HUMANITARIAN POLICY
PROF. DR. BRUNO DE CORDIER
DEPARTMENT OF CONFLICT AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
GHENT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020
Image: ©José Cendon (with permission)
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITARIAN AID… WHAT IS IT?
• interventions and actions intended to save lives, alleviate suffering and
maintain human dignity during and after man-made crises and
disasters caused by natural hazards, as well as to prevent further
deterioration of conditions, and strengthen preparedness for when
such situations occur (= the overall, conventional definition).
• raison d’être: emergencies, crises and disasters
•
the ‘pure types’ of disasters and emergencies:
–
–
–
–
physical-natural (geophysical, climatological, hydrological, and
biological);
technological;
epidemiological;
societal (‘human-caused’) and ‘complex political emergencies’;
• in practice:
–
–
–
–
most are of hybrid nature, causes and consequences;
≠vulnerablity degrees;
not all emergencies or disasters become humanitarian crises;
≠ between ‘actual victims’ and the ‘affected population’;
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITARIAN AID… WHAT IS IT?
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
THE RELATIONSHIP TO DEVELOPMENT AID
≠
DEVELOPMENT AID
HUMANITARIAN AID
AND EMERGENCY RELIEF
(A.K.A. ‘DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION’,
‘DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE’, ‘TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE’, … )
Yet, major overlaps/‘grey zones’
• project genealogies;
• operational contexts;
• the relative of the ‘short term’
• hybrid aid organisations;
• post-emergency
reconstruction;
• emergency preparedness and
resilience.
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HOW MUCH?
2018: 28.9 billion $ (officially reported)
China, India and
Bangladesh
floods, tropical
storms
Yugoslav wars and
state implosions in
Somalia, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, …
Seaquake and
tsunami
Haiti earthquake
and Pakistan floods
Yemen war and
Arab intervention
Syrian and South
Sudanese wars
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
WHERE TO?
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITARIAN AID… WHAT IS IT?
• ≠ humanitarian aid and emergency relief
emergency relief
humanitarian aid
• deployed during acute
emergency phase (≤72
hours after occurence);
• more specific activities;
• more prevalent during
natural and
technological disasters
• longer-term (for
months, often years
after occurence);
• more multi-sectoral;
• more prevalent during
human-caused disasters
and complex political
emergencies
• the notion and practices of humanitarian space
• a physically secure space;
• a space defined by the application and applicability of 4 fundamental
humanitarian principles (‘the ICRC core principles’, °1965):
–
–
–
–
humanity,
neutrality,
impartiality,
and operational independence
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITARIAN AID… WHAT IS IT?
• the notion and practices of humanitarian space
• culture and anthropology as key components of the
humanitarian space: universalism
cultural particularism;
• the ‘humanitarian dilemma’: when aid presence feeds the problem …
• historical example: North Korean food crisis and floods (1995-99);
• current example: Libya and the Central Mediterranean maritime
migration (since 2011, cf. map below);
Map source, and thematic article: The New York Times, 2017,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/14/world/europe/migrant-rescue-efforts-deadly.html
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
FROM WHOM TO WHOM?
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
THE RISE OF IN-DONOR COUNTRY REFUGEE COSTS
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
EMERGENCIES AS A RAISON D’ÊTRE
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
EMERGENCIES AS A RAISON D’ÊTRE
The geography of displacement (2018, in number of individuals)
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
EMERGENCIES AS A RAISON D’ÊTRE
Internally-displaced by natural disasters
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
MAIN ACTORS AND DIMENSIONS
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
MAIN ACTORS AND DIMENSIONS
2. The specialized UN agencies
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
THE HUMANITARIAN
SECTOR’S EIGHT MAIN
ACTORS AND -DIMENSIONS
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
FOUNDING CURRENTS AND -TRADITIONS
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE DONOR GOVERNMENTS
2. The specialized UN agencies
•
the Development Assistance
Committee of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (‘the DAC group’,
°1962)
•
•
•
member countries and institutions: 9 in 1962; 30
since 2016;
historically delivers 78 to
95% of official aid globally;
DAC regulations:
–
–
–
–
–
•
abide by the DAC
definition of aid;
DAC beneficiary
countries list;
the ‘86% grant rule’;
obligation to report aid
flows;
abide to defined
development goals
‘DAC-ability’ as a
universal donorship
norm?
