Religious Engagement in Development: What Impact Does it Have?

Abstract

Religious involvement in humanitarian aid and development takes countless forms, varying by country, traditions, and sector. Research and operational evaluations have expanded in recent years, with some sectors far better documented than others, notably health and peacebuilding. There are, however, substantial gaps in evidence, most significantly regarding local and non-formal involvement. Pandemic preparedness and response are critical issues ready for further development. Family planning, a USAID priority, exemplifies sensitivities but also positive examples and potential. Experience of religious engagement on women’s empowerment including specific issues like gender-based violence (GBV) and child marriage, can be complex, but their importance warrants particular attention. Child protection poses similar issues.

Keywords:

• faith-based organizations
• USAID
• humanitarian assistance
• healthcare
• peacebuilding
• gender equality

Faith-based organizations (FBOs), religious leaders, and religious communities have significant impacts on development and humanitarian outcomes in many different contexts. These impacts are complex, interwoven with other sectors, and they can be both positive and negative in relation to development objectives. Their salience in several areas of development makes strategic religious engagement (SRE) an important activity for staff of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as they deploy USAID’s Operational Framework, especially in strategic planning at regional and country levels, and in CLA (collaboration, learning, and adapting) practices, in which strategic collaboration, stakeholder mapping and engagement, trust building, and persuasion are central activities in facilitating sustainable development.

The pertinent roles of religious actors vary widely, by region and country and even within traditions, and within countries. So does evidence about both details of involvement and its impact. The body of research and evaluation evidence, however, is increasing, with rich documentation available especially on specific areas like health and peacebuilding. Identifying knowledge gaps and identifying ways to address them has strategic importance for USAID as well as other institutions.

Well-judged and successful SRE can play a key role in working towards optimal frameworks for development and establishing successful and sustainable collaboration and partnerships. This article highlights evidence for the significance of FBOs and religious communities in many different areas of humanitarian aid and development. Working in each one, USAID teams could deploy SRE productively in planning, delivery, assessing, and adapting.

Fragile Contexts & Peacebuilding

Religious actors have strategic relevance in fragile and conflict states, given the broad focus on them, and the positive and negative roles that religious actors can play therein. It is also an area where substantial research and analysis should be focused, by country, as specific knowledge is patchy. The majority of humanitarian, development, and peace investments today are focused in countries affected by fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV), with 70 percent of USAID funds going to these fragile states (Richardson 2019). The number of fragile states appears to be rising; 80 percent of the world’s poorest people could be living in fragile contexts by 2030 (OECD 2018).

The COVID-19 crisis, which will widen and deepen world poverty, is having especially acute impacts on fragile states. In such contexts, government capacity to mitigate new waves of COVID-catalyzed poverty that are coming, with a collapse in exports and a decline in the remittances that are so vital to fragile states, stand out. The World Bank predicts that 18 million people will slip into “extreme poverty” in FCV states in 2020. For USAID, this potential reality suggests that fragile contexts will take on an even higher priority and make still greater demands (World Bank 2020).

Religious leaders and institutions in all religious traditions have long played leading roles as educators, advocates, intermediaries, and experts working to move fragile contexts toward sustainable peace (Smock 2006). Many are also actively engaged in efforts to mainstream core USAID policy priorities, for example preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) (Barton and Danan 2007).

The late twentieth century practice of conflict resolution and peace-building that is now embedded in the methodologies of “conflict-sensitive” humanitarian and development assistance and in the explicit practices of “peacebuilding” draw heavily on concepts and methods pioneered by scholar-practitioners from the pacifist Christian traditions of Quakers and Mennonites, as well as Catholic Social Teaching (Curle 1971; Lederach 1998; Fisher et al. 2000; Appleby, Schreiter, and Powers 2010). The Christian pacifist traditions learned from and had much in common with the earlier traditions of peace in Buddhism. Both sets of traditions emphasize the detachment, attention, and mindfulness of the peace-builder, and the need for the “transformation” of individuals and socio-economic structures, if peace is to be authentic and lasting (see Gentry 2016, 168–180). Both of these faith communities are integral to the founding and framing of the modern field of Peace Studies (which is now well represented in many universities around the world).

