Speech

23 January 2006

2nd White Paper Speech, United Nations, New York

Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for International Development

Return to New White Paper Main page

Humanitarian and conflict reform – an emergency service for the world

Thank you Mark for taking the time to introduce me – and for the leadership you give at a time when the UN needs it.

And thanks to all of you for coming here today.

This in fact is the second in a series of speeches I am making as part of a consultation on the UK government’s development White Paper to be published in the summer.

You may ask “what will it be about?”

Well, to answer, let’s reflect for a moment on what we achieved last year. And by we, I do mean we - all of us.

In May, 15 EU states agreed to reach the UN 0.7% target by 2015, if they had not already done so. The G8 in July agreed to increase global aid by $50 billion, and with $25 billion to go to Africa, by 2010. It also backed free basic education and health care, and AIDS treatment for all those who need it.

Here in New York in September, member states decided to create a new Peacebuilding Commission and a new Human Rights Council. There was agreement that states have a Responsibility to Protect their citizens, and that a new humanitarian fund should be set up to respond better to crises like Niger, or the earthquake in Pakistan.

Now, if we had imagined whether we could have achieved these things, a year ago, let’s say five years ago – I think most people would have said “impossible” – it will never happen. But we did it. And it was made possible by politics – the tide of humankind calling for justice.

And this new UK White Paper will set out what DFID will do to help the international development system deliver the promises of 2005, so that we can all make a difference, in coming years, to helping developing countries do it themselves, and make a difference to poor peoples’ lives.

Your ideas will help us improve our own; after all, we don’t have all the answers. And I would welcome your response to our consultation document – available today and on DFID’s web-site.

Today, I want to discuss with you how I think we can do better in preventing humanitarian emergencies and conflict, and when we can’t, how we can respond better to them.

Emergencies where day after day, we witness the courage, and professionalism, and compassion of UN, Red Cross/Red Crescent and NGO staff - I have to say, some of the most remarkable people I have ever met – who work to prevent conflict and to give humanitarian aid.

I’d like to pay tribute in particular to the 271 humanitarian workers who – in honouring their calling - have given their lives over the past five years, and I think one of the ways we can best honour their memory is to ensure that those who carry on their work are served by the best possible system for using their skills and their dedication.

It’s about a stronger and more effective United Nations, which is in all our interests and without which we’re not going to achieve peace and security.

And I come here today as a friend of the UN. The respect that friends have for each other means that I can be frank with you. As I hope you will be with me.

Because I want to tell it as I see it.

We have achieved a lot already by working together. I know that the changes we all want are not easy. But we haven’t yet made enough progress.

Certainly not enough for those who died in the famine in Niger, before we got the help to those who needed it, or who lost their homes in the earthquake in Pakistan – although we have seen progress in recent weeks which are averting some of our worst fears about the winter, or those who still cannot safely go home in Darfur.

We know we can – and must - do better.

Every year, 250 million people are affected by natural disasters – that’s more than the combined population of the UK, Japan and France. Over the past 10 years the number of people affected by disasters increased by one third; in Africa it doubled.

45 million people are affected annually by the devastating consequences of war.

More people died in the six year conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo than lost their lives in battle in the 1st World War.

Over 13 million people are internally displaced in sub-Saharan Africa - refugees within their own countries - and double that world-wide.

And we know the effects of conflict are felt for years to come; on average it takes over 20 years for an economy to return to where it was before the fighting started. 20 years of missed opportunities – destroying the chances of a generation.

The international community spends $5-6 billion a year on humanitarian assistance, the UK $650 million a year. And yet we know that a dollar invested now in prevention saves the international community $4 spent on dealing with the results of conflict, and every dollar spent on natural disaster risk reduction saves $3 in terms of the reduced impact of disasters.

And we all know that without peace and security, development simply won’t happen. Millions of people are poor – and will stay poor – because they live in countries which are failing, failed or conflict states.

And that’s why those of us who care passionately about development, must care just as passionately about dealing with conflict and disaster – their causes and their consequences.

After all, it’s the poor who suffer most, and ultimately development is what will lift them out of poverty. People gaining the freedoms most of us in this room take for granted - freedom from want and freedom from fear.

So, what needs to be done ?

First and foremost, all of us need to do more - governments and multilateral organisations – to prevent conflict; giving more attention and resources to the causes as well as the symptoms of conflict.

Now at the World Summit last year, we made remarkable progress in trying to address the problems of countries recovering from fighting.

