ECOSOC HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON TRANSITION FROM RELIEF TO DEVELOPMENT

14.07.03


Discusses Transitions in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka,and Angola; Notes Lack of Focus on Natural Disasters
The Economic and Social Council this morning held a panel discussion on the transition from relief to development during which representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Development Programme and the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator for Angola addressed the Council and participated in an interactive discussion which focused on the transitions in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Angola, coordination and cooperation for transition, and the need to focus more attention on natural disasters.
Introducing the panellists, in her role of moderator, Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that of the four types of transition identified in the Secretary-General’s report – wholesale economic transition, sudden natural disasters, underlying structural problems, and conflict – the focus of this panel would be on the last.
Ruud Lubbers, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that UNHCR’s policies included the “4Rs” of repatriation, reintegration, rehabilitation and reconstruction, the aim of which was to promote sustainable return and peaceful coexistence thereby contributing towards poverty reduction and creating conditions for good local governance. The “4Rs” concept formed part of UNHCR’s overall transition or recovery strategy, and pilot projects had been undertaken in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan; now it was time to integrate this approach into all protracted refugee situations. In this context, development assistance was needed not only for the refugees but also for the development process of the host country through local integration.
Jacques Forster, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that transition periods should be understood as intermediate periods, where conflict had ended or was in remission. ICRC activities in transition covered a wide-range of domains including its protection activities of visiting detained persons, re-establishing family links, searching for the missing, repatriation and the protection of the civilian population. ICRC policy regarding assistance programmes was guided by the importance of adopting a participatory approach, strengthening local capacities, improving systems and addressing the psychological suffering of victims, among other factors.
Ross Mountain, Assistant Emergency Relief Coordinator, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that the United Nations’ Country Teams in situations of transition must focus their priorities around goals such as the normalization of the situation to enable full participation of the population in the development process; identifying factors that could result in a conflict relapse; and infusing confidence and self-reliance into the population. To give transitions adequate momentum, it was necessary to have a broad vision that could be shared by both local and international actors.
Ameerah Haq, Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Recovery in the United Nations Development Programme, said that among the main elements characterizing transitional situations were the emergence of an administration, the restoration of civil authority, overall stabilization, increased security and access, as well as increased hope for the end of conflict. The primary motivation to support successful transition was found in the degradation of decades of development progress by violent conflicts and recurrent disasters and the entrenchment of poverty and inequality that made the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ever more difficult.
Eric de Mul, Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator for Angola, affirming that human rights and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) had provided the focus for efforts to promote transition in Angola, said that the move from a situation of emergency to one of development made life much more difficult in many ways – for example, many more partners got involved in the whole situation. Moreover, as structural problems, which could not be tackled within the context of prior humanitarian programmes, emerged, it became evident that coordination, which did not come cheap, only worked when it represented added value to its participants.
Following the panellists’ initial presentations, the interactive discussion cantered on the efficacy of the transitional programme applied in Afghanistan and the United Nations system’s role therein. Further elaboration was also requested on the transition programmes in Sri Lanka and Angola, as well as on issues of general coordination and cooperation in transition between United Nations agencies, whether there was a generalized set of procedures by which transition was best facilitated, and the need to focus more attention on transition processes following natural disasters.
Concluding, Vice-President of the Council, Valery P. Kuchinsky, reaffirmed that the United Nations’ role was indispensable in implementing a transition from relief to development.
Representatives of Denmark, Russian Federation, India, Finland, Peru and Sudan participated in this morning’s interactive discussion, as did a representative of the World Bank.
The Economic and Social Council will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to hold a panel discussion on responding to the effects of HIV/AIDS and other widespread diseases on humanitarian relief operations.

Statements
CAROL BELLAMY, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, said that the statistic – that 65 per cent of countries emerging from war in Africa slipped back into conflict – cited by Carolyn McAskie in introducing the Secretary-General’s report, underscored the importance of this panel’s theme. Transition must be about acting quickly and effectively to build and consolidate peace by laying the foundation for addressing the causes of the conflict. The challenges of such transitions were complex and many: meeting them required more than humanitarian relief and development efforts, but a coherent strategy for creating stability and peace. Of the four types of transition identified in the Secretary-General’s report – wholesale economic transition, sudden natural disasters, underlying structural problems, and conflict – the focus of this panel would be on this last.