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
THE DONOR GOVERNMENTS
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE DONOR GOVERNMENTS
•
a closer and concise look at some major governmental donor
institutions
•
United States
– US Agency for International Development (USAID, °1961),
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance
• Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance (°1964, all fields
except food aid)
• Office of Food for Peace (‘title II-V food aid’)
– United States Department of Agriculture (‘title I food aid’);
– sub-contracting to NGOs, specialized UN agencies, and the
ICRC and IFRC (especially the American Red Cross);
•
European Union
–
–
European Commission Directorate-General for European Civil
Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (‘DG ECHO’,
°2010)
sub-contracting to ±200 partner NGOs, UN agencies and
ICRC and IFRC
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE DONOR GOVERNMENTS
•
a closer and concise look at some major governmental donor
institutions
•
Saudi Arabia
•
King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (°2015)
–
–
–
–
replaced the controversial quasi-governmental aid
agency al-Igata (IIRO) in an internal centralisation
and international image improvement move;
under direct control of the ruling family;
new donorship drive in the Arab sphere;
attempts to join the mainstream international aid
industry, has cooperation agreements with various UN
agencies and UN relief funds
• Muslim World League (°1962)
–
–
–
–
officially a pan-Islamic NGO, yet…;
founded al-Igata (IIRO) in 1978;
major organ for pan-Islamic soft power of Saudi
Arabia;
internationally promoted Wahhabo-Salafism, recently
presented and packed in a more ‘moderate’ and
‘presentable‘ form.
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE SPECIALIZED UN AGENCIES
2. The specialized UN agencies
•
the UN (°1945), a group or
‘institutional family’
–
–
–
–
–
•
6 core political institutions;
17 specialized agencies;
6 funds and programmes;
8 other entities and bodies;
6 related organisations;
the United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration
(UNRRA, 1943-47)
–
–
–
US-initiated programme under
Allied command to war- and
occupation-affected Europe
(except Germany and German
displaced) and China;
disbursed 2.9 billion US$
(±75% US-funded) in aid,
especially to China, Poland,
Yugoslavia, Greece and western
USSR, and to fomer war
prisoners and concentration
camp inmates;
worked with ±125 private and
faith-based charities
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
THE SPECIALIZED UN AGENCIES
Look for the difference(es)
©José Cendon
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE SPECIALIZED UN AGENCIES
Examples of agencies or offices under the UN Secretariat
•
•
•
°1991 (initially a supervision organ for
the humanitarian aid of the UN
agencies);
now coordination department (led by
an Under-Secretary-General) of UN
and non-UN humanitarian aid;
conducts needs mapping, and
launches humanitarian funding
appeals;
has no aid operations of its own, but
manages the CERF (°2006, funding
558 million $ in 2018), the CountryBased Pooled Funds (now 17, totaling
817 million US$ ), the Financial
Tracking Service (°1992) and the
Reliefweb portal (°1996);
•
had (u. 2015) its own news agency
(IRIN Humanitarain News and
Analysis, now The New Humanitarian);
•
based in New York and Geneva
•
°2004 (replaced UNSECOORD);
•
UN security department (led by an
Under-Secretary-General); general
security management and security
training for UN and non-US staff;
regulates and supervises country-level
security policies;
•
has no aid operations of its own;
gained relevance as security situation
in many places with humanitarian
presence becomes increasingly
problematic;
•
funded on core UN funds;
•
based in Addis Abeba
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE SPECIALIZED UN AGENCIES
Examples of independent UN agencies
•
°1950 (initially a 3-year program;
replaced the International Refugee
Organisation);
•
provides full-range humanitarian
assistance to refugees, IDPs an
returnees, and juridical protection ;
•
25 à 40% of its aid is delivered
through NGOs (±160 international,
470 national and local);
•
•
funded by donor country contributions
(3.55 billion $ in 2019, of which US
47%, EC 13%, Germany 5,5%,
Sweden 4%, Japan 3,5%, …) and
private contributions (±10%);
•
°1961 (first as a 3-year FAO food aid
programme; ind. In 1965);
•
specialized in food aid, food security
rehabilitation and humanitarian
logistics; is the largest humanitarian
UN agency (and one of the largest aid
organisations worldwide);
•
± 75% of its aid is delivered through
NGOs (±1,000 in 2016, 80% national
and local);
•
manages an own airline (UNHAS);
•
funded by donor country contributions
(8 billion $ in 2019, of which US 41%,
FRG 11%, UK and EC 9% each, Saudi
Arabia 5%, UAE 3%);
•
based in Rome
based in Geneva
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE SPECIALIZED UN AGENCIES
Examples of independent UN agencies
•
°1949 (UN General Assembly
Resolution №302 (IV));
•
is the only region-specific
humanitarian UN agency (along with
UN Korean Reconstruction Agency,
