HUMANITARIAN ACTION:Developing and reframing responses to meet new challenges

24­25 February 2016

Jakarta, Indonesia

REFRESHING

Background

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) together with the Humanitarian Policy Group(HPG) at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) are organising a series of conferences bringingtogether policymakers with international and national humanitarian actors. The conferences cover arange of issues, including: what humanitarian models work best, what degree of proximityhumanitarian actors need and how those outside the formal system can best influence the debate onthe future of humanitarian action. The second conference took place in Jakarta, Indonesia, in February2016, following a first conference in Beijing, China, in October 2015.

1

Introduction

Over the past several decades, humanitarian action in Southeast Asia has undergone a dramatic shift.Whereas in the past humanitarian aid was, to a large extent, dominated by Western donors andinternational aid agencies, today a diverse range of local, national and regional actors are taking thelead in many forms of humanitarian action, including: disaster response, recovery and preparedness;providing humanitarian assistance in conflict-affected areas; and delivering services to and protectingrefugees and victims of trafficking.

These changes have taken place in the context of three interrelated developments:

2

1) a changing and increasingly complex climate of risk in the region and beyond,

2) increased connectivity, including movements of people across the region, as a result ofadvances in technology, infrastructure, urbanisation and socio-economic development

3) the increasing strength, confidence and interest among diverse actors in the region - includinggovernments, regional organisations, faith-based organisations, and the private sector - to beengaged in humanitarian action.

To better understand these new challenges and new humanitarian approaches, the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) and Humanitarian ForumIndonesia (HFI) convened a conference, ‘Refreshing humanitarian action: developing and reframingresponses to meet new challenges’, on 24-25 February 2016 in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The conference was one of a series convened by the ICRC and HPG globally to explore the changingface of humanitarianism in the context of a rapidly evolving development cooperation landscape, withsignificant shifts in power and influence. As such, it brought together a diverse range of stakeholdersfrom across the region to explore the ways in which different actors are responding to a wide range ofcurrent humanitarian challenges in different contexts, to examine the common values and particularprinciples, perspectives and priorities involved in different approaches, and to consider the ways inwhich these different approaches could better complement each other to maximise the effectiveness ofhumanitarian action.

3All photos by: Langouran Ursula / ICRC

4

The emergence of a new crisisleadership in Southeast Asia

The conference opened with reflections on theexperience of Indonesia in leading recovery andreconstruction efforts in Aceh and Nias followingthe 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, which killed morethan 230,000 people in Indonesia alone. The crisisin Aceh was complex, resulting from a massivedisaster occurring in a province which was alreadysuffering from 30-years of armed conflict, withpoor infrastructure and weak government. Whenthe tsunami struck, Aceh had been under martiallaw and civil emergency for 18 months and was themost closed province in Indonesia. The Presidentof Indonesia almost immediately agreed to openAceh up to thousands of foreign aid workers tobring life-saving assistance to devastatedcommunities after the tsunami hit.

Leadership with a ‘crisis mindset’ was critical inensuring access for emergency aid from abroad, aswell as for the establishment of institutions withinIndonesia to manage a highly complex disasterrecovery and reconstruction process over manyyears. At the time of the tsunami, Indonesialacked a disaster management institution thatwas capable of managing such a massive andmultifaceted international disaster response effortinvolving so many sectors, and such a diverserange of stakeholders, at once. The Indonesiangovernment then took a decision to establish aspecial agency for rehabilitation andreconstruction. Ultimately, Indonesia’s leadershad to be willing to take risks and seek ‘out of thebox’ solutions, recognising that the crisis wasextraordinary and, therefore, called forextraordinary measures.

The importance of leadership in crisis was arecurring theme during the conference, and suchleadership was identified at many levels, includinggovernments, local organisations, affectedcommunities, international organisations,regional organisations, think tanks, the privatesector, and even at the level of individuals andprivate citizens.

