Opening speech at Norwegian Refugee Council’s Annual Conference

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen. Dear friends. Dear Elisabeth. It is an honour for me to address you today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet old and new friends and to be together with all of you this morning.

I will concentrate on four challenges that I believe will be essential for the humanitarian agencies in the years to come: First climate change and the increase in natural disasters, second the new face of conflicts, third the challenges facing the growing humanitarian enterprise, and finally the need to continue humanitarian reform.

Climate change and natural disasters

The first challenge relates to climate change and natural disasters. I will not talk about the causes and nature of climate change here, but will focus on what we as humanitarians need to grasp, namely the scale and nature of the change we are experiencing.  

Two major disasters occurred during Pentecost: Cyclone Nargis in Burma, and the massive 7.9 earthquake in the Sichuan province in China.

There are two things in particular that struck me after the disasters. First, the magnitude in terms of the number of people who have lost everything. The UN estimates that, in Burma, up to 2.5 million people are severely affected. In Sichuan province the death toll is 50 000, but hundred of thousands have lost their homes. In China we see that most of the people that were injured or are missing were living in the cities.

Second, the striking differences in the way the two countries are tackling the disasters. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao was quick to get to the affected region in order to support and monitor the rescue operations. Rescue operations were started immediately by the Chinese Red Cross and the People’s Army. China also requested and welcomed international humanitarian assistance and allowed access to the affected region.

By contrast, what is happening in Burma represents a great dilemma to us. We are horrified by the obstacles put in the way of delivering adequate humanitarian aid to the cyclone victims. The current situation is unacceptable. As time goes by, the risk of an even greater disaster is increasing. However, we know that only the Burmese leadership holds the key that may open the door for the humanitarian aid that is needed. On one hand – and this is the dilemma - we must do whatever we can to help the cyclone victims. On the other, we must avoid that the Burmese leadership locks the door completely. We see that the NGOs, UN and international actors are exploring all possible ways of being able to deliver on the humanitarian imperative. This includes working closely with Burma’s neighbours, which we are doing. Also, I note that John Holmes (OCHA ERC) is on his way to the region and that there may be organised a donor conference next weekend.

Third, these two natural disasters come on top of the already worsening situations in other areas. The situation in Khartoum, Sudan, is volatile. The news from Lebanon is deeply worrying. In Gaza, the humanitarian sitiution is worsening.

Rapid response is essential. We responded quickly and effectively to the needs of the Chinese and the Burmese people and to the requests from NGOs, the Red Cross and the UN.

Disaster preparedness is key. Have we done enough? Every time the answer is no. Not even in Norway have we done enough. This is a question of national responsibility and capacity. China has – as we have seen – demonstrated both. Burma has shown neither.

We know that climate change will lead to more natural disasters. There will be more extreme weather – and more floods, droughts and rising sea levels. There will be more communities that fail to adapt quickly enough to this creeping change. And all of this will result in more crises and more places where crises become the norm. But natural disasters may also lead to political change, as we saw in Aceh.

The relationship between climate change, conflict and migration needs to be better understood. The notion of “climate refugees” is in many ways misleading. We all know that there are many causes of migration, many reasons why people choose to leave their homes. This is an important subject, and I hope we can come back to it later on today. I would just like commend the Norwegian Refugee Council for their work on the report Future floods of refugees and say that I am looking forward to Mr Kolmannskog’s presentation. I am also happy that we had the opportunity to finance the report. We need more research and more understanding, and I think the IDMC’s work in this respect is of paramount importance.

The new pattern of conflict

Then my second point: The new pattern – or the new face – of conflict. And the future of humanitarian principles in today’s politicised environment.

As we are move further into the 21st century, new patterns of warfare are evolving. There are few wars of liberation, and fewer wars are being fought for deep-rooted ideological reasons, as was the case during the Cold War.

I will not deal with the issues of economic drivers behind conflicts, the concept of “asymmetric wars” or the underlying causes of conflicts, but will concentrate on a few points:

First, gender. In earlier wars the majority of the casualties were soldiers, whereas present-day wars tend to deliberately target civilians, civil institutions and livelihoods. The death toll of modern conflicts is now estimated to be about 90 per cent civilians and only 10 per cent combatants. Iraq, Gaza, and DR Congo are striking examples of this.

We have seen new weapons of war – or means of warfare – that are manipulating and politicising people’s identities and causing ethnic groups to turn on each other, even where they have lived together peacefully for generations, such as in Kenya. Do we overestimate the political stability in developing countries – even in those countries we know well?

Gender violence and the use of rape is such a weapon of war that has become more widespread in recent conflicts. Moreover; young boys are manipulated to kill their own parents and are being exploited as child soldiers. Men are not allowed to protect their wives and children from harm. Girls are forced into prostitution and become victims of human trafficking.

Gender matters. It is about understanding how civilians – women, men, boys and girls – are affected by emergencies, what they need and what they can do for themselves. Gender analysis has to be at the core of the way agencies respond to emergencies. I am pleased to see that the NRC has, together with Norwegian NGOs, done a lot of good work in this respect. But even more can be done – including by the NRC and other Norwegian organisations – to target actions based on gender analysis.