1950-58);
•
full-range humanitarian aid and social
infrastructure to Palestinian refugees
(and their descendents) in Jordan,
Lebanon, Gaza and Cis-Jordan, and
Syria;
•
funded by donor country contributions
(1.27 billion in 2018, of which EC
14%, Germany 14%, Saudi Arabia
10%, … ); US withdrew funding in
2018;
•
based in Amman and Gaza
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS MOVEMENT
2. The specialized UN agencies
• origins: (group around) Henri Dunant
– Geneva, 1863: °Comité international de
secours aux blessés durant les guerres (later
Comité internationale de la Croix-Rouge);
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
– Geneva, 1864: °Croix-Rouge internationale;
– first national sections in France, Belgium,
Prussia and Denmark (1864) (later also
outside of Europe: Ottoman empire 1868,
Japan 1877, Argentina 1880, US 1881, … );
• the Geneva Conventions on…
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
– 1864: ‘protection of wounded and sick
combatants’;
– 1906: ‘amelioration of the condition of the
wounded and sick in armies in the field’;
– 1929: ‘treatment of prisoners of war’;
– 1949: ’protection of civilians in times of war’;
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
– + 2 protocols in 1977 and 1 in 2005;
– (!) ≠ Geneva Protocol (1925) and the
Geneva Refugee Convention (1951)!
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS MOVEMENT
Non-recognized or disused symbols
Three levels…
1. The International
Comittee of the Red Cross
(ICRC-CICR, °1863)
The 3 officially-recognized
symbols (since June 2006)
2. The International
Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC-FICR,
°1919 as League of the
Red Cross )
…
3. The 192 (2019)
recognized
national member
societies
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE HUMANITARIAN NGOS
2. The specialized UN agencies
• first modern humanitarian NGOs
(properly speaking): the Save the
Children Fund (°1919) and CARE
(°1945);
• increasing importance and large
proliferation of NGOs from 1980-90s
(1968: 377 NGOs with ECOSOSC
consultative status, 5,161 in 2019);
• differ from classical charities, despite
no universal definition of a humanitarian
NGO:
– article 71 in chapter X of the UN
Charter (1945): first official
mentioning;
– UN Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) resolution №288-B (X)
(1950): ‘international NGO = every
international organisation not
founded by an inter-state treaty’;
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE
THE HUMANITARIAN
HUMANITARIAN NGOS
NGOS
• differ from classical charities, despite no universal definition of a
humanitarian NGO:
• in practice, wide range of organisations with common
charateristics:
– are institutionally not connected to state authorities and
governments, are are not staffed or managed by civil servants
and government-employees-in-function (yet: the case of
‘government-organized non-governmental organizations’ or
GONGOs);
– operate non-profit;
– are formed on voluntary bases;
– operate for (a) common goal(s) and common interests
and have modes of operations and run activities to achieve
that (these) goal(s);
– are organised at the local, national or international level
(or all three);
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE
THE HUMANITARIAN
HUMANITARIAN NGOS
NGOS
• NGOs and the ‘aid chain’
• international (globally-operating) NGOs (cross-compared)
– ±900 to 2,500 (depending on source and definition) internationally
active humanitarian NGOs, yet ±25% of humanitarian expenditure
by international NGOs in 2018 came from the ‘big-six’ (MSF,
World Vision, International Rescue Committee, Norwegian Refugee
Council, Save the Children and Catholic Relief Service);
– predominance of so-called ‘confederal NGOs’;
– predominance of hybrid NGOs, i.e. conduct humanitarian aid as well and
development acitivies (≠ratios);
– ≠ amounts of expatriate aid workers;
– ≠ funding patterns: e.g. in 2018 MSF (1.69 billion $, 95% privatelyfunded; Norwegian Refugee Council (0.463 billion $, 23% funded by
Norway, 17% by European Commission, 20% UN, 5% privately); World
Vision (2.75 billion $, ±60% private, 20% in-kind donations, 20% by
federal US government; … );
– explicitly faith-based (World Vision) and categorically-secular (MSF);
– some have aid activities and volunteer wings in home country;
…
– emphasis switch to advocacy rather than field aid (e.g. Action Aid)
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE
THE HUMANITARIAN
HUMANITARIAN NGOS
NGOS
• NGOs and the ‘aid chain’
• national and local NGOs
– no consolidated number, estimates go in the tens of thousands
(extensibility of the definition: only NGOs-as-we-define-them, or also ad
hoc ‘one-project structures’, social movements, traditional local charities,
farmers’ associations, neighborhood committees, … ?);
– main implementers of humanitarian aid at the national and local
level, most often as sub-contractors of international NGOs, UN
agencies, and larger(er) national NGOs;
– ≠ activity patterns: full-range aid and sector-specialized NGOs, nationallyoperating NGOs and NGOs only working in one (or a few)
municipality(ies) of district(s), …
– an ideal or ‘waterproof’ approach?