Leadership is needed at every step of a disasterrecovery process, in: planning, managing andcoordinating; identifying and filling gaps; as wellas building trust and negotiating for access insituations on conflict and political tension. Anexample of the latter was the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN)role in providing a political bridge and buildingtrust between the Myanmar government andinternational community in the aftermath ofCyclone Nargis. Other examples given were in thecontext of peace-building in Maluku and the roleplayed by religious leaders in these efforts.

Crises in Asia: from large­scaledisasters to protractedsubnational conflict

While Asia is well-known for being the mostdisaster-prone region in the world and,increasingly, for its effective leadership in disastermanagement, the conference also highlighted thefact that humanitarian crises in Southeast Asiacame in many guises other than that of ‘natural’disasters. The less visible forms of crises in theregion include some of the world’s longest-runningcivil wars and subnational conflicts, ethnic andcommunal tensions, protracted displacement,refugee crises and human trafficking, such as inthe Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea.

While conflict in Asia may not always occur at anational scale as in some countries in otherregions such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia’sparticular experience of working with difficult,intractable, ethnic and communal conflict hasgenerated important peace-building practices,expertise, humanitarian diplomacy skills, andcrisis management experiences that ought to bedocumented and shared within the region and withother regions affected by such forms of conflict.This was particularly important since naturaldisasters frequently occur in areas affected byconflict, or in divided communities wherecommunal tension is high.

It was recognised that all stakeholders haveparticular sensitivities and principles, and thatthe challenge was to find a way to acknowledge,channel and coordinate diverse sensitivities andprinciples to work together in the interest ofsupporting those affected by conflicts and naturaldisasters, whether within the immediate region orbeyond.

5

‘Non­traditional’ or ‘traditional’?Renewed humanitarian

traditions in Asia

The conference highlighted how in Asia so-called‘non-traditional’ actors are, in fact, ‘traditional’institutions and practices with a long history ofhumanitarianism. These include religiousorganisations such as Muhammadiyah andBuddha Tzu Chi, both of whom have been involvedin numerous humanitarian operations inIndonesia and the wider region, and traditionalcustomary institutions like the fishermen’sassociation of Aceh ‘Panglima Laot’, who in May2015 used customary law as a foundation forrescuing thousands of refugees and migrants whohad been abandoned in the Andaman Sea.

While these institutions are not ‘new’, what isinnovative is the way in which these ‘traditional’institutions have evolved into modern massorganisations that support humanitarian actionand how unwritten ‘traditions’ are beingconnected to formal legal and policy-makingprocesses as well as social media and publicactivism.

In the view of some participants, the risingimportance of traditional systems and structures,including religious traditions, ethics andidentities, goes hand in hand with thestrengthening of local communities and either aweakening of the state or reduced dependence onit. At times of disaster, tradition – including faithtraditions – offer comfort, courage, solidarity, hopeand spiritual resilience, which is another reasonwhy communities must be engaged andempowered rather than imposed upon byoutsiders.

In terms of funding, the growing number ofhumanitarian actors in the region were becomingless dependent on donor resources, butincreasingly so on public donations. Indeed, someof these resource mobilisation mechanisms, suchas ‘zakat’, ‘sadaqah’ and mass volunteerism, couldalso be called ‘traditional’. Some of theseorganisations are also advancing innovation ofthese traditional mechanisms through the use ofnew technologies and platforms, including socialmedia and crowdfunding.

At the same time, a growing number of SoutheastAsians are responding to humanitarian crisesoutside their region. Examples include the

deployment of a number of organisations to Syriaand the joint response of Humanitarian ForumIndonesia, an Indonesian umbrella organization,and the Indonesian government to support reliefefforts following the 2015 Nepal earthquake.

The conference also allowed a betterunderstanding of who is involved in humanitarianaction in the region. In this regard, an importanttrend regarding humanitarian actors in SoutheastAsia is the prominent role that youth are playingin often highly innovative humanitarian effortsboth within and outside the region, whether asvolunteers, staff, or even as individuals.

