Crisis Management Beyond the Humanitarian-Development Nexus

Front matter

JS m. mm z

SN lanage ement

A nita A TF] an

PART I Background and foundation

1 Introduction: addressing the humanitarian-development nexus since the Cold War YUKIE OSA AND ATSUSHI HANATANI

2 Atheory for the continuum: multiple approaches to humanitarian crises management OSCAR A. GOMEZ AND CHIGUMI KAWAGUCHI

PART II Humanitarian crisis management in armed conflicts

3 The continuum in the management of armed conflict: an overview TOSHIYA HOSHINO AND CHIGUMI KAWAGUCHI

4 Should the ‘continuum’ for peacebuilding focus on development or conflict prevention?

The case of Timor-Leste YUKAKO SAKABE TANAKA AND TOMOAKI HONDA ix xi xiv xui XX vill

Contents

Comparative analysis of donor approaches to the continuum under a fragile peace: the case of South Sudan

CHIGUMI KAWAGUCHI

The Syrian Civil War: politicization of the crisis and challenges and dilemmas for humanitarian response RYOJI TATEYAMA

PART III Humanitarian crisis management of disasters

The continuum in the management of disasters: an overview HIROSHI HIGASHIURA AND OSGAR A. GOMEZ

Prevention through the continuum of crisis management: the case of Honduras after Hurricane Mitch

OSCAR A. GOMEZ

How can recovery be linked with long-term development? The case of Indonesia MIKIO ISHIWATARI

Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines: qualitative analysis of institutional and political factors influencing the continuum

YASUHITO JIBIKI AND YUICHI ONO

The continuum beyond the humanitarian-development nexus ATSUSHI HANATANI, OSCAR A. GOMEZ AND CHIGUMI KAWAGUCHI

Index

Figures and tables

Figures

1.1 Distribution of international humanitarian assistance and top seven governmental and EU institutional donors, 2016 11 2.1 Timing and intensity of the three tracks for livelihoods recovery 23 2.2 Linear model 29 2.3 Multilayered activities model 29 2.4 Multilayered activities model applied to a protracted crisis 31 3.1 Overlapping intervention models between peace and conflict 40 3.2 The core business of multi-dimensional United Nations

peacekeeping operations 42 4.1 ODA disbursements to Timor-Leste 53 4.2 ODA sectoral disbursements by donor 57 5.1 Bilateral ODA by sector for South Sudan, 2013-2014 average 78

5.2 Total assistance to Sudan (2001-2011) and South Sudan (2011-2014) by DAC countries and EU institutions across phases of transitions 90 7.1 The disaster management cycle 128 8.1 Timeline of policy events relevant to the disaster management 142 8.2 Bilateral aid to Honduras, 1997-2011 144 8.3. Commitments to the reconstruction process 147 9.1 ‘Trends and key indicators in Aceh and Yogyokarta 165 10.1 Total cumulative amount of ODA (2005-2014): comparison between “all sectors’ and ‘humanitarian aid’ 186 Tables 2.1 Summary of general approaches to the continuum 25 6.1 Number of Syrian refugees in neighboring countries 106 6.2 Number of beneficiaries by cross-border operations of the UN and its partners, July 2014 to February 2017 108

6.3. UK DFID funding inside Syria by organizations, 2011-2014 111 x Last of figures and tables

US humanitarian assistance inside Syria, FY 2013-2016 Evolving recovery mechanisms in Indonesia

Good practices of linking recovery and long-term development Chronology of events following Typhoon Yolanda

Analysis of disasters and armed conflict case studies

Factors affecting success of the continuum

112 178 180 188 216 220

Contributors

Oscar A. Gómez is Research Fellow at the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute. He holds a Ph.D. on Environmental Studies from Tohoku University. His main interest is global governance and the theorypractice of human security, with special emphasis on the environment, migration, disasters, and international cooperation. He was part of a panel discussion at the UN on human security operationalization in 2013, and co-authored background papers for 2014 and 2016 Human Development Reports. He has worked as a consultant for several UN agencies in Latin America. Alongside this book, he is editing another volume on human security norms in the ASEAN+3, and preparing new research on emerging powers and non-Western humanitarianism.