• varying quality: from dodgy and amateurish to highly professional and
well-organised;
• largely donor-oriented, or true representatives of the grassroots?
• more national NGOs at the beginning of the ‘aid chain’?
• an incubator for the regionalisation and de-internationalisation of aid?
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN EMPLOYMENT
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPERS
2. The specialized UN agencies
•
•
•
by the United Nations, regional organisations
(African Union, ECOWAS, …), European
Union, ad hoc coalitions, …
are (strictly speaking) not a humanitarian
actor but highly political operations
(implementation of peace agreements,
support to a transitional government, border
monitoring, … );
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
however…
–
most often operate in the same crisis
contexts as humanitarian aid workers (cf.
map on next slide);
–
can be deployed to protect humanitarian
convoys;
–
do sometimes conduct relief operations
where it is too dangerous for civilian aid
workers to do so;
–
local frustrations about several UN (and
other) peacekeeping operations affect
position and access of humanitarian UN
agencies and civilian aid workers (e.g.
MONUSCO in the DRC).
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPERS
For a higher resolution of this map: www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/mpo19_0.pdf
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPERS
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
HUMANITARIAN AID AND THE RECIPIENT ECONOMIES
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECIPIENT COUNTRIES
2. The specialized UN agencies
• ≠ formal-official authorities and informal
authorities !
• formal authorities
– the national and sub-national
governance institutions of UNrecognized Westphalian states;
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
– attitudes, experiences and
practices widely differ;
– mainy aid agencies have
implementation agreements with
national host governments (e.g.
=obligatory in the UN):
instrumentalisation in local
political dynamics?
– even with formal authorities, in many
cultures informal networks and
inter-personal connections
matter more than written formal
agreements;
– in some cases: ‘shove-off’ of civil
protection and social policies on
foreign aid organisations;
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RECIPIENT COUNTRIES
• ≠ formal-official authorities and informal authorities !
• formal authorities
– increasing conditionality-and-moralisation wearyness: re-orientation to
non-DAC donors?
– in number of recipient countries (India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, … ): growing
restrictions on foreign(-funded) NGOs;
– (often long and intensive) experience of recipient governments with international
aid: incubator for own donorship policies and de-internationalised
humanitarian aid?
• informal authorities
– wide range of actors: traditional authorities and -actors, religious authorities
and -actors, clanic and regionalist networks, authorities and actors in the
informal economy, gangs, …
– are locally and in daily practice often more important than the formal state
authorities;
– norms and values differ starkly from those of (or advocated by) the
international aid sector;
– what with non-recognised states (e.g. Somaliland) and areas under nongovernmental governance (e.g. Donbass in southeastern Ukraine)?
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
2. The specialized UN agencies
•
•
involves transnational corporations as well as
(local) small and medium enterprises;
how?