The role of the state

While Asia is witnessing a rise in non-governmental actors, including faith-basedorganisations, it is also true that governments inAsia are only growing stronger and having anincreasingly important role in managing andoverseeing responses to humanitarian crises, aswell as in preparedness and regional cooperationfor disaster management and other forms ofhumanitarian action.

The role of governments is not, however, alwaysbenign, particularly in contexts of conflict wherethe state is an active belligerent and may beresponsible for violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law (IHL). Several speakers andparticipants spoke of a new era of ‘stateassertiveness’, or even ‘state aggressiveness’, andthe challenges in securing humanitarian spaceand ensuring respect for humanitarian principlesin such contexts.

6

Law, principles and ethics atinternational, national and local

levels

While peace negotiations are ongoing in severalsub-national conflicts across Southeast Asia, theprotection of civilians in situations of armedconflict continues to be severely challenged, andparticipants shared experiences of violations ofIHL. In these areas, civilians continue to be caughtup in armed conflict and those who fall victim to itmay have little recourse to accountability orjustice. In these areas, civilians are regularlydisplaced from their homes for extended periods oftime while access to humanitarian assistance isoften blocked or severely limited. Localorganisations who are able to gain more access toaffected communities are sometimes viewed withsuspicion and even hostility by security forces andlack adequate protection when working in non-ceasefire areas where military operationscontinue.

While respect for IHL and humanitarian principlesremains weak in some parts of Southeast Asia, andcivilian and refugee protection are still notenshrined in national law and regionalframeworks, significant progress has, nonetheless,been made in the area of disaster law in manycountries.

Facilitating increasedcooperation in disaster

management

(AADMER), the fastest negotiated agreement inASEAN’s history. AADMER is the world’s firstlegally-binding agreement based around theHyogo Framework of Action.

ASEAN also established the ASEAN CoordinatingCentre for Humanitarian Assistance on disastermanagement (AHA Centre) to facilitatecooperation and coordination among ASEANMember States, including national militaries, aswell as with the United Nations and internationalorganisations for disaster management andemergency response in the region. Looking toASEAN’s success in building commitment to astrong disaster policy and to building the capacityof the region’s governments in disastermanagement, participants voiced their hopes thatASEAN would start focusing on themultidimensionality of vulnerability and thedrivers and humanitarian consequences of varioustypes of crises beyond natural disasters, includingclimate change, conflict and forced displacement.

Good practices also exist at the sub-national level,as demonstrated by the Municipal Government ofLangsa’s humanitarian response to the Rohingyarefugee and Bangladeshi migrant crises in theAndaman Sea in May 2015. The initial emergencyresponse and provision of services was followed byefforts to integrate the refugees into Acehnesesociety through education, resettlement andcultural activities. The response eventuallyculminated in the development of standardoperating procedures and a code of ethics onhumanitarian assistance to refugees. Suchinitiatives, however, often happen in the absenceof political will to mobilise national and regionalframeworks, and participants noted theimportance of documenting such good practice, soas to influence policy thinking at national andregional levels.

While written policies and frameworks were seento be extremely important, a strong theme thatemerged during the conference was that ofculture, principles and ethics, often rooted inindigenous customary traditions, local wisdom aswell as in religious concepts and teachings. Theseincluded, for example, religious concepts ofgratitude, service and selflessness to others, andobligations in customary traditions to respect andprotect all life. This approach allows localcommunity-based and faith-based organisationsto receive a high level of acceptance in affectedcommunities. Meanwhile, interfaith initiativescontributed to peacebuilding efforts andfacilitated humanitarian action in dividedcommunities.