RUUD LUBBERS, High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said the relation of the topic of the panel to the work of UNHCR was the protection of people who had to flee due to violence and persecution, and working in cooperation with others on permanent solutions. However, UNHCR had felt the need to reform its current work on the issue and develop the Convention on Refugees into a more sustainable concept entitled ‘Convention Plus’. The need to use a fair share of development assistance to help refugees was crucial. In the conclusions of Monterrey, one could hardly find provisions that committed development actors to the plight of refugees. The problem was that host countries often viewed refugees as a burden only. The UNHCR believed that host countries could begin to view refugees as an asset with added help for development programmes, leading to self-reliance through farming and micro-credit programmes. This approach aimed to make refugees more than beneficiaries and provided permanent solutions. UNHCR viewed repatriation as the first option, however, when this was not an appropriate solution, there was a need for local development integration.
UNHCR’s policies included the “4Rs” of repatriation, reintegration, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The aim was to promote sustainable return and a peaceful coexistence, thereby contributing towards poverty reduction and creating conditions for good local governance. The “4Rs” concept formed part of the overall transition or recovery strategy and pilot projects had been undertaken in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Many development actors believed it was time to integrate this approach into all protracted refugee situations. He underscored that development assistance was needed not only for the refugees, but also for the development process of the host country through local integration. Development through local integration was not only a theory, but a viable solution when the “4Rs” could not be applied.
Development in Africa would be a non-starter if solutions were not found for the uprooted people in the continent. Practical and consistent strategies were needed. In this connection, it was interesting and encouraging that in the peace and security provisions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), there was a strong mention of the situation of refugees.
JACQUES FORSTER, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the operational dimension of the ICRC’s mission was to protect and assist all victims of armed conflict or internal strife and of their direct consequences. To do this effectively, a thorough knowledge of the conflict at hand was required, as was synergy with other international and national actors. Moreover, as the conflict in Iraq had shown, it was essential to protect the ICRC’s neutrality. Against this backdrop, the concept of transition, with its implications for the elaboration of appropriate humanitarian strategies, had become more and more important.
Transition periods, he said, should be understood as intermediate periods – where open armed conflict had ended or was at least in remission. The humanitarian situation in these transition periods could actually be more acute than during open conflict, as aid flows subsided. ICRC activities in transition covered a wide-range of domains including its protection activities of visiting detained persons, re-establishing family links, searching for the missing, repatriation and the protection of the civilian population. Its policy regarding assistance programmes was guided by the importance of adopting a participatory approach, strengthening local capacities, improving systems and addressing the psychological suffering of victims, among other factors.
Citing examples of ICRC's involvement in transition programmes in Serbia-Montenegro, the Sudan, Timor-Leste and Iraq, he reaffirmed the ICRC’s commitment to the participatory approach to transition, but said it must be acknowledged as being more complex to affect in situations of transition out of conflict than in peacetime transitional situations.
ROSS MOUNTAIN, Assistant Emergency Relief Coordinator, said this was not a new item on the agenda of ECOSOC, however there was still a gap in the transition from relief to development. Some countries, such as Angola, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka, had emerged or were about to emerge from long periods of conflict. Developments in those countries highlighted the need for assistance in the transition from relief to development. The inter-Agency Standing Committee had tried to lay out broad fundamental principles to guide personnel based on the fact that stability was an overriding priority. The issue at hand was what could be done to normalize the situation to enable full participation of the population in the development process. Looking ahead, it was also necessary to identify the factors that could result in a conflict relapse. Another rule was the importance of infusing confidence and self-reliance into the population. It was vital that Country Teams view this as a priority to achieve their goals. It was also necessary to have a broad vision that could be shared by both local and international actors to give the transition adequate momentum.
Protection and assistance were part of the same coin, he said. Non-discrimination was also a vital factor, as was the building of national capacity. He suggested that gender-mainstreaming was an important factor in this process. Coordination was not just an activity; it must be shared by all since it was an essential factor. Depending on circumstances, it was important to follow the flow of people, particularly when it was a regional dilemma. In these situations, Country Teams must prepare for the return of refugees. The need to protect humanitarian staff was also highlighted. Headquarters must help their colleagues in the field.
Concerning the overall strategic goal of consolidating a common humanitarian action programme, he said there was a significant problem of definition. There were different definitions as to what represented humanitarian assistance. Thus, these issues were often defined in terms of the context of the country situation. In this sense there was also a problem defining what ‘transition” meant. The consolidated appeals process (CAP) was aiming to find a common vision for what was involved in humanitarian assistance. In the year 2004, he was expecting there would be 24 CAPs out of which four of five would be for countries in transition. This highlighted the variety of needs, from humanitarian to reconstructive assistance. It was vital to engage development actors in the development process so that they could carry forward and benefit from the support of the humanitarian community.
AMEERAH HAQ, Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Recovery in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said that, among others, the main elements characterizing transitional situations were the emergence of an administration, the restoration of civil authority, overall stabilization, increased security and access, as well as increased hope for the end of conflict. Moreover declining humanitarian and increasing recovery needs and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) were among other important characteristics of transition. Among the primary areas in which support was needed during transition were the rule of law and transitional justice, local governance, reconstructing livelihoods and other economic recovery and the demobilization and disarmament of combatants.