Just last month the Peacebuilding Commission was established: to help raise funds for peacebuilding; to improve plans for reconstruction and institution building; and to keep conflicts in the world’s eye so as to prevent countries sliding back into turmoil.

I think the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission is a huge opportunity. It was our collective action that created it, and all of you should all be immensely proud of what you have accomplished.

Now, it’s our collective responsibility to make it work, including getting better country level discussions going, with strong leadership from SRSGs, a better organised UN country team, and active participation from the IMF and World Bank.

Another huge step forward last year was recognition that we do have an international responsibility to take action where states are unable, or unwilling, to protect their own citizens from crimes against humanity, from ethnic cleansing, or from genocide.

This is the first time that the concept of an international “Responsibility to Protect” has been agreed – it is a huge achievement - but the real test will be whether we use it.

We can do more through the multilateral system, particularly the UN, AU and EU to: identify vulnerable populations sooner; to mediate and address the root causes of conflict; and to provide support to national governments to protect their citizens.

But a stronger UN needs to work to build a stronger international system.

The AU, for example, has shown great leadership in the past two years in seeking to build African capacity to manage and prevent conflict, and through the G8 and the EU, the UK has pledged to help it build this capacity further.

Let’s take Darfur. Thousands of innocent people have been killed, figures range from 80,000 to 300,000 to 400,000; no-one knows for sure how many, no one counted. 2 million more have been displaced. I have visited some of the camps - Kalma, near Nyala, and the El-Meshtel and Abu Shouk camps near El-Fasher - where families live in appalling misery.

We have backed, many of us have backed, the African Union Mission, which has deployed cease-fire monitors, a protection force and police. The Security Council has passed resolutions on Darfur and has referred the crimes that have been committed to the International Criminal Court, the first time this has happened.

Another very significant moment and a huge achievement for the international community.

Our efforts have had an impact - mortality rates have been reduced by 2-3 times, and the presence of the AU Mission in Darfur did lead to a decrease in attacks where it is deployed, although in recent months the situation has started to deteriorate, and worsening further as Jan Pronk has reported.

But despite all this, it was too little, too late. Far too many people died before we did anything.

If those killed in Darfur had been aware of the UN Charter which 60 years ago said:

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has bought sorrow to mankind.”

If they had ever heard those words, they might have asked “Fine words, fine sentiments, but when are you going to apply them to me?”

The truth is that bringing life to “Responsibility to Protect” is about two things – first, political will and second, capacity. Without both, we will not give life to those we seek to protect. Without both we would not prevent another Rwanda.

The question is - do we have enough of either ? How can we build more capacity ? And how can we can play our part in reducing conflicts too ?

Now we are working, for example, to stop the spread of small arms and light weapons, and I hope Member States will support small arms transfer controls at the UN Meeting in July, as we work towards an international Arms Trade Treaty covering all conventional weapons.

We can also help reduce fighting over the use of natural resources through better regulation. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is one example; reducing the impact of climate change is another. I’ll say more about this in a later speech.

Now, that’s preventing and recovering from conflict. What about our ability to respond when disaster or war strikes?

Just over a year ago, I proposed six reforms to the international humanitarian system, and today I want to reflect on the progress that we have made, set out some further steps I think we need to take, and hear your views on what needs doing.

And the reforms were:

• the need for more, and more flexible, funding to be available right from the moment crisis strikes;
• secondly, ensuring that we have better and stronger Humanitarian Coordinators, with the power and the funds to act;
• thirdly, greater clarity about who does what in a crisis - including for Internally Displaced People;
• fourthly, the development of benchmarks to measure how we perform;
• fifthly, doing something about the unequal allocation of resources between crises; and finally
• greater investment in reducing the risk of future disasters.

So how have we done?

Well I think we have made real progress, and we have learnt a lot.

And I in particular want to pay particular tribute to Jan Egeland for helping push the biggest process of reform for the past thirty years.

On the 15th December the UN General Assembly agreed to reform the CERF to start to provide the money the UN needs. 10 countries have committed funding and we have now raised a total of $182 million. We now need another $70 million or more to reach a critical mass, and to find a way to get the money to NGOs on the ground. So if you support the idea, and you haven’t yet contributed, please give the fund the cash it needs to do the job.

Now Pakistan also showed that donors - rightly - gave their money to those who would respond fastest, sometimes the UN, sometimes the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and sometimes NGOs.