Anderson (2010) applied these approaches to development and humanitarian assistance through her seminal book Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace—or War. Anderson’s approach is widely read across the aid sector and many FBOs have been at the forefront of its application as they operate programs of aid and social change around the world (Salek 2014).

Less positive roles of religious actors in FCV situations (e.g. fomenting divisions and violence), require robust strategic thinking in order to understand and differentiate between real grievances (e.g. corruption and violations of human rights by security forces), and the hijacking of religious beliefs, institutions, and infrastructure. Hate speech is often spread by religious figures, but proactive interventions by religious actors are increasingly seen as the most effective way to counter it (Juergensmeyer 2017; Appleby and Marty 2002).

A USAID evidence analysis of FBO contributions to conflict resolution highlighted the many useful roles they play in the process of peace-building—early warning, documenting violence, moderating behavior, education, convening pro-peace dialogues, mediation, and healing—but also observed that their impact was seldom decisive for peace and usually largely cumulative (Browne 2014). FBOs have at times played a decisive role at the top political level. The lay Catholic Community of Sant’Egidio mediated a peace agreement that brought the long civil war in Mozambique to a close in 1992. An alliance of Muslim and Christian women—Women of Liberia Mass Action Peace—produced a breakthrough in Liberian peace talks. Desmond Tutu famously led South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and there are hundreds of religious leaders who work tirelessly for peace at the global level, perhaps best epitomized by the Dalai Lama.

More out of sight, thousands of religious people work constantly at the local or sub-state levels. There is, however, a lack of hard evidence of their impact. As yet, evidence here is rarely disaggregated to show the specific impact of FBOs (Baumgardner-Zuzik and Myers 2019), and in some areas significant work by religious actors is so little noted that it is largely invisible (this applies prominently to women) (Hayward and Marshall 2015).

Health as an Example

The history of medicine is obviously anchored in religious communities, but many forget that until recently large shares of health facilities and personnel, including in the United States, Japan, Italy, and other societies, were managed by religious institutions. Their roles are still significant, especially in parts of Africa and India, and in some other countries. However, arrangements vary widely among countries. They range from situations where formal religious roles in health care delivery have been virtually eliminated (by nationalization, for example), to a full integration and cooperation between religious health providers and government public health systems and policies (Ghana for example). Overall, the faith health sector includes some institutions that are outstanding, on par with anything, anywhere. Christian Health Association (CHA) is an example of a prominent global actor, active in 26 countries. CHA can count the large hospital and clinic systems they manage and speak for these systems and their relationships with their respective governments. At the other end of the spectrum are others that may be starved for resources and knowledge, thus lacking quality. Between these bookends are fragmented, disjointed systems characterized by poor communication and coordination within and among them. The wide variation in the quality and nature of mental health care illustrates this point (Kpobi and Swartz 2019).

Meanwhile, the aggregate numbers for what some term the faith sector’s “market share” of healthcare are not well established. Estimates can range from perhaps 7 percent to up to 70 percent (Aylward and Marshall 2013; Olivier et al. 2015). What is important is first that many faith health systems are significant, second that data is varied and often poor, and third that both specific arrangements and understandings of what constitute religious health assets vary widely and are often not well taken into account in sector policies.

The HIV/AIDS crisis, which erupted starting from the scientific identification of the disease in 1981, demonstrates the potential negative and positive role that faith communities and institutions can play in the health sector. For example, at the outset of the crisis, some faith actors actively opposed a public health approach that focused on sexual behavior, thus accentuating the stigma towards those infected with HIV/AIDS that contributed to the spread of the pandemic.

Pastors railed at the health authorities who recommended use of condoms and pointed to the lived realities of communities rather than the ideals that religious leaders wished were the case (Olivier 2005; Marshall and Keough 2007; Moore 2007). At the same time, however, compassion, care, and understanding of the disease was the gift of local religious communities, who were heroic and generous in caring for the sick and whose knowledge and adaptations made response to needs and eventually robust approaches to the pandemic possible (Byamugisha et al. 2002; Ohlden 2014). A number of development programs including PEPFAR and the Global Fund for AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, recognizing the importance of faith actors, have developed wide ranging partnerships in a number of countries.