UNDP’s rationale for supporting transition programmes, she said, cantered around the fact that violent conflicts and recurrent disasters erased decades of development progress, entrenched poverty and inequality, placed increased burdens on women and made it ever more difficult to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Thus UNDP, in collaboration with its humanitarian partners, was working to strengthen its Country Office capacities to better manage crisis and post-conflict situations worldwide and to link relief and development.
Among the areas in which UNDP provided technical support, she said, were conflict prevention and assessment; transitional recovery; transitional justice and security sector reform; natural disaster reduction and recovery; small arms reduction, disarmament and demobilization; and capacity building for mine action. Finally, among the issues on which more attention should be focused was the need to encourage donors to create transitional funding windows or to develop more flexibility in funding relief and development activities simultaneously. There should also be more support for the Resident Coordinator system during transition, for government aid coordination capacity and for joint needs assessments and watching briefs during transition.
ERIC DE MUL, Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator for Angola, said that human rights and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) had provided the focus for efforts to promote transition in Angola. The development of a vision shared by all United Nations agencies in Angola had been a relatively easy process given the protracted nature of the conflict, which gave the agencies a long history of working together. For example, the most recent Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) had included provisions for three different scenarios that had been developed and agreed as reflecting the several possible ways in which the situation in Angola could develop.
One of the scenarios provided for in the CAP, he said, had been the emergence of peace in Angola, which did arrive in 2002. Yet, the move from a situation of emergency to one of development made life much more difficult in many ways – for example, many more partners got involved in the whole situation. Moreover, as structural problems, which could not be tackled within the context of traditional humanitarian programmes, emerged, it became evident that coordination only worked when it represented added value to its participants. It was also not a cheap process. However, he remained assured that, in this instance, Angola would not relapse into conflict.

Interactive Segment
In a subsequent interactive discussion, one speaker said it was important to move from the abstract to the concrete level to see if approaches used actually worked in reality. He asked the panel to reflect on lessons learned in Afghanistan and to what extent that approach had been the correct mechanism to facilitate the situation there. Could any improvements have been made, he asked. With regard to funding, he said that the Development Ministry in his country had for a long time combined humanitarian assistance and development funds in a flexible manner. Referring to the concept of the ‘4Rs’, he said it was important that the agencies that were funded were able to cooperate among themselves.
Another speaker said reference had been made to various success-formulas. At the same time, it had been stressed that in two-thirds of cases, the transition process resulted in a set-back and ultimately a failure. Were success formulas adequately clear and defined, he asked. Should there not then also be formulas for failure, allowing the international community to understand why there were such high failure rates in transition approaches. Personally, he believed failures resulted from the inability to solve political problems. Did the panellists agree that in the cases of fragile structures in post-conflict situations, it might be wise to consider matters from a political stand point? A political approach might help to define how to ensure a true success formula.
Civil war was the development process in reverse, said one speaker. Development could be an important prevention for conflict and civil war. Civil war was therefore not only a problem for development but also a cause of the lack of development, he said. Panellists were asked whether there should be similar pillars to humanitarian assistance as to the development process. What could be the core tenets of humanitarian finance, he asked.
How were fragile countries suffering from post-conflict situations supposed to face the bewildering multiplicity of agencies, asked another speaker. He stressed the need to address problems of competition between agencies; the confusion of agendas due to lack of cooperation between headquarters and field offices; overlapping mandates; and the need to ensure an organizational set-up to empower Governments to deal with the multiplicity of agencies in a beneficial manner.
Responding to questions, Mr. Lubbers said UNHCR believed that a good structure had been chosen in Afghanistan. Today, the problem was to know how to approach the post-emergency phase, and the associated risk that United Nations agencies left the region too quickly. He was concerned that the United Nations presence was becoming too thin, too fast. Security in Afghanistan was a problem, however this meant that there was an even greater need for United Nations presence. UNHCR did not aim to bring back all Afghans to Afghanistan, even though 1.5 million had been brought back last year. It was necessary to accept that many people had been locally integrated in neighbouring countries. Concerning political stability, he said UNHCR believed that its work in relation to uprooted people could not escape inputs from politics. He was fully aware that there was a risk that certain fragile situations reversed to violence and civil conflict. UNHCR did not just function as an observer, but was a participant of the transition process from relief to development.
On whether development criteria could be used for humanitarian assistance, Mr. Lubbers said it could be used as such with slight modification due to the fact that humanitarian situations were of a post-conflict nature. Refugees and victims of conflicts were agents for development, not only humanitarian assistance beneficiaries. He stressed that the concept of the “4Rs” was not an aim to do more, but an invitation to other to participate.