Atsushi Hanatani is Senior Advisor and former Senior Director at the Office for Peacebuilding and Reconstruction at the Japan International Cooperation Agency in Tokyo. He has a Ph.D. in International Development from Nagoya University. His research interests include common pool resources management, peacebuilding studies and African development. He is a regular member of the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF), DAC, and has participated as Panelist/ Moderator/Presenter in international fora such as Solutions Alliance (SA) Roundtable, International Dialogue on Migration (IDM) organized by IOM and the Forum on Refugee and Migration Policy organized by the International Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House.

Hiroshi Higashiura is Professor at the Japanese Red Cross Academy. His fields of research are Red Cross history, disaster management, international humanitarian law, international disaster laws & regulations, global health, and disaster nursing. He started his 37-year Red Cross career in 1970 at the Japanese Red Cross Society. Since then, he has worked at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies as a preparedness officer (1976-1981) and as head of the Asia & Pacific Department (1997-2002). He joined the Japanese Red Cross Academy as a professor in 2007.

Tomoaki Honda is Research Fellow at the Ganon Institute for Global Studies. He has a Ph.D. in Media and Governance from Keio University. His fields xii

List of contributors of research are public policy studies (Japan), international peace cooperation, peacebuilding, and non-traditional security studies. His main research interest is Japan’s peacebuilding policy and ways of using Japan Self Defense Forces for peace operations. His recent works focused on Japan’s changing Peace Keeping Operations policy under the present Cabinet.

Toshiya Hoshino is Guest Professor, former Dean of Osaka School of Interna-

M tional Public Policy and former Vice President for Global Engagement at Osaka University. He received his Ph.D. in International Public Policy from Osaka University. He was a previous Minister-Counselor the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations, Senior Research Fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Guest Scholar at Columbia University, Visiting Fellow at Princeton University; and Special Assistant, the Embassy of Japan in the United States. He is a specialist in international politics and security studies, United Nations system studies, UN peace and security (conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding), human security and humanitarian issues, security in the Asia-Pacific region as well as Japan’s foreign and defense policies.

ikio Ishiwatari is Senior Advisor in Disaster Management and Water Resources Management at Japan International Cooperation Agency and Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo. He received his Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Tokyo. His fields of research are international studies as well as development assistance in disaster risk reduction and reconstruction. His previous positions include Senior DRM (Disaster Risk Management) Specialist and Senior Water Specialist at the World Bank; various positions related to DRM at the Ministry of Land Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan; and Urban Development Specialist at the Asian Development Bank.

Yasuhito Jibiki is Assistant Professor at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University. He received his Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Informatics (major in International Relations) from the University of Tokyo. Before his posting at IRIDeS, he served as Project Assistant Professor of the Center for Integrated Disaster Information Research, the University of Tokyo (2010-2013). His current research focuses on disaster risk reduction in the international settings; examining efforts by sovereign states in adopting international norms into their local contexts and developing their own original standardization systems and frameworks.

Chigumi Kawaguchi is Research Fellow at the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute (JICA-RI). She received her Ph.D. in International Public Policy from Osaka University. Her fields of research are comparative politics, security studies, international organization studies, international peace cooperation, peacebuilding, and conflict prevention. Before joining JICA-RI, she worked as a researcher in the International Peace Cooperation Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the International

List of contributors xiii

Peace Cooperation Office in the Cabinet Office of Japan, and in the Graduate School of Security Studies at the National Defense Academy. She is currently working on a new research project in JICA-RI on gender-based violence in conflict-affected areas.

Yuichi Ono is Professor at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University, Assistant Director of IRIDeS, Chair of the Multi-Hazard Program of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, and Director of the Global Centre for Disaster Statistics (a joint program with UNDP). He has a Ph.D. in Geography from Kent State University. His fields of research are international policy on disaster risk reduction, early warning systems and wind-related disasters. He previously held positions at the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP in Bangkok).

Yukie Osa is Professor at the Graduate School of Social Design Studies, Rikkyo University, and represents the Association for Aid and Relief, Japan (AAR). She received her Ph.D. in Human Security Studies from the University of Tokyo. Her fields of research are human security studies, international humanitarian law, transitional justice, and genocide studies. As head of emergency assistance operations, she was involved in AAR programs in Cambodia, the Former-Yugoslavia, Mozambique, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and other countries. As a member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), she led the Japanese Mine Ban Campaign during and after the Ottawa Process. She was also a member of the Advisory Group for the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (UNCERF).