Similarly, a widely cited World Bank study, “Working for God,” validated data to compare health delivery by government and non-profit, largely religious entities in Uganda. The result: roughly equal care for less money and community trust in the private actors (Reinikka and Svensson 2004). This study, while small and of a specific example, is often quoted, mostly because it is so rare an example of the solid and comparative evidence that many seek, demonstrating what most believe to be a rather obvious conclusion, given the well-known weaknesses in many public health systems.

There are many examples of effective collaboration by governments and development partners with FBOs on such issues as HIV/AIDS (PEPFAR has many examples) and on malaria, tuberculosis, Zika, Ebola, and COVID (Olivier et al. 2015; Aylward and Marshall 2013; Naughton 2018; UNFPA 2015; Olivier, Cochrane, and Schmid 2006; Olivier and Smith 2016). The West African response of religious communities to the 2014–2015 Ebola emergency demonstrated different aspects of social, spiritual, and access capital, as Christians, Muslims, and indigenous “secret societies” helped change attitudes and behaviors. Religious leaders, communities, and FBOs worked to counter denial; reframed fear, suspicion, and stigma into compassion; and helped modify behaviors around personal hygiene, burials, and other religious rituals to stop the spread (Featherstone 2015; Marshall 2016; Greyling et al. 2016).

One Ebola evaluation concluded that “Ebola could not be addressed by a secular humanitarian system nor by the actions of FBOs alone” (Featherstone 2015). This recognition of vital “complementarity” between secular and religious bodies highlights a general rule across most evaluations of the Ebola crisis. Faith leaders, religious communities, and FBOs today are playing the same essential, intermingled, and complementary role worldwide in the COVID crisis.¹ As such, religious actors are highly strategic partners that USAID personnel should seek out, particularly across the project cycle in epidemic and pandemic response.

Assessments of the Ebola crisis point to lessons on ways to build stronger relationships both to prepare for crises such as a pandemic, but also for the longer term. For example, some faith-run facilities fell outside the government ambit and thus did not even receive protective gear as it was made available (Marshall 2016). More broadly, the basic lesson from the experience, that community involvement is critical and demands collaboration with faith communities, was appreciated quite late. It took the drama of clandestine and highly dangerous burials of Ebola victims—which contributed to the rapid and extensive spread of the disease—to shock public health officials, national and international, into a recognition of the vital need and major benefits of effective FBO partnerships (Robinson, Wilkinson, and Marshall 2020).

Some commentaries on the religious roles in the current COVID-19 emergency present a picture of “faith versus science.” This perspective distorts the realities of the situation, where most faith communities in most parts of the world have demonstrated a respect for scientific evidence and readiness to engage with public health authorities, national and international. Faith cooperation with the World Health Organization in the formulation of appropriate guidelines and messages demonstrate openness on both “sides” to effective engagement.²

A special 2015 Lancet series on faith and health,³ for example, reflects the (new) awareness of the many interfaces between faith, in many dimensions, and international health priorities. In their introduction to the series, Summerskill and Horton (2015) observed:

Faith is too often perceived as a force that divides. In The Lancet, a new Series examines the potential of faith-based health care to unite and heal. The Series is led by Ed Mills, from Global Evaluative Sciences in Vancouver, Canada, and supported financially by a grant from Capital for Good, which connects donors with organisations working in health and other development areas. This Lancet Series on faith-based health care draws together the insights and experiences of authors from several countries and denominations, academic institutions, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Faith-based organisations deliver a substantial volume of health care, and their common visions of stewardship, inclusiveness, dignity, and justice make many such organisations ideally suited as key partners for delivering the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

The series was a first for The Lancet, perhaps the premier public health journal in the world. The series’ central theme—contrary to the tacit assumptions of many non-religious health experts and providers—was that religion and health are, in fact, closely positively interlinked. Religious institutions run hospitals and clinics, train doctors and nurses, and encourage health-enhancing behaviors like hand-washing and moderation. Religious beliefs and practices, such as caring for and comforting the sick, are fundamental to community involvement in public health; and even more so in places where religious beliefs, institutions, and practices dominate daily life.

