STATEMENT by Louise MARCHAND, Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency, Advisor to the Canadian Delegation to the Humanitarian Segment - Item 5 of the Substantive Session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

'Strengthening the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations, with particular attention to humanitarian financing and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance and the transition from relief to development'

Geneva, July 11, 2003

Mr. President,

Canada is pleased to participate in this year's ECOSOC Humanitarian Segment. We thank the Secretary-General for his thoughtful report, and broadly endorse the recommendations.

Every year seems to bring new challenges to the humanitarian community. This past year has been dominated by events in Iraq. Although the conflict has fortunately not led to the major humanitarian crisis expected, it has posed a number of dilemmas for humanitarian actors. How to manage pressures for a generous humanitarian response to Iraq while adequately addressing pressing humanitarian needs in less visible contexts? How to respond appropriately to contingency plans, especially when we have been encouraging improved preparedness efforts? How to ensure the independence of humanitarian action when governments are both belligerents, donors and humanitarian actors in their own right?

We were also confronted with the new challenge of responding to crises exacerbated by HIV/AIDS. In Southern Africa many humanitarian actors have proactively factored HIV/AIDS into their programming, yet there is still much to be done to ensure a coherent and coordinated approach. Humanitarian agencies are not well positioned to take on many HIV/AIDS specific interventions which require a long term approach. Coordination with development actors, including national governments, is crucial to maximize the impact of our programs. As such, we welcome the initiative of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Working Group on HIV/AIDS in developing guidelines for HIV interventions in emergency settings.

Despite increased advocacy on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, we continue to witness flagrant violations of the most fundamental tenants of international humanitarian and human rights law. No where has this been more apparent than during the past several weeks in Bunia, Aceh and Monrovia. Some have argued this past year that international humanitarian law is no longer relevant for contemporary times. However, as we look ahead to the upcoming International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, we believe strongly that this is not only short-sighted but inconsistent with what we are seeing on the ground.

The suffering of individual civilians caught up in various conflict zones this past year, whether displaced, separated from their families, missing and exploited, could surely have been reduced had the existing provisions of international law been respected. If we are serious about meeting our obligations to protect war affected civilians, we must translated our rhetorical commitments to international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law into action, and make it meaningful at the country level.

More positive developments over the past year include progress made to address sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian crises. We are far from seeing an end to this problem - in fact, increased awareness has brought more cases to light. At the same time, the IASC Plan of Action and the upcoming UN Bulletin will provide clear guidance to agencies on how to tackle this issue. We encourage continued collaboration among all actors on this issue, including governments, to ensure that those already vulnerable due to complex emergencies and natural disasters are not further victimized by those deployed - regardless of the type of mission - to assist them.

There have also been considerable efforts to reassert a needs based approach to humanitarian action, and humanitarian principles more broadly. Both the Humanitarian Financing Work Program and the International Meeting on Good Humanitarian Donorship have helped to focus our attention on various weaknesses of the current humanitarian system and ways in which we can address them.

Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of the transition from relief to development. The fact that it is a reoccurring theme of this segment reflects the continuing difficulty in effectively addressing it in our policy and programming.

We, therefore, strongly welcome the work of the UNDG/ECHA Working Group on Transition Issues and hope that it will lead to concrete progress in how the UN system responds to countries emerging from conflict. We also hope that the Working Group`s findings and recommendations will be useful for the UN's response to other types of transition situations as well.

We know that the transition from relief to development in conflicts is not only about greater linkages between humanitarian and development actors, but also the involvement of political, human rights and often peacekeeping actors. We must not only meet pressing humanitarian and reconstruction needs, but we must address critical issues such as security, and the need for justice and reconciliation. We, therefore, encourage the Working Group to actively engage the Department of Political Affairs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in its work.

