* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
I have been following with interest the unfolding violence in Rio de Janeiro, as government forces confront the drug gangs that have for years dominated and controlled the cities favelas, the sprawling slums that make up large parts of the otherwise glamorous city.
On 28th November, as part of the ongoing cycle of violence, the gangs unleashed a wave of attacks on the city’s streets, and authorities responded by deploying 2000+ police and military personnel, heavily armed and moving in tanks and APCs, with armed helicopter cover. This has brought international media attention to what has been an ongoing problem.
While these events are obviously disruptive and distressing for those caught-up, it would be easy to dismiss them as an internal issue of law enforcement and criminal justice, or at worst an example of a rapidly developing country trying to rid itself of remaining Enclaves of State Failure; either way, not of concern to traditional actors in the international humanitarian system.
But as we begin to think about what ‘urban’ might mean for a potential future ALNAP Meeting, I wondered about the implications for our notions of what constitutes humanitarian action, or triggers a humanitarian response. I was reminded first of a comment made by Alison Evans at the ODI launch of the World Disasters Report, where she talked of the discourse shifting from that of ‘failed states’ to instead the notion of ‘feral cities’ as a key development concern. (I’ve subsequently discovered the latter is a military concept developed in the early 2000s)
I also recalled an article which examined the issue of 'contained urban violence' – specifically the humanitarian consequences of such environments, and in-turn when and how to respond.
The research, by Elena Lucchi, Operational Advisor for Urban Settings at Médecins Sans Frontières, looked at urban violence in Rio, Guatemala City, and (pre-earthquake) Port-au-Prince; and challenges existing notions of what situations justify a humanitarian response.
In terms of the violence suffered, there were parallels to be drawn across the three cities, and in the case of Rio the article identified a range of ways in which such violence impacts on the health and well being of the population. For instance, in some communities:
"Women are unable to visit a health centre as it is located in a neighbouring community, which is controlled by a rival drug faction; the women would be killed if they were seen going there. Women living in areas dominated by criminal gangs have great difficulty accessing effective and secure healthcare when they are physically abused or raped...Violence and insecurity are the main reasons cited for the lack of health workers in this neighbourhood. Medical teams are afraid, and emergency vehicles (ambulances) are unable to manoeuvre through the narrow streets of the favelas. The obvious outcome of this situation is that fewer health professionals are prepared to become involved in cases of women abused by criminal gang members.”
In short, the opinion of MSF was that “these are medical needs that warrant an appropriate response”.
The process through which this kind of violence leads to wider needs is nicely illustrated in the following diagram from the article:
In arguing that such settings warrant a humanitarian response despite not conforming to our familiar notions of what constitutes a humanitarian context (particularly falling into the provisions of International Humanitarian Law), the author cites Darcy and Hoffmann’s According to Need:
"The key concern is whether the most urgent cases are being funded – and more generally, whether resources are being allocated based on a clear sense of relative priorities. This question must be asked at the global, regional, country and local level."
Lucchi’s paper goes on to argue that the humanitarian consequences of many criminally violent urban settings are comparable to those of more traditional wars, yet humanitarian aid is limited. Concluding:
"As the theatres of conflict change, those who provide humanitarian aid need to adapt to the new contexts of violence… The organisational culture and structure of humanitarian organisations play a part in the decision making process when defining interventions in violent urban settings. Those settings are generally considered to be unexplored terrain for which appropriate expertise and operational models have yet to be developed. The way in which needs are defined and prioritised fails to do justice to the problem of violence, the suffering it produces and the populations affected by it…"
I’m doubtful that Rio will descend into further lawlessness and chaos (current events speak of a state extending, not relinquishing control), or that the large-scale involvement of international agencies would be welcome or necessary. But such urban violence is a reminder that the contexts of crises are changing, and that humanitarian agencies must think hard about the implications for their modes of operation.
How can humanitarian agencies engage with these issues, and maintain the flexibility to respond to needs in ways that are both principled and pragmatic, wherever they may arise? And how will programming need to change to ensure agencies provide timely and relevant assistance which delivers durable humanitarian outcomes in challenging urban contexts?