Let me also stress the fact that UN Security Resolution 1325 concerning women, peace and security is carrying a Norwegian flag. Norway was one of the architects behind it before the resolution was adopted by the Security Council, and we are eager to see the resolution implemented.

Gender matters. That is why we are requesting all our partners that receive Norwegian funding to mainstream gender in their programming.    

Second, we note that the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” is again on the international agenda, not only in the Security Council, but also in the EU. I found High Representative Solana’s statement concerning Burma last week interesting. We are not certain that this is the right approach in Burma now. The key issue is to ensure access for lifesaving humanitarian assistance immediately. When states are unwilling or unable to satisfactorily accept aid the international community needs to look at how the aid can be efficiently delivered.

Third, protracted crisis. Take the situation in the Middle East. The Norwegian AHLC chairmanship has been a cornerstone in our vision of a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Territory. We are now building the momentum created at the AHLC conference in London on May 2nd to enable the Palestinian Authority to meet basic needs, such as health services, security, water and sanitation.

There has been little or no progress with regard to easing Israeli restrictions on daily life in the Palestinian Territory, not least in connection with Israeli settlement activities. We have clearly stated that there must be visible improvement in order to provide hope for the Palestinian population and bolster the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace. Let’s not forget that in 1999, the PA ran a surplus. It can do so again. The main challenge, however, is related to the easing of restrictions on economic activities. Access and movement must be improved in order for donor assistance to be effective and for the private sector to recover.

Humanitarian assistance – more demanding than ever before

One of my predecessors as State Secretary was Jan Egeland. In the Ministry they used to say that every time he travelled from Oslo airport – Fornebu at the time – he would be coming home bearing loads of bills and always a new conflict to resolve.

Rapid response and wholehearted commitment are still at the core of our engagement. However, demands have increased. In fact, the humanitarian business has grown rapidly in the past two decades, with a global turnover that has increased from under half a billion dollars to over 12 billion in the past few years. During the past decade, the Ministry’s humanitarian budget has nearly doubled. (The fact is that Jan Egeland was actually rather cheap).

The humanitarian issues have moved to the centre of public attention. The public and the media’s expectation today is that humanitarian agencies should be present in every crisis and deliver assistance effectively to those affected – from day one.

And the humanitarian needs are enormous. Darfur, Somalia, DR Congo, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Colombia – the list is far too long. And at the same time, the world has become smaller – and public attention and expectations bigger. Norway has changed, too. What happens in Somalia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Burma is of great concern to many Norwegians.

The challenge for many of the voluntary humanitarian organisations is that they are no longer small and cosy NGOs, but large, transnational corporations facing the pressure of professionalism and accountability on the one hand, and the need to respond rapidly and effectively in a highly politicised context on the other.

In many ways, the commitment to fighting the good fight has been replaced by the reality of accountability, new standards and management reform. In short, as Peter Walker of the Feinstein Centre put it: “humanitarianism has moved from being a quirky side-show to a center stage establishment”.

Humanitarian assistance is also challenging us as donors. We need to be more focused and better able to give priority to the most important issues. In the Ministry, our ambition is to launch a new humanitarian strategy where some of these issues are highlighted. We are very grateful to the NRC for its contribution to the strategy.

Continued humanitarian reform

The increasing complexity of humanitarian assistance also poses a challenge, both when it comes to how we interact with the agencies, and to how we pursue humanitarian diplomacy.

An effective and coordinated multilateral effort, led by the UN, is a cornerstone in our humanitarian UN policy. This is why Norway has been working actively to promote humanitarian reform within the UN. A lot of headway has been made: cluster reform, the CERF, UNHCR reform, the Oslo guidelines and civil-military cooperation – just to mention some important key words.

Our humanitarian policy is based on the premise that efficient multilateral organisations should be in the forefront in delivering humanitarian assistance and protecting the humanitarian space. This applies particularly to ensuring the humanitarian space in UN operations.

We are also working actively with other donors to coordinate our efforts. A major challenge is to broaden the donor basis for the humanitarian organisations, in particular in the South, and to strengthen the humanitarian alliances in major capitals.

Given our focus on the UN’s humanitarian work, I am particularly pleased to note that the NRC has a clear policy of supporting UN reform. It is particularly important to be supportive – and critical if needed – of how the UN performs at field level.  

Conclusion

To conclude: The future is complex. It will be more chaotic and there will be a need for rapid adaptation. We will have to be flexible and be able to respond rapidly.

It goes without saying that Norway cannot do everything – everywhere. However, we have been a humanitarian actor for many years, we have a long and impressive humanitarian tradition and we have strong and viable humanitarian organisations. Furthermore, there is a broad political consensus on the importance for humanitarian assistance in Norway.

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I would like to stress that humanitarian assistance cannot be regarded in isolation. It is an integral part of our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation and human rights and to find political solutions to conflicts.

The next two weeks will be decisive for our humanitarian diplomacy. You are all familiar with the initiative Norway took on an international process to ban cluster munitions – the so-called Oslo process. Together with the NGOs we achieved good results ten years ago on the Mine Ban Treaty. We hope that we will have in place a new convention banning the use, production and transfer of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. I am looking forward to meeting friends and partners in Dublin, where we will spare no effort in achieving our objective.

Together we share the moral aspiration to create a more just and secure world in which individuals can lead meaningful lives in freedom from fear and want.

Thank you.