Yukako Sakabe Tanaka is Assistant Professor of the School of International Politics, Economics and Communication, Aoyama Gakuin University. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Waseda University. Her research focuses on the political economy of institutions, the causes of conflict, conflict resolution, democratization, state-building, and international cooperation, especially related to weak states. She previously worked at the Faculty of Political Science and Economics,Waseda University, the Embassy of Japan in Timor-Leste, the International Peace Cooperation Office in the Cabinet Office of Japan, and the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan. Her most recent paper discusses why democratization and state-building cause political violence in new democracies.

Ryoji Tateyama is Emeritus Professor of the National Defense Academy and a Visiting Fellow of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. He specializes in contemporary politic and international relations in the Middle East. He had previously worked for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA) and the Japanese Institute of Middle Eastern Economies.

Foreword

Despite important gains against poverty around the world, many people are still affected by humanitarian crises. The lives and dignity of people are threatened by conflicts, natural disasters, extremism, hunger, worsening refugee situations, and infectious diseases, among others. In addressing such humanitarian crises, efforts by the global community are not limited to offers of short-term relief but also include support for long-term recovery and development activities, as well as the establishment of foundations for the prevention of similar crises in the future. Consequently, it is imperative to catalyze collective action effectively in order to achieve the best possible outcomes in these areas. This need for collective action was articulated at the outset of the present humanitarian system by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 46/182 of 1991 as a ‘continuum from relief to rehabilitation and development.’ Since the inception of the Japan International Cooperation Agency’s ( JICA’s) operational strategy of providing integrated and ‘seamless’ assistance in 2008, JICA has dealt with several challenges from actual emergencies and in their aftermaths. The integration of the different phases of inter-linked activities—from humanitarian relief to long-term development with prevention—as a single crisis management process requires the improvement of our assistance system.

Japan’s approach in international cooperation has been consciously geared towards helping partner countries become self-reliant states and working with them on an equal footing. In pursuing our philosophy of international cooperation, and aspiring to the creation of a free, peaceful and prosperous world for everyone, JICA continues to find and provide tailored and context-specific assistance for places in crisis. Hence, it is crucial to study the needs of recipient countries and design development cooperation effectively in partnership with them.

This volume is a tangible proof of our commitment to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that states that ‘no one will be left behind,’ and to the outcomes of the World Humanitarian Summit 2016 in Istanbul. At JICA, we explore the challenges faced by bilateral cooperation agencies in doing more than just providing relief after humanitarian crises to be more effective in dealing with them. In this regard, as this book clearly shows, the understanding of the non-linear transition across all phases within the crisis response process continuum should be recognized among both humanitarian and development agencies.

Foreword xv

In order to develop assistance strategies that will leave no one behind, international and local partners need to consider the great challenge of advancing all types of prevention activities, and the central role that local actors can play in addressing crises. The wide-ranging reviews and perspectives on the practices of crisis management offered in this book will help readers develop an understanding of the current situation and its associated obstacles, as well as ideas on how we should change the system to realize the continuum.

Shinichi Kitaoka President Japan International Cooperation Agency

Preface

In 2015, the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute (JICA-RI) initiated a three-year project, the ‘Comparative Study of Humanitarian Crisis Management from the Perspective of Bilateral Cooperation Agencies.’ The aims of the project were developing a better understanding and drawing attention to the difficulty of linking humanitarian and development actions. Originally, the project sought to evaluate human security in practice in Japanese ODA through the lens of JICA's ‘Seamless Assistance’ approach. However, this was transformed into a more inclusive review and evaluation of various approaches and tools across a variety of crises in different parts of the world.

This eleven-chapter volume is composed of contributions from established practitioners and academics in the field of human security and humanitarian crisis management. In order to see this history of crisis management in detail, the research is comprised not only of reviews of policies and consultation with the headquarters of major organizations, but also includes selected case studies that present humanitarian crisis management experiences over the last two decades. These case studies were chosen on the basis of their scale and impact on affected communities, the range of actors in crisis areas, geographical diversity, and the new challenges they brought to humanitarian crisis management. The book validates and assesses the continuum of humanitarian crisis management for both natural disasters and conflict-affected areas.

This book is organized into three key sections. Part I provides the background and analytical framework of the book. Chapter | presents the evolutionary process that led to the rise of international humanitarianism, important trends and reforms initiated in the international community as well as the theoretical and practical gaps that have emerged over the years. Chapter 2 delivers the analytical frameworks in response to the issues and challenges identified in Chapter 1. The authors propose a multi-layered activity model to understand the continuum and describe its strengths and weaknesses.