This landmark series also sought to answer the question why this deeply interlinked system of what some term religious health assets is not better researched and recognized in global public health circles. In short, the series debunked a common set of assumptions that modern medicine is incompatible with religion, making a case for better understanding and for more thoughtful engagement on some tough issues. The article series also took on a set of controversies surrounding such issues as reproductive health, end of life issues, and immunization; strikingly the depth of theological and practical concerns involved meant that the article on controversies was the most difficult to complete (Tomkins et al. 2015). The series also discussed the implications for action, taking on questions such as what knowledge about religious roles in health care is needed to inform policy action? The question still stands, as recommendations essentially made a combined plea for attention and action. In sum, the team that prepared the series saw it as an “end of the beginning” (Marshall 2017).

The Environment Challenge

Religious communities and institutions play significant if complex roles in addressing environmental issues. A study by the Pew Research Center (2015) highlighted the long history of “religious thinking and attention to the role of humans as stewards of the Earth and the environment.” The situation is notoriously polarized; religious actors are at the forefront of advocacy on climate change even as historic tensions between religion and science fuel “climate skepticism.” In the United States, Pew Research Center studies have found modest effects of religion on attitudes about environmental protection. A 2010 Pew Research Center telephone survey of U.S. adults found 81 percent of all adults, including strong majorities of all major religious traditions, favored “stronger laws and regulations to protect the environment,” while 14 percent opposed them.⁴ The mixed picture illustrates well the complex intersections of religious teachings, beliefs, and politics.

Religious communities have played active roles in civil society mobilizations around global as well as national events focused on environmental protection, including the successive, annual “Council of Parties” conferences on global environment action⁵ as well as at international interreligious events such as Religions for Peace assemblies and Parliament of The World’s Religions gatherings. Of special note is the persistent and effective advocacy work of the U.K. based Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC).⁶ Under the leadership of Martin Palmer and the patronage of Britain’s late Prince Philip, ARC has organized conferences in different world regions (including Windsor Castle), published many works, communicated via radio, television, and film, and worked with religious communities to develop plans of action on conservation (Palmer and Finlay 2003). ARC has worked with the World Bank in different world regions and with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), most recently organizing an ambitious conference⁷ in Bristol, UK, in 2015 shortly before the Paris Climate Conference.

Religious engagement on environment issues, including in relation to development programs, tends to combine scholarly contributions with advocacy and activism. A striking example is the encyclical Laudato Si’ issued by Pope Francis (2015). This extensive document draws on scholarship and Catholic Social Teaching and has served as the basis for several conferences and scholarly as well as spiritual reflections across the world. Its message and focus are on action, with calls for fundamental shifts in individual and collective behaviors. Another example is the Evangelical Environment Network, which aims to reduce pollution and environmental degradation, drawing on the idea that God created Earth and humans, therefore, God’s children have a responsibility to care for his creations.⁸

Of particular note on this bridge between theology, scholarship, and activism is the long-time work of Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim at the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology—an international multireligious project “contributing to a new academic field and an engaged moral force of religious environmentalism” (Jenkins, Tucker, and Grim 2018; see also Grim and Tucker 2014). The Forum runs conferences and produces publications, monthly newsletters, and a rich website, exploring religious worldviews, texts, and ethics in order to contribute to environmental solutions along with science, policy, law, economics, and appropriate technology. It also has produced films. A related effort is the Earth Charter, “a declaration of interdependence that arose from a decade long drafting process,” drawing on inputs from civil society, religious communities, educators, government officials, and business leaders and launched at the time of the year 2000 millennium.⁹ A striking feature of the Charter is its combination of scientific and theological language, and effort to link the goals of ecological protection, the eradication of poverty, equitable economic development, respect for human rights, democracy, and peace.