We recognize that donor governments have an important role to play in ensuring successful transitions from relief to development. Canada has taken a number of steps to address this issue including the establishment of our Peacebuilding Fund, Landmines Initiative and Human Security Program. These programs only address part of transition needs and we recognize we must do more. At the same, we do not have the resources or capacity to respond to every transitional situation globally. We must make difficult choices as to which contexts we can realistically make the long term commitment required to support recovery and ultimately long term development efforts. It is for this reason that my delegation proposed the transition issue be addressed in a more integrated manner by ECOSOC in 2004, and not simply relegating it to the humanitarian segment, where we have gone as far as we can in many ways. We hope that delegations can agree on the modalities for such a meeting.

Where there are clear geopolitical interests, it is easier to mobilize the will and resources to respond effectively to transition needs. This is clearly the case in Afghanistan where we see humanitarian, development, political and military actors coming together to support the interim authority's efforts to stabilize the country and initiate socio-economic recovery. The challenge is to mobilize that same will and resources for less visible crises where needs are just as acute.

An important element of strengthening our response to transition is reinforcing our commitment to conflict prevention and making our long term development programs 'conflict sensitive'. While many donor agencies have created small units with these objectives, integrating a conflict analysis into the mainstream of development programming is still challenging.

Mr. President,

I would now like to turn to the other major theme of this segment - the issue of humanitarian financing and effectiveness of humanitarian action is timely.

Over the past two years there has been an increasing recognition that we must do more to ensure an equitable and needs based response across crises. This recognition led to the initiation of the Global Humanitarian Financing Studies which were informally launched at ECOSOC yesterday. The studies found, inter-alia, that donor governments' responses to crises were not primarily needs based, and that humanitarian agency appeals were not grounded in a rigorous assessment of need. There is obviously much to be done by both donors and agencies in addressing this issue. The challenge is clear in reviewing the requirements and contributions to the 2003 Consolidated Appeals. The Iraq Crisis flash appeal was ten times the size of the appeal for the Democratic Republic of Congo. To date, donors have met close to 90% of the requested needs in Iraq, while they have met only 20% of the requested needs for the Democratic Republic of Congo.

There has also been increasing attention to the accountability and performance of donor governments in humanitarian action. This goes beyond the concern for needs based responses to include the need for more timely, and flexible funding, and strengthening of the multilateral humanitarian system more generally. The international meeting on good humanitarian donorship in Stockholm was an important first step in improving donor accountability and performance. Canada is committed to working within our own bureaucracy, and collectively with other donor governments, towards the implementation of the principles and good practice that were agreed in Stockholm.

It must be underscored however, that donor governments, however, are only one set of actors involved in meeting the needs of crisis affected individuals, and which contribute to the effectiveness of humanitarian action. States have the primary responsibility for victims of humanitarian emergencies within their own borders. Where states can not fill that responsibility, they must facilitate the work of the international community in doing so. The number of crises where humanitarian access remains a critical challenge demonstrates how much further we have to go to in ensuring respect for this basic tenant of international humanitarian law.

Humanitarian agencies also have a key role to play in ensuring the effectiveness of humanitarian action. We regret that the Secretary-General's report did not reflect this essential point. As the frontline of the humanitarian community, they are responsible for ensuring that their activities are appropriate, timely and effective. This includes improving and increasing the consistency in which humanitarian needs are assessed and appealed for, more transparent priority setting, strengthening efforts to report on results, improved monitoring and evaluation, as well as a greater commitment to system wide coordination. It also includes integrating a gender perspective into their operations, and ensuring the participation of crisis affected communities in the design and delivery of their programs.

Importantly, it also means developing and applying standards in the development and delivery of programs. To ensure greater consistency across emergencies, we must have a minimum basis for carrying out interventions. It is for this reason that Canada has strongly supported the SPHERE Project, but also other initiatives aimed at better meeting the needs of crisis affected communities - not just for assistance efforts but also for protection. We invite delegations to learn more about what key partners are doing to develop and use standards and increase accountability at the information table outside this Chamber.

In closing Mr. Chairman, by clearly outlining the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of the various players in ensuring effective humanitarian action, and collectively holding ourselves accountable to them, we have a better chance of meeting our ultimate objective - meeting the needs of crisis affected populations globally. They are counting on our commitment. Let us demonstrate our resolve to meet this most important challenge.

Thank you.