Parts II and III present two clusters of case studies to validate the continuum in humanitarian crisis management. Part II locates the development of peacebuilding as an approach to the continuum in the management of the aftermath of armed conflicts. Chapter 3 sets the tone for this section by introducing previous international efforts and practices in providing support for post-conflict countries

Preface xvii transitions from conflict to peace and by examining the continuum in managing post-conflict states. Case studies of armed conflict such as those in Timor-Leste (Chapter 4), South Sudan (Chapter 5), and the Syrian crisis (Chapter 6) offer narratives on achieving post-conflict peacebuilding and sustainable peace. The case of Timor-Leste introduces a magnified view of a prolonged struggle for peace and the menaces brought about by the relapse into conflict. Despite the successful attainment of independence the case study from South Sudan considers reasons for the continuous relapse into conflict and the consequent long humanitarian crisis despite the tremendous amount of assistance from the international community in building a new state. The conflict in Syria illustrates the need for early implementation of a continuum approach and how the polarization of aid hinders this attempt.

Part III concentrates on the continuum as observed in disaster management. Chapter 7 explores its evolution in the disaster-risk reduction community based on humanitarian and developmental perspectives, and provides the background on which the subsequent case studies are developed. This section is substantiated by case studies of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras (Chapter 8), the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia (Chapter 9) and Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines (Chapter 10). Representing the Latin American region through the case of Honduras after Hurricane Mitch (1998), this volume is able to present a disaster scenario over a protracted period and consider the challenges of engendering prevention against future disasters. The 2004 India Ocean tsunami in Indonesia is one of the large-scale disasters that paved the way for the emergence of the current disaster risk reduction mantra of ‘build back better’. Lastly, Typhoon Yolanda, which devastated the central Philippines in 2013, was assessed as a model for the present continuum realization and challenges.

The Conclusion (Chapter 11) integrates all the ideas presented in this book. The editors summarize the key findings from the case studies, provide a synthesis of the factors identified in the two streams of crises, and discuss the implications for further improvement of international crisis management.

The book deviates from the typical compilation of international cooperation and aid case studies. Instead, it attempts to validate a theoretical model of humanitarian crisis management by examining the continuum through diverse case studies of crises. The editors and authors anticipate contributing to the scarce yet vital literature on the humanitarian-development nexus from the perspective of bilateral cooperation agencies.

Acknowledgements

This publication owes a great deal of appreciation to a number of colleagues. First of all, the editors would like to extend their deepest gratitude to former and current directors of the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute (JICA-RI) Hiroshi Kato, Ichiro Tambo, Naohiro Kitano and Nobuko Kayashima, who supported us all along the process of the project conception, proposition and execution. We also want to thank Dr. Julia Steets, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, who was kind enough to discuss with us our research proposal, and later reviewed the research framework and case studies, providing precious feedback. She also made a public presentation, together with other authors of the book in Tokyo in December 2016, which was of great help as we prepared to wrap-up the research.

The chapter authors would like to express their sincerest thanks to the various individuals and institutions that supported their research and writing. In each of the countries covered by the research, including Timor-Leste, South Sudan, Jordan and Turkey, Honduras, the Philippines, Indonesia as well as the donor countries, authors benefitted from the generosity of local and international actors, who shared much about their work. Due to the nature of the research, we decided to keep all interviewees anonymous so we do not include personal acknowledgments here. To all of you that contributed to this work, please receive our sincere gratitude and appreciation, as well as apologies for any inaccuracies.

Several parts of the research have been presented at different academic venues, where feedback from the audience helped reconsidering some of our arguments and refining our conclusions. The general framework was presented at the International Association of Humanitarian Studies conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in March 2016. A first version of the general framework and some messages for the World Humanitarian Summit were distributed at the venue in Istanbul in May 2016. We would like to express our appreciation to Joe Leitmann from the World Bank, who took the time to read the draft of the messages and provide comments. The South Sudan case study was presented at the Academic Council on the United Nations System Conference in New York, the United States, in June 2016, the Japan Association for United Nations Studies in Osaka, Japan, in July 2017 and the Japan International Politics Association in Kobe, Japan, in October 2017. Professors Des Gasper and Dorothea Hilhorst of the

Acknowledgements xix

International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, were kind enough to organize a meeting at ISS in November 2016, where, together with Professor Thanh-Dam Truong, post-doctoral and doctoral students offered many comments and took part in a lively discussion. Findings of the three conflict case studies were presented at the International Studies Association (ISA) in Baltimore, the United States, in February 2017 and the Academic Council on the United Nations System Conference in Seoul, Korea, in June 2017. In the same year in May, findings in relation to disasters were presented in a side event of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction held in Cancun, Mexico; our co-hosts of the International Recovery Platform did a great job setting the scene and gathering a distinguished group of panelists. The editors appreciate all meaningful feedback from moderators and participants in all these venues.