Disaster management has also received seriousattention at the regional level, with all ASEANMember States signing and ratifying the ASEANAgreement on Disaster Management andEmergency Response

7

Linking to sustainability andglobal processes

For the diverse actors who inhabit SoutheastAsia’s humanitarian landscape, all share arecognition of the linkages between humanitarianconcerns and development issues, whether incontexts of disaster, conflict, or climate change. Inthe context of post-disaster recovery andreconstruction, governments stressed thathumanitarian actors must consider the long-termimplications of humanitarian interventions andapproaches, which can sometimes be negative ifnot carefully developed based on anunderstanding of the context. For example, in acomplex situation where a disaster occurs in aconflict-affected community, providing aid to onlydisaster-affected communities could riskgenerating social jealousies at a community levelwhich could, in turn, undermine efforts to supporta transition away from violence. Governmentswere also concerned about the lack ofsustainability of aid efforts and the critical need tostrengthen preparedness of their own governmentsystems and institutions to cope with the disastersof the future.

The issue of sustainability – both in terms ofhumanitarian capacities and of the link betweencrisis prevention, recovery and sustainabledevelopment – was raised by diverse actors, fromcivil society to the private sector. All participantsagreed that the most critical ingredient in buildingsustainability was the need to engage with thecommunity and a wide range of stakeholders towork together on the basis of a shared vision andcommon goal.

Private sector participants gave examples of howworking to reduce environmental footprints and tomove towards sustainable sources of rawmaterials went beyond simple Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) and were part of a morefundamental change in business approach. At thesame time, civil society was increasingly engagingwith a wide range of actors, including governmentand the private sector, to build innovativepartnerships.

These partnerships and platforms for sharing werehappening not only at the national level, but alsotransnationally. Such collaboration revealsincreasing interconnectedness as well as a newconnectivity made possible by new technologiesand freedoms, the latter of

which stem from a growing respect for the role ofcivil society in humanitarian assistance,development and the protection of rights.

While there was already much horizontal andtransnational coordination, vertical coordinationbetween local and national organisations, many ofthem key players, and established governmentaland humanitarian forums needed to be improved.There was a clear need to build trust andaccountability between diverse humanitarianactors, particularly between the government,humanitarian and private sectors.

Issues at the local and regional levels were alsolinked by participants to global processes,including the Post-2015 Sustainable DevelopmentGoals, the Sendai Framework for Disaster RiskReduction and the World Humanitarian Summit,and some organisations were concerned thatefforts to impose a global framework aligning civiland military authorities with humanitarian actorsmight undermine a complementarity of differentapproaches. But while it was apparent that diversehumanitarian actors in Asia saw their efforts asbeing linked to these global agendas, the role ofthe international community, including the UnitedNations, in the region was sometimes less thancentral.

The picture that emerged was one of a dynamicregion where local, national and regional actorsare coming into their own, gaining confidence tobe not only participants but shapers of their ownsolutions and approaches; a region increasinglyless dependent on international actors andincreasingly keen to take the lead in various formsof humanitarian and development commitments.In such a context, a rethinking of the role thatinternational agencies should play in Asia is muchneeded, and global processes such as the WHSwould do well to be informed by these regionalrealities.

8

All photos by: Langouran Ursula / ICRC

R E P O R T

Humanitarian Policy Group

Overseas Development Institute203 Blackfriars Road

London SE1 8NJUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300Fax:+44 (0)20 7922 0399Email: odi@odi.org.uk

Twitter: @hpg_odiwww.odi.org

Humanitarian Forum Indonesia

Jl. KH. Wahid Hasyim No.2 Jakarta Pusat10340

IndonesiaTel: +62 21 392 8756

Fax: +62 21 3983 7302Email:

secretariat@humanitarianforumindonesia.org

Twitter : @HF_Indonesiawww.humanitarianforumindonesia.org

ICRC Regional Delegationfor Indonesia and Timor Leste

Jl. Iskandarsyah 1 No. 14 , Kebayoran BaruJakarta Selatan 12160

IndonesiaTel : +6221 739 6756, 720 7252

Fax : +6221 739 9512Email : dja_djakarta@icrc.org atau

djakarta@icrc.orgTwitter: @ICRC_id

www.icrc.org

Front cover: Olivier Matthys / ICRC