Broad involvement of different religious traditions in documenting environmental change and advocating for action is significant. Buddhist traditions are especially noteworthy and activism has included practices such as tree ordination by Buddhist monks in parts of Southeast Asia (Darlington 1998). The very diverse indigenous communities from many world regions are increasingly involved in speaking to and for environmental issues, drawing on spiritual traditions in calling for change.¹⁰ An example is the invocation of the Pachamama in Andean countries in arguments for sustainable development models.¹¹ Other examples include activism against forest degradation and destruction of forests, and dam construction (Nathaniel 2011).

Faith and Family Planning

Family planning stands as an important priority for US foreign aid policy. Demography and spacing and timing of childbirth are widely recognized as integrally related to both family and societal welfare. Policy, practice, and restrictions have differed significantly under Republican and Democratic administrations. They have equally been the object of discussion and dissent across diverse religious perspectives. It is striking that the role of faith communities and FBOs is in the spotlight, both in recognition of their important role in influencing decisions and because many religious communities, while at times disagreeing on specific practices, support diverse approaches to family planning (Buss and Herman 2003). Immediate controversies focus on US positions on various United Nations discussions and on the “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” policy (popularly known as the Mexico City Policy) that was introduced in 2017 by the President Trump administration. Political advocacy from both political parties and different religious communities have shaped debates on the topic over recent decades.¹²

Reviews by Community Connections for International Health (CCIH) and by the UN Foundation have underscored the central importance of religious community engagement as well as their active programmatic role (FP2020 2019). A UNFPA (2016) review, “Religion, Women’s Health, and Rights,” explored issues among the major world religions and reaffirmed a common statement by a group of religious leaders that harmful practices should never be attributed to religious actors overall: “Not in our name.” Among the lessons here are the diversity of faith approaches and the importance of careful use of language, in this case because there are widely different interpretations of a term like “family planning.”¹³

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the central and often complex roles that religious beliefs and communities play across a wide range of public health issues. While the religious aspects of the Ebola, Zika, SARS, MERS and other pandemics were recognized quite marginally in scientific literature and debates, the COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted them to the fore. Issues of response to, but also involvement in, developing public health messages has critical importance for the pandemic. Issues of vaccine policy are emerging as critical for next steps (Marshall 2020).

More broadly, religious actors can play major roles (positive and negative) in the messaging around basic sanitation, maternal and child health, vaccinations, and mental health, which makes them a vital set of actors in USAID’s stakeholder engagement, trust building and strategic collaboration.

Trauma Healing/MHPSS, Disabilities

As the topic of mental health draws increasing attention in both development and humanitarian circles, both positive and negative roles of religious actors have particular significance. Research is limited though there are many reports of both positive healing roles and less positive approaches to those who face mental illness and different forms of disability.

Religious actors have enriched the humanitarian response agenda through trauma healing, that takes place both during and post disasters and conflicts. “Spiritual assistance,” or the work of religious communities’ use of MHPSS approaches, tools and resources are critical areas where religious actors can play a role (and fill a gap) that USG cannot (see Hill et al. 2018).

Other Development Topics

Religious communities and FBOs engage in virtually every topic on development agendas. In many setting, religious actors are part of civil society groups advocating for aspects of macroeconomic policy change. In the COVID-19 crisis, religious voices are among the most forceful in arguing for action to ease debt burdens and ensure funding for social protection and humanitarian needs (Jubilee USA 2020). Religious actors in some settings speak prophetically to issues like persecuted minorities, inequalities, and violations of human rights. They are often involved in pragmatic issues like cost recovery. Increasingly, religious voices support action on climate change and environmental protection. Advocacy on water supply is a frequent area for concern, linked to theological commitments to water as a force for life. including energy (for example on pricing).

Among topics of particular concern to most religious communities are protection of children and education. The focus on children runs the gamut from global campaigns such as Arigatou International’s Day of Prayer for Children and Global Network of Religions for Children,¹⁴ to action and advocacy at the community level. Once again, tensions can arise as advocates for children’s human rights encounter opposition grounded in fears that such rights may undermine parental authority, but there are many inspiring religiously run programs that support street children and work to counter abuse and neglect.¹⁵ The traditions of priority support for orphans of many religious traditions translate into remarkable examples of care.