All surveys were supported by local offices of JICA, which helped arranging meetings and many logistical details. Without their support, this research would not have been possible. The Departments of Global Environment, Infrastructure and Peacebuilding, Planning, as well as each regional department and the Secretariat of Japan Disaster Relief Team, were of great support throughout the research. We are also very much grateful to Ako Muto, head of the Peace and Development team for her continuous support. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the management, editorial and logistics team at JICA-RI comprising of Yasuhiko Sato, the fast and efficient staff of JICA’s library, research officer Ayako Kono and research assistants Yuko Tobinai, Lisette Robles, Masashi Kawai and Hiromu Miyashita. Their tremendous support at different moments throughout the three years of the project 1s greatly appreciated. To all of them we are highly indebted.

Finally, we close by stating that the views and interpretations expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the organizations or the persons mentioned above.

Abbreviations

AusAID BBB BNPB BRR

CD CEPREDENAC

CFW COPECO CPA CRRP

DARTs DFAT DFID DRM DRR EC ECHO

ECLAC

EU EWS GDP GFDRR GoS GoSS HIPC IASC ICRC

Australian AID

build back better

National Disaster Management Agency (Indonesia) Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency of Aceh-Nias (Indonesia)

community-driven

Central American Coordination Center for Natural Disaster Prevention

cash-for-work

Permanent Gommission for Contingencies (Honduras) Comprehensive Peace Agreement

Yolanda Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Plan (Philippines)

Disaster Assistance Response ‘Teams (United States) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) United Kingdom Department for International Development disaster risk management

disaster risk reduction

European Commission

European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

European Union

early warning system

gross domestic product

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery Government of Sudan

Government of South Sudan

heavily indebted poor countries

Inter-Agency Standing Committee

International Committee of the Red Cross

IDF IDP IFI IFRC

IMF INCAF IOT IRCC ISIL JAM JICA JRF LRRD MDF MDGs MOFA MSF NGO OCHA ODA OECD OLS OPARR PDNA PMRTN PRSP RAY SARC SDGs SHARP SPLM/A SRTF STAR TEC UN UNDP UNHCR USAID WGA WHS

Abbreviations

Indonesian Multi-Donor Fund Facility for Disaster Recovery internally displaced person

international financial institutions

International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

International Monetary Fund

International Network on Conflict and Fragility

Indian Ocean tsunami (2004)

International Red Cross/Red Crescent Conference

The Islamic State in Iraq and Levant

Joint Assessment Mission

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Java Reconstruction Fund

Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development

Multi Donor Fund for Aceh and Nias

Millennium Development Goals

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)

Médecins Sans Frontiéres (Doctors without Borders) non-governmental organization

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Official Development Assistance

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Operation Lifeline Sudan xxi

Office of Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery post-disaster needs assessment

Master Plan for National Reconstruction and Transformation Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

Reconstruction Assistance in Yolanda: Build Back Better The Syrian Arab Red Crescent

Sustainable Development Goals

The Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan Sundanese People’s Liberation Movement/Army

The Syria Recovery Trust Fund

Sudan Transitional Assistance for Rehabilitation Tsunami Evaluation Coalition

United Nations

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United States Agency for International Development whole-of-government approach

World Humanitarian Summit

Part I Background and foundation

Addressing the humanitarian-development nexus since the Cold War

Yukie Osa and Atsushi Hanatani

The era of unprecedented humanitarian crises

In recent years, finding ways to deal with humanitarian crises has become one of the most compelling issues for the international community. Humanitarian crises encompass large-scale disruptions to people’s sense of a ‘normal’ life, all too often affecting their survival, livelihood and dignity. The scale of human suffering nowadays has grown since World War II. More than 164.2 million people around the world need humanitarian assistance for survival (Development Initiatives 2017). At the end of 2015, 65.3 million people, or one in every 113 persons, had been displaced from their homes due to conflict or persecution (Edwards 2016), while an estimated 377 million people were affected by natural disasters in 2016 alone (Development Initiatives 2017, 19). Fears of famine once again plague the Horn of Africa and Yemen, while the rapid spread of infectious diseases continues to highlight our interconnected vulnerabilities.

