves, response capacity, resilience building, adaptation and more durable solutions. Only providing communities initial emergency humanitarian aid is not good enough and they need to have tools and plans at their disposal to support themselves when the emergency aid stops- which inevitably it will.

The active and imperative role of civil society shown in Syria and Sudan shows the impact grass root civil society organisations can have during a crisis. Local responders are often the first to respond to a humanitarian disaster and are therefore already actively engaged and well positioned within communities to respond to their needs. The case studies above prove that civil society and affected populations have shown time and time again that they deserve to be recognised as legitimate humanitarian actors. They show incredible resilience, adaptation, professionalism and a true sense of community, in the face of very limited funds and resources. 

However, despite commitments made at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit by the international humanitarian community, to channel 25 per cent of aid as directly as possible to national organisations by 2020, they have failed to effectively engage with these organisations and are not allowing them to have the opportunity to grow and truly implement the localisation agenda. 

Covid 19 provided the perfect opportunity to shift partnership, coordination and funding practices. However, the formal humanitarian and development sector is notorious for its high resistance to change and as such, INGOs defaulted to normal operations once travel restrictions lifted and the reliance on local actors decreased. One of the main hindrances to systemic change and enforcement of the localisation agenda is the enduring power imbalances between international institutions and local agents. The aid sector has deeply entrenched power dynamics that stem from colonial roots, prioritising international standards over local ones and subordinating the local population to the ‘colonisers’ culture.

An effective implementation of decentralising and localising humanitarian response will significantly improve issues of access, bureaucracy and is the answer to more effective interventions. With the intensity of crises forecasted to get more regular and ‘multifaceted’ it is up to the big INGO’s and the UN- to truly listen to the voices of local communities, involve them in designing and implementing solutions and not just pay lip service to commitments.