The admonition to care for orphans is one of the most revered religious traditions, with an ancient history and a record of controversies and lively contemporary debates. The imperative to care for vulnerable children, whether abused and neglected or whose parents have died, elicits little disagreement and is a fundamental human value. There the agreement ends, however, because for many experts, the professional consensus is indisputable, that under almost all circumstances institutional care does more harm than good. Family and community care is by far the best option. The HIV/AIDS crisis, where at one stage 10 million orphans were predicted, fueled debates, as have situations in other countries (Cambodia, for example) where many children were orphaned or neglected. Some religious actors caring deeply for children’s welfare answer essentially, “yes, but … ,” pointing to situations where some models of institutional care may be a good option. The debates divide an important and caring community. What is needed is openness to dialogue on both sides of the debates (see Baron 2014; Abebe 2009; Marshall and Mui 2017).

Education is another area where religious organizations were virtually the sole providers through most of history. Education provided by religious institutions is still an important though unquantified share of total education, with the Catholic school system the largest private education provider (Marshall 2018). The Fe y Alegria network in Latin America serves over a million children, most in the poorest communities (Allcott and Ortega 2009). Islamic education plays critical roles in many countries, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan prominent among them (Hefner and Zaman 2007; Moosa 2015; Riaz 2008). Catholic and Protestant Christian schools are often in the vanguard of education reforms and each religious tradition has proud examples of excellence (D’Agostino et al. 2019; Wodon 2019). Teaching about religious diversity is a vital part of plural societies and one where religious bodies need to play leading roles.

The roles that religious communities and FBOs play vary widely, with some types of intervention prominent in specific settings, absent in others. Of particular importance for USAID strategic approaches, the roles in all their diversity often work in tandem with core USAID objectives, including localization; resilience; self-reliance; inclusion; integrity, transparency and accountability, and safeguarding.

Gender Based Violence and Human Trafficking

Gender based violence (GBV) and human trafficking are common challenges in many settings and are a shared concern for development and humanitarian actors, as well as for many religious institutions. Patterns of violence tend to increase both in situations of armed conflict and disasters and where there is weak law and order. Some FBOs and religious communities are determined players in efforts to prevent and stop these violations and support those who have endured them. They have contributed to standard ways of working on GBV that includes caring for victims, communications, positive masculinities training, and behavioral change, often working in collaboration with other agencies.¹⁶ But GBV can be controversial for faith communities in part because most of them have also played roles as perpetrators in deep cultures of sexual and physical abuse which are common to all faith institutions (World Vision n.d.). Because of these positive and negative implications, FBOs and religious communities often operate in the GBV space as simultaneously problem and solution. This ambivalent role must be understood in USAID planning, CLA and project design.

Christian engagement on GBV has been the most explicit among global faiths, both in revealing and addressing its own GBV (Keenan 2011; Batchelor 2013) and making highly organized efforts to challenge the GBV of others in global movements of solidarity and action. Inspired by progress made during the UN’s Decade for Women (1975–1985), the World Council of Churches launched the Ecumenical Decade of Churches in Solidarity with Women between 1988 and 1998. This campaign adopted a feminist perspective and sent teams to listen to women’s experience in 120 countries. During this process, the reality of violence against women became clearly evident. The WCC drew on this experience to challenge churches and also to engage directly with secular institutions working on GBV as a development and humanitarian challenge, and also in inter-religious engagement and campaigning.

Ending human trafficking¹⁷ has become a broad-based, multi-faith endeavor, pushed in part by the high-profile migration has received in recent years and its uncovering of human trafficking as a particularly dark sides of forced or deceitful migration practices for women and girls in particular. In 2014, Pope Francis and other Christian denominational leaders joined with global leaders from Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam to “eradicate human trafficking worldwide.” This has led to a greater faith-based focus on human trafficking in the last five years with a heightened professionalism of approach across the Roman Catholic church (The Holy See 2019). The Talitha Kum network of Catholic nuns and monks has also formed to take on this task as a particular mission, especially in the Mediterranean basin.¹⁸