Whenever such serious threats attract global attention, it is widely anticipated that donors, aid organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will provide solidarity and active engagement. In principle, state actors from the affected countries are in charge of addressing disaster situations. However, when crises overwhelm their capacity to implement solutions because of the scale and complexity of the threats, or when governments themselves become the primary source of danger, support from external actors for the population at risk becomes necessary. This support has grown steadily—from about US$800 million in 1989 to some US$4.4 billion in 1999, reaching US$27.3 billion in 2016 (Weiss 2013; Development Initiatives 2017). The budget allocated for humanitarian funds is normally around 10% of the total Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget in most of the major donor countries. However, this grew to 18.8% in 2016, generating discussions among the international community over what might be expected from this increase.

The practice of collective engagement from the international community in addressing humanitarian crises commenced only after the end of the Cold War. In the aftermath of World War IT, the international community’s work on peace and security was based on the sovereign state system, which became the basis for the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and prevention of new elobal confrontations. During the Cold War period, the reconstruction of war-torn countries and long-term development of newly independent countries were the main agendas of donors, while humanitarian action was largely left to non-governmental institutions, such as the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs (Crisp 2007). It was only after the end of the Cold War that collective humanitarian support by the international community became fully functional through the UN. This was symbolically marked by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, which provided the justification for an international response to the refugee crisis in northern Iraq in the aftermath of the first Gulf War (Hammerstad 2014, 180).

Successive crises in ensuing years made it clear that no single entity could fully serve the needs of an entire affected community in the crisis management process (Friis and Jarmyr 2008), resulting in the increased involvement of multiple actors in such endeavors. What started as a non-governmental undertaking has now become a concerted effort among inter-governmental organizations, sovereign states, the UN system, regional organizations, militaries and the private sector. In this way, the generation of broad concern and goodwill is a great achievement when compared with the preceding period of hot and less hot wars. Nonetheless, despite good intentions, the diversity in priorities and mandates of all the actors presently involved in the response to emergencies, as well as the ever-changing needs on the ground, make crisis management a very difficult task. Hence, when faced with present-day humanitarian challenges, more comprehensive and better managed humanitarian activities are urgently required.

Improving crisis management: coordination and the humanitarian-development nexus

Over the past 20 years, the international community has invested heavily in the intellectual and organizational development of the humanitarian crisis management concept and system. Two major areas requiring attention from the very beginning were (1) humanitarian coordination and (2) the humanitarian-development nexus. The coordination and nexus strategies in responding to the intricacies of several crisis contexts—together with the engagement of a great variety of actors with different visions—make humanitarian crisis management particularly challenging.

Of these two areas, coordination took precedence in the process of institutionalizing humanitarian action in the UN. The landmark General Assembly Resolution 46/182 in 1991 became a kind of new ‘Magna Carta’ in providing a basic framework for the international humanitarian system (Oshima 2004). The resolution established new arrangements for humanitarian coordination in the UN system (OCHA 2012) and strengthened the position of the UN Disaster Relief Coordinator by raising it to the level of Under Secretary General and renaming it the Emergency Relief Coordinator. The resolution also gave way to the creation of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, which later became the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in 1998.

Further reforms led to the creation of the Humanitarian Reform Agenda in 2005, by which the Cluster System for the coordination of humanitarian action was introduced to enhance predictability, accountability and partnership among multiple actors, particularly UN agencies. This was followed by the introduction of the transformative agenda in 2011, which stressed leadership, accountability and improved coordination.

Despite all this progress on coordination reforms, the issue of the humanitarian-development nexus has remained on the margins. During the 1990s, a major debate on improving the humanitarian crisis management revolved around the question of a disconnect between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation. It attempted to link the different forms of assistance to the changing nature of crises and needs, particularly in relation to protracted internal conflicts. Discussions stemmed from the recognition that there were certain gaps between humanitarian and development assistance in terms of (1) funding (temporal period of engagement and types of activities eligible for funding); (2) institutions (philosophy, mandates, strategies, approaches); and (3) partnerships and coordination (between different actors and between capitals and field offices within the same organizations). While it was more or less clear that the provision of life-saving assistance implies relief and that going back to non-crisis normality constitutes development, whatever lies in the middle (including prevention and preparedness) is less well understood.