Getting the right Humanitarian Coordinator makes a huge difference, as we learnt following the Tsunami and in Pakistan. And I want to applaud the role played by Margareta Wahlstrom as regional humanitarian coordinator in support of Miguel Bermeo in Sri Lanka and Bo Asplund in Indonesia – the UN Resident Coordinators - and I welcome Kathleen Cravero and Margareta’s proposals to strengthen Humanitarian Coordinators. We need to get these implemented quickly.

Ensuring that these Coordinators have the funds, and in a single pot, gives them the means to act quickly. Seven donors, including the Netherlands, Sweden and ourselves, are already doing this in Sudan and there will be a second pilot in the DRC this year. In Sudan this approach meant that enough money was available early on, so that for the first time ever, seeds and tools were distributed on time, before the planting season.

I welcome the work that Jan and the Inter Agency Standing Committee are doing to achieve a better system for IDPs, by identifying lead agencies on the ground - an approach that must of course include NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent who are an important part of the humanitarian system, alongside the UN. DFID will continue to support all three.

The lead agencies need to be more accountable, in part by using benchmarks to measure their performance and provide evidence for decisions on funding. And it’s very good to see this progressing.

In Pakistan, the lead agency system has worked well in health under the WHO, but not so well initially in shelter and camp management, water and sanitation – which all struggled to deliver quickly. To start with, it was not clear who led on shelter, and – as I saw for myself in Balakot and Muzaffarabad - 12 days after the earthquake struck, the lead agency was still not on the ground in those areas. And yet shelter was what people needed most. And from that start there has now been an enormous effort to get shelter before winter.

At the end of this year we should review how this cluster system is working, and if it is not working, then we’ll need to do something else.

And I hope we learn lessons that will improve our assistance and protection of IDPs in the three pilots in the DRC, Liberia and Uganda this year, and I am delighted that UNHCR has agreed to take responsibility for ensuring effective camp management, protection and shelter for IDPs. And we look forward to seeing this happen.

Now we know there is a huge desire to help in times of disaster, but the problem is that many other places remain forgotten.

In DRC, as many children have died as in Darfur – yet in 2005 the international community spent only $132 million on humanitarian needs in DRC, while Sudan got $500m dollars, and the Tsunami affected areas got $1 billion. That represents $10 per person in DRC; 10 times that in Darfur, and in Tsunami affected areas, 100 times that amount.

This can’t be right can it ?

Last year one other proposal I made was to ask ECHO to be the funder of last resort in forgotten emergencies. Perhaps understandably they said no.

With 24/7 media coverage, we all have to be where the cameras are.

But that’s not good enough is it? We also have a duty to be where the cameras aren’t.

And that’s where the “forgotten crisis” part of the CERF can help.

Lastly, in reflecting on how we have done, we have made progress on disaster risk reduction – with the Kobe World Conference and at the G8 Summit. Deaths could have been reduced in many of the disasters in 2005 if there had been better preparation.

Part of this, as we know, is having the right people when you need them. At the moment it is not possible to find enough experienced people who are willing to work in such places. And yet lead agencies can’t do the business in their sectors unless they have the right people.

Now, all of this – the progress we have made - has shown, contrary to what some people argue, that the UN can reform itself. And to do this we need three things – a UN that can effectively lead the system; donors willing to back effective UN leadership with the resources that are needed; and a proper system of accountability so that we learn - all of us - and are held to account – all of us – for what we do.

Jan showed all three, and the challenge now for OCHA is to deliver on all these changes.

But in reflecting on this progress, it is also clear to me that there are further changes we need to make.

First is this, the UN needs to ask for money in a better way.

Because we have to improve the UN flash appeals system. Why because sometimes flash appeals are used to seek funds for a whole range of projects that are nothing to do with immediate humanitarian need, but are in fact are for longer term work.

Recent examples of this included a micro-enterprise project in Sri Lanka and an employment project in Aceh that were in the Tsunami Appeal. Both very worthwhile, but they shouldn’t be in an Emergency Flash Appeal to save peoples’ lives. In another appeal, in Bangladesh, two different UN agencies, neither of which predominantly lead on humanitarian relief, requested funding that was two to three times their normal annual budgets in that country in an appeal ! This doesn’t make sense.

When this happens credibility is undermined and donors put their money elsewhere, with the result – one reason - that appeals are frequently underfunded.

I’d like to propose a better way. Flash appeals should be limited to immediate life-saving needs only, be issued 5 days after the disaster and cover the first 30 days. Over these 30 days a proper needs assessment should be carried out, to produce a 90 day medium term humanitarian appeal.