–
–
the humanitarian sector as a
customer of both the transnationalcorporate and the local private sector;
•
purchase of aid goods, equipment
and services;
•
the ‘consultant ecology’;
•
the case for local and
triangular purchases of food
aid;
the private sector as donor and
initiator of humanitarian initiatives
•
active role of local entrepreneur(s)
(networks) in immediate relief;
•
(contested) donations from
corporate philanthropists
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
5. International peacekeepers
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
1. The donor governments
(the ‘DAC Group’ and others)
THE BENEFICIARY POPULATIONS AND RECIPIENT SOCIETIES
2. The specialized UN agencies
•
a real ‘last, but not least’…
•
= by far one of the most under- or misestimated actors in the humanitarian
sphere;
•
worlwide population reportedly in need of
some form and quantity of humanitarian
assistance in 2018: 201.5 million;
•
the role of international media coverage and
humanitarian PR and –fundraising materials
(but also certain local actors… ) in the
popular and persistent cliché of helpless
amorphous mass at the receiving end;
5. International peacekeepers
consist, and belong to, active and complex
societies which…
6. The authorities of/in the
recipient countries
-
•
–
traditionally have their own
mechanisms to deal with (recurrent)
disaster and crisis situations;
–
are not wholesale poor and
destitute;
3. The International Red Cross
Movement
4. The humanitarian NGOs
(international, national and local)
7. The private sector
(in/of the donor countries,
recipient countries as well as
iintermediate countries)
8. The beneficiaries, populations
and the societies in/of the
recipient countries
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
THE BENEFICIARY POPULATIONS AND RECIPIENT SOCIETIES
•
consist, and belong to, active and complex societies which…
–
are not dumb and naïve (cf. have ways to actively capitalise on foreign
presence, ‘aid wearyness’, strong consciousness of political and cultural reformating designs behind foreign aid, … );
–
have own, active practices of charity and social solidarity by the
‘veritable civil society’ (or’ civil-society-as-it-is’)…
•
•
•
•
•
–
•
religious institutions and -networks;
political clientelist networks;
diasporas and financial remittances;
youth wings of political movements;
professional associations, guilds, …;
parallel systems of self-goverance and informal economies in refugee- and
IDP camps and –settlements;
some symptoms and impacts of ‘aid indigestion’ (at least among some
sectors of society)
–
–
–
–
‘aid profiteering’ and cynicism (including exaggerating needs);
wrong or inflated expectations and entitlement cultures;
price speculation and salary inflation;
growing social and cultural hostility among the grassroots and local
authorities vis-à-vis local employees (‘aid elites’) of international aid
organisations and sub-contracted local NGOs.
©José Cendon
HUMANITARIAN POLICY
HUMANITAIR BELEID
READING LIST ON HUMANTARIAN AID
Standard works and handbooks
Journals and reviews
• Clapp, Jennifer (2012), ‘Hunger in the balance.
The new politics of international food aid’,
Cornell University Press.
• Disasters ̶ The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy
and Management, www.odi.org/projects/2952disasters;
• Dijkzeul, Dennis en Herman, Joost (2010),
Humanitaire ruimte: tussen onpartijdigheid en
politiek’, Academia Press.
• Alternatives humanitaires-Humanitarian
alternatives , alternatives-humanitaires.org/fr/
(available in French and English);
• Lieser, Jürgen, Dijkzeul, Dennis (2013),
‘Handbuch humanitäre Hilfe’, Springer Verlag.
• Mac Ginthy, Roger, Peterson, Jenny H. (2013)
‘The Routledge companion on humanitarian
action’, Routledge.
• Ryfman, Philippe (2016), ‘Une histoire de
l’humanitaire’, La Découverte.
• Tarp, Finn (2002), ‘Foreign aid and
development. Lessons learnt and directions
for the future’, Taylor and Francis.
• Allen, Tim, McDonald, Anna, Radice, Henry
(eds.) (2018), 'Humanitarianism: a dictionary
of concepts', Routledge.
• The European Journal of Development Research,
www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41287 ;
• Humanitarian Exchange, the Working &
Discussion Papers, the Briefing Papers and
the Research Reports of the Humanitarian Policy
Group of the Overseas Development Institute,
www.odi.org/publications ;
• Humanitaires en movement- Humanitarian aid on
the move, by the Groupe Urgence, Réhabilitation
et Développement, www.urd.org/en/publication/
(available in French and English);
• Forced Migration Review, www.fmreview.org/
(materials available in four languages).;
• Revue internationale de la Croix-RougeInternational Review of the Red Cross,
international-review.icrc.org/fr (materials available
in five languages).
©José Cendon