Mr. Forster said that as far as Afghanistan was concerned, the security situation had not improved. ICRC had had to limit its activities in the South as a result of a cold blooded murder of one member of its personnel. If positive signals of security were sent too early, there was a risk that things not moving in the right direction would generate frustration. This was a dilemma for intergovernmental agencies – when was it time to start sending positive signals. Concerning the numerous presence of agencies, he said it was important to increase both planning and transparency, and ensure that the planning was based on actual mandates and responded effectively to needs. In some conflict situations or “forgotten conflicts” there was a lack of presence by agencies. In other circumstances, for example post-conflict situations, there was an abundance of agencies. In such situations, cooperation and transparency were key.
Also responding to questions, Mr. Mountain said that the approach in Afghanistan and the steps taken had been positive in relation to the transition development. In terms of the follow-up work, he said that attempts had been made to ensure humanitarian assistance to vulnerable groups. He stressed that the guidelines mentioned earlier had been created for field personnel, and were not an overall global formula for success. One of the key priorities, in these field level guidelines, was in fact ensuring stability. Finally, he said that on the ground, agencies usually came together in order to help people.
Ms. Haq said that in Afghanistan, all United Nations agencies had had to coordinate their action and think outside their mandates. Another element had been the strong insistence on national ownership. There had been a lot of lessons learned from Afghanistan and the evaluations had been made available. Finally, she stressed that it was important to respond to technical ministries particularly in a transition stage. The flood of agencies that one might see was often a response to the urgent requests for help from technical ministries. The challenge was to ensure that there was adequate coordination in the assistance.
Ms. Bellamy added that one single structure for the transition from relief to development would not work in all countries. It was essential to adapt programmes and approaches to specific country contexts to ensure the effective workings of structures.
During a second set of questions-and-answers, one speaker said the intention had been not to have a consolidation appeal for Angola next year. Mr. de Mul was asked to elaborate on the holding of a transitional appeal for Angola.
Transition was linked to the causes and consequences of conflicts, another speaker said. His concern was that all the stress of the prevention of armed conflict might lead to putting a secondary focus on natural resources – a serious threat to development requiring humanitarian assistance. To what extent was the conceptual stress on armed conflict preventing adequate attention to natural disasters.
Another speaker asked about the development of policies and the need for national Governments – the people living the situation – to contribute to this important process. Governments needed to be involved as much in the development of policies as in their implementation.
Responding, Mr. de Mul said that the idea of late last year that one could declare the emergency in Angola over, no longer seemed realistic. This meant that humanitarian operations in Angola might need to be extended longer into 2004. If a consolidated appeal was needed, it would be undertaken. There was a need to be flexible in this situation, he said.
Mr. Lubbers said that there was a tendency, much due to the media, to “over-focus” on conflicts and “under-focus” on natural disasters. It was a fundamental problem and the work to be done was sometimes overcrowded. UNHCR had as its traditional mission to focus on conflict, unlike many other agencies.
Mr. Mountain quoted Mark Twain who said that “the future was very difficult to predict, especially in advance”. Life did not always follow one’s wishes. Concerning the coordination aspect, he stressed that support needed to be given not only to humanitarian workers, but also to those who were going to work through the humanitarian emergency for development. On natural disasters, he said that while more people were killed by natural disasters, the structure of society was usually left relatively intact. In situations of armed conflict, the entire structure of society was destroyed.
Finally, Ms. Haq addressed the question of natural disasters and said that disaster prevention and preparedness required training and the support of regional organizations. At least 50 per cent of least developed countries faced recurring natural disasters setting the achievement of general development goals back considerably. Concerning mandates, she said that 69 out of the 130 countries UNDP was present in were dealing in some manner with conflict issues. This would require a general review of mandates.
Concluding Ms. Bellamy agreed that there must be a stronger focus on natural disasters. However, the Government capacity was usually much stronger after natural disasters than post conflicts. In addition, the mere number of reversals present in post-conflict situations warranted an attentive focus on conflict countries. She agreed that national Governments must be part of the development of policies to do with the transition from relief to development. Finally, with respect to the Working Group on Transition, she said that policy was being developed according to what had been and was happening on the field, in a spirit of cooperation.
The Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, Valery P. Kuchinsky, concluded the panel by saying that the United Nations’ role was absolutely indispensable in implementing a transition from relief to development. He did believe that the discussion could have benefited from the presence of a representative of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. If the Security Council could discuss the issue of HIV/AIDS vis-à-vis security, ECOSOC could have invited members of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to its consideration of the transition from relief to development.



* *** *