Second suggestion, we need a better system to make sure that we have available, and are able to draw upon quickly, the logistical assets required – for example – helicopters, ships and aircraft. We need to look seriously at how we can best strengthen the capacity of the UN Common Services, and put them to the use of the entire humanitarian community.

Traditionally, humanitarians have been hesitant about working with the military, for well-known reasons. However in Pakistan and for the Tsunami, military assets were absolutely vital in delivering relief. Without them, more people would have died.

In the long run, the humanitarian system should develop its own capacity; however for the time being, we should recognise that the military has tools that the humanitarian community doesn’t have, and that we sometimes need to use these to save lives. We need to have a better understanding with the military to work out how we can cooperate most effectively together, when we need to.

Thirdly, I think we need a better approach to dealing with hunger. While some crises arise from sudden events – an earthquake or a tsunami – many others build up slowly; for example the food crises in Niger, in the Horn - as I saw in Kenya last week - and Southern Africa.

As well as ensuring the right humanitarian response, we must address - with developing countries - the underlying causes of those crises. The humanitarian system needs to be a global emergency service, but it on its own cannot deal with all of the causes of emergencies. That is the responsibility of national governments, with donors and the rest of the international system backing up their efforts.

My final point is about accountability.

Because I’m encouraged by the progress that is being made by WHO and UNICEF for example on improving the quality of information about the health of those affected by crises. Their work will help us to know how many people are dying and how many children are malnourished.

But I think we need to do more to increase accountability; accountability to those who suffer in disasters and accountability to our public, who through their taxes and personal contributions pay for the international effort.

Common Humanitarian Action Plans, developed by stronger Inter Agency Standing Committee country teams, should set out what results they expect each country to achieve over a year. The following year they should report back on whether they achieved the intended results, and if not, why not. And donors should invest more in monitoring and evaluation, including putting much more effort into establishing the views of beneficiaries.

Question. Is this enough?

Should we go further?

Maybe we should ask for, and finance, an independent body to produce an annual World Humanitarian Report, like the UNDP Human Development Report – covering all conflicts and humanitarian responses - drawing on better data collection and the benchmarks being developed for mortality, malnutrition and health?

Should we look to create an independent body – a humanitarian inspectorate – to draw on this and report on the performance and effectiveness of the humanitarian system? To judge all of us on how we are doing ?

Ultimately what we are together striving to build is a coherent international system for humanitarian emergencies.

An emergency service for the world.

And there’s an analogy I have used to try and explain why change is needed.

Imagine that if here in New York, when a fire breaks out, instead of dialling one number - 9-1-1, we had to dial lots of different numbers to get help.

Imagine if those who had to answer the call had to ring around to ask to lease a fire engine, or plead for money for fuel before they could respond.

Imagine if different agencies were responsible for providing ladders, cutting equipment, and imagine if it wasn’t always absolutely clear who was providing the water.

Imagine if some fires got more funding and a quicker response than others.

Imagine if there were no prevention measures – fire alarms; fire retardant materials; an inspectorate to ensure standards of prevention are met.

It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it ? But this is the system we have for dealing with global humanitarian emergencies.

It is now changing but it could be better.

And the fact that the people working in it do an extraordinary job should make us ask – what more could we, and they, do if we had a better system ? How many more lives could we save ? How many more people’s suffering could we relieve ?

We have made big progress on humanitarian reform in 2005. Now we must make sure we achieve as much in 2006, not least because it shows the way for wider UN reform.

The World Summit asked the Secretary General to make proposals to member states for more radical, longer-term reform including the potential for grouping and managing the UN’s work under three headings.

We strongly support this effort, and we will work closely with others to achieve the reforms that are needed. Reforms that are vital to the UN’s credibility.

In truth there is no alternative but to make it work, not least because people will in the end put their money and their effort where it can really make a difference.

Which brings me right back to where I started.

The international commitment to increased aid should allow us to properly fund humanitarian crises – including those that are forgotten.

It should help us reduce humanitarian need by allowing us to spend more on safety nets, disaster risk reduction and conflict prevention – to fight the causes of many of these disasters.

And of course, it should and will provide more to invest in the ultimate prevention - development. After all, developed countries are better able to prevent and manage disasters than poor ones.

In the end we will all be judged by whether it works.

Now, that’s what I think. What do you think?

And how can we continue to work together to ensure that we have an effective UN, leading an effective humanitarian system and leading the world’s response to conflict?

It was John F Kennedy who described the UN as “our last best hope…”

We know in our hearts and minds that this is true, and that we must spare no effort in helping it to build the better world that all of us dream of.

Back to top