Control de vertidos y vigilancia radiológica ambiental

Closely linked to the new human rights-based humanitarianism is the concept of developmental relief. During the Cold War, relief and development were

considered to be distinct and discrete. However, the protracted and complex nature of many of today’s wars has forced humanitarians to rethink the link between the two. From the late 1980s onwards, many agencies began to think beyond straightforward relief, and of their interventions based on how they could contribute to long-term, sustainable development, as well as promoting the prospects for positive peace and justice. There clearly is a broad trend towards an increase in the use of humanitarian assistance as part of a more comprehensive strategy to transform conflicts and decrease violence. The trend is partly a response to the accusation that humanitarian assistance can prolong war and exacerbate conflict (Fox, 2001: 279). Driven by concerns about relief creating dependence; sometimes doing harm and failing to address root causes of emergencies despite its high cost; pursuit of both relief and development has become a dominant paradigm among humanitarian agencies in CPEs. A third objective of peace-building has emerged, along with the logic that development can itself help prevent or resolve conflict and sustain peace (Cliffe and White, 2000: 314).

The idea that relief and development should be mutually reinforcing was launched into the mainstream of humanitarian affairs in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 (Cliffe and White, 2000: 316). According to this resolution:

“Emergency assistance must be provided in ways that will be supportive of recovery and long-term development [and] international cooperation and support for rehabilitation and reconstruction should continue with sustained intensity after the initial relief stage” (UN, 1991b).

Developmental relief marks a fundamental shift from traditional humanitarian principles. Unlike traditional humanitarianism, which had a minimal aim of saving lives, developmental neo-humanitarianism questions the long-term

consequences of intervening to save lives (Fox, 2001: 28). According to Hugo Slim, a new humanitarianism has developed that bases actions (or inactions) on the presumed good or bad consequences of a given intervention in relation to wider developmental aims (Slim, 1997). Relief and development constitutes the poles of a continuum, the centre ground of which is occupied by rehabilitation (Cliffe and White, 2000: 315). This development has made the relief-to- development continuum the principle approach of humanitarian agencies operating in CPEs.

The basic objectives of development policy are: a sound policy framework encouraging stable, growing economies with full scope for a vigorous private sector and an adequate fiscal base; investment in social development, especially education, primary health care, and population activities; enhanced participation of all people, and notably women, in economic and political life, and the reduction of social inequalities; good governance and public management, democratic accountability, the protection of human rights and the rule of law; sustained environmental practices; and addressing root causes of potential conflicts, limiting military expenditure, and targeting reconstruction and peace-building efforts towards longer term reconciliation and development (Wood, 2001).

The relief-to-development approach to humanitarian aid is premised on the notion that including developmental and rehabilitation activities within the relief mandate will ameliorate the root causes of violence. In other words, the relief-to- development continuum will address the causes of structural and direct violence and will usher in positive peace.

The relief-to-development continuum is a non-linear process as both relief activities and development programmes can take place at the same time. Furthermore, the distinction between relief and development is not always clear cut. Many forms of aid inhabit the grey area between relief, development and peace-building. For instance, support for livelihoods, especially agricultural

livelihoods. Sometimes this is included in the broadened definition of relief. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), for example, has a Special Relief Operations Service which provides what it calls agricultural relief (seeds, tools, fertilisers, livestock and veterinary supplies, and fighting gear) on an emergency short-term basis in order to restore assets and food production. Rather than an effort to restore agricultural systems to normal, this may simply be a temporary stop gap, and so does not fit neatly into either relief or rehabilitation categories. Food can result in relief when used for immediate survival support, or rehabilitation when used to enable herd recovery, or development when used in a food-for-work or school feeding programme, or all three at once. Rehabilitation of port facilities or roads to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid may logically fall into relief, but may well be developmental. When considering the difficulties inherent in assigning the diverse forms of aid intervention to one or other of the categories of relief, rehabilitation, development or peace-building, it becomes clear that these definitions can be more meaningfully applied to objectives or outcomes of aid programming rather than its content or modalities. A given form of intervention can further more than one outcome (Cliffe and White, 2000: 323).

The relief-to-development continuum was developed to address the perceived perverse effects that aid may have within the context of CPEs. The human rights based approach and the relief-to-development continuum complement each other as both methods attempt to ameliorate the negative effects of humanitarian relief as well as address the root causes of CPEs.