by Charlotte Dany

The spread of the new coronavirus poses considerable challenges for industrialized nations. It is now feared that the global pandemic will soon overrun countries in the Global South. In many of these countries, an already tense humanitarian situation would then escalate. Humanitarian organizations are preparing for the special challenges that this will bring. They - and especially their local partners - are experienced in crises and have learned important lessons from the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a few years ago. Their approach and the particular challenges they are facing are pouring water on the mills of the localization agenda in humanitarian aid and encouraging some humanitarian organizations to become more politically engaged. However, it is doubtful that this situation will lead to more international cooperation, solidarity and humanitarianism overall.

Who is particularly at risk?

COVID-19 is still raging particularly strongly in industrialized nations; after China, it has reached central European countries and then the USA. Even in these countries with comparatively good healthcare systems and social security (although there are certainly variations), it is bringing medical capacities, everyday life and the economy to the brink of collapse. This makes the fear of the virus spreading to poor regions in Central Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, which are already weakened by conflicts, wars and natural disasters, all the greater. The figures from Johns Hopkins University (as of April 7, 2020) show the current extent: Syria - 19 cases, 2 deaths; Afghanistan - 423 cases, 11 deaths; Kenya - 158 cases, 6 deaths; Colombia - 1,579 cases, 46 deaths. The number of unreported cases is - as everywhere - certainly considerable. Added to this is the concern for the many people on the run(according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are currently 70.8 million people), some of whom are living in overcrowded refugee camps under devastating sanitary conditions. It is primarily these regions and people for whom the United Nations (UN) launched the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan was published. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development is also working on a comprehensive COVID-19 aid program for developing countries and refugee regions.

People in these countries or on the run are particularly at risk, as there are hardly any options for measures that could contain the spread of the virus, such as hand hygiene or physical distancing. This is not only due to the high density of people living in some slums or refugee camps. Poverty drives people to work despite the risk of infection or illness. Refugees also have to go to work or queue to receive food rations. Here it becomes clear: you have to be able to afford 'social distancing'.

In addition, there is often no effective medical care in conflict or post-conflict nations. In Yemen, hospitals were reduced to rubble by bomb attacks. In other economically weak African countries, the healthcare infrastructure for many people is difficult to access anyway, with hardly any medical equipment such as ventilators. It is true that some countries affected by Ebola can now rely on existing infrastructure and trained staff and experts. However, the fact that the coronavirus has a particularly devastating impact in places where infectious diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, HIV/Aids, cholera and malaria are already rampant makes things even more difficult[1].

We can therefore expect a rapid spread, high mortality rates and human suffering, as well as major and protracted economic and political damage in countries that are particularly ill-prepared. It is already clear that the Covid-19 situation in Syria, and particularly in Idlib, is creating new conflicts and exacerbating existing ones.

Humanitarian responses to the corona crisis: localization and advocacy

Humanitarian NGOs are responding to the spread of the virus as a complex humanitarian emergency. Their aim is to alleviate immediate suffering and save lives. In doing so, they are learning lessons from the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, where humanitarian organizations warned for a long time before the World Health Organization (WHO) finally came up with a political response - too late for many people. According to the Robert Koch Institute, more than 11,000 people have died from Ebola fever in the worst-affected countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

Humanitarian organizations are already active against the new coronavirus in order to carry out prevention work before an outbreak at best. At this early stage, they primarily provide information and education about infection routes and prevention measures. The challenge is to "pass on correct and comprehensible information to the population at an early stage using suitable channels and to enter into a dialog with the population about what measures can be taken together now", as Anna Kühne, epidemiologist for Doctors Without Borders, explains in an interview with the Tagesspiegel. One of the main problems is a lack of trust in the accuracy of the information. Foreign aid workers could even be suspected of introducing the virus from Europe. One lesson from the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone is therefore that information must be disseminated via various stakeholders and religious authorities, as Anna Kühne emphasizes.

This is entirely in line with the localization agenda for humanitarian aid, which has been widely discussed by the international community since the UN World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in 2016 at the latest and was initiated by practitioners. This localization agenda implies that more humanitarian aid should be provided by local organizations or people, as their actions are more widely accepted and they can better anticipate the effects of their actions through local expertise. International humanitarian NGOs, which often have their headquarters in Western industrialized nations, should limit themselves to financing, support and coordination services, or ideally even move their headquarters to the countries of the Global South. The coronavirus could help speed up the implementation of this localization agenda in humanitarian aid.

Conversely, international humanitarian NGOs are now also becoming increasingly active in Europe. Médecins Sans Frontières, for example, is offering help to homeless people, migrants, refugees and people in care homes in France during the coronavirus crisis. This is remarkable because at the height of the refugee crisis in 2015/16, MSF was still struggling to provide humanitarian aid for refugees in the European destination countries. Instead, they continued to offer this help in the countries of origin or transit. The organization has also raised political awareness of the situation of refugees in Europe and openly criticized European refugee policy[2].

International humanitarian NGOs are also active as political advocates in the coronavirus crisis. Firstly, they are calling for the refugee camps on the Greek islands to be evacuated and the refugees to be brought to safety before the virus spreads there. Secondly, medicines should be made available in developing countries. In both cases, the dangers of Covid-19 underline the urgency of existing efforts to contribute to a humanitarian refugee policy in Europe and to make access to essential medicines easier and cheaper. This is all the more important as international solidarity takes a back seat to local and national concerns in media, public and political attention.

Nevertheless, what humanitarian organizations can achieve should not be overestimated. Humanitarian aid, even if it is supplemented by political demands, can only ever be a limited response. It will not be able to stop the spread of the coronavirus. And it will only be able to cushion the devastating consequences of the pandemic for developing countries to a very limited extent. This would require a comprehensive political response that involves states, the WHO, pharmaceutical companies and other powerful players, as Anna Kühne also emphasizes.

A chance for solidarity and humanity?

As the global death toll rises, so does the desire for good news. Many would like to describe the positive consequences of the coronavirus crisis: Could it be an opportunity for more solidarity and humanity? Can this global challenge help us - from our own shared experience - to show more empathy for the suffering of people elsewhere? An expert from the Overseas Development Institute, for example, sees reports on the exchange of medical equipment and expertise between countries as the possible start of a "new approach to international cooperation" that breaks down the traditional roles between donors and recipients. Rachel Scott from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) sees the COVID-19 UN Global Response Plan and the resulting opportunities for crisis management as an opportunity for "positive peace", even beyond the fight against the coronavirus.

However, apart from these initial approaches, a comprehensive political response that is not only focused on the interests of one's own country or immediate region, but also on the needs of those who need help most urgently, is not in sight. The global potential for conflict is increasing rather than decreasing as a result of COVID-19. It is therefore right and important that humanitarian organizations continue to draw political attention to these issues and fight for more solidarity and humanity in the crisis.

[1] UN OCHA, Global Humanitarian Response Plan COVID-19, p. 12.

[2] Charlotte Dany (2019) Exploring the Political Agency of Humanitarian NGOs: Médecins Sans Frontières During the European Refugee Crisis, Global Society, 33:2, 184-200, DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2019.1577804