Gender Equality and Female Empowerment

Gender equality is a central objective for USAID development and humanitarian action. Evidence on the impact of FBO and religious communities is mixed. Most international FBOs engaged in humanitarian action or development have clearly stated commitments to gender equality and female economic empowerment, reflecting alignment with UN goals and coordinating structures at the IASC. Many local faith actors share these goals and many religious women from all faith traditions—as FBO leaders, religious scholars, or community activists—have made courageous strides for gender equality in social and economic relations.¹⁹ However, other leaders and people within faith communities are suspicious of gender equality. Many—at the community, national and international levels—hold a patriarchal view of gender and resist the gender equality agenda with its inevitable transformations of social, economic, cultural, and religious life.

Research and operational evidence is currently inconclusive and insufficient to affirm or deny the typical secular assumption that FBOs are mostly traditionalist on gender, but it is evident that there are a wide range of views across all faiths (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2015). There are well-documented variations among leader views and organizations including divides within many communities. Musawah (a Malaysia based regional organization) offers a striking example of a coalition that builds on Islamic values and a strong commitment to human rights, working within the framework of law and public diplomacy to advance women’s rights.²⁰

If a detailed analysis of overall FBO and religious views on gender equality cannot be drawn from scholarly evidence, certain consistent “gender flashpoints” clear. These continue to flare up around four areas: child marriage which is increasing as a crisis coping strategy; female genital mutilation (FGM) or cutting (FGC); LGBTQ rights; and sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion and some forms of contraception, which can be deeply controversial for many people of faith. Domestic violence and rape in the case of war are also, emerging as flash points. In some of these gender flashpoints, arguments of Western cultural imposition and pro-life commitments challenge core feminist positions on a woman’s rights over her own body and wider ideas of non-binary gender identity.

There seems to be more academic evidence of feminist activism and female headed FBOs in Christianity and Islam than in Hinduism and Buddhism, but this needs more research. The main take-away for USAID is that it steps into a contested, complex, and largely hidden political arena when engaging on gender equality in humanitarian action and development where international and community leaders can mis-represent the desires of local communities, and where people may not find it easy to speak freely, especially women. Women’s “dignity kits” and “headscarves” are examples of how this contest plays out in humanitarian action. Many women have found dignity kits supplying female hygiene items to be of great assistance and the contents of the kits has made them “feel remembered” (Abbot et al. 2011). But, previously, following the Asian Tsunami, some women and men defined headscarves as a “basic need” and an essential prerequisite to preserve their dignity before they could go out and access other relief services (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh 2015). This led to UNFPA including them in dignity kits for certain areas.

Positions on these issues vary widely across religiously inspired governments, FBOs, and religious communities. The flashpoints noted above can bear witness to and ignite divisions within communities that may pit traditional patriarchal cultures or religious traditions (often linked to the status quo) against equally committed advocates for changes linked to human rights and international standards of equality and equity. A similar mix of positions is found in governments and faith communities. In sum, gender remains a contested area because of the underlying social-cultural-religious commitments in governments and FBOs. USAID staff will need to weigh views and principles carefully in every context.

Humanitarian Interventions

The work of FBOs and religious communities has significant impact in every area of humanitarian action, including: health and mental health and psycho-social support (MHPSS); disaster risk reduction (DRR); food security; water and sanitation; economic livelihoods education; climate action and environmental management; and the welfare of women and girls. The following sample of humanitarian fields gives examples of such impact and suggests that CLA activities and strategic collaborations between USAID, FBOs and religious communities can offer a wide range of strategic advantages.

Spiritual Assistance, Mental Health, and Palliative Care

Spiritual assistance is increasingly recognized as having widespread value and is a clear specialty of some FBOs and religious communities that can complement or replace some non-religious approaches to mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS).²¹ Spiritual assistance meets spiritual needs which have long been recognized in international humanitarian law (IHL) in the Geneva Conventions. IHL defines certain religious items as “relief items” and respects the liturgical and pastoral role of religious professionals.²² Spiritual needs are once again receiving their due attention from the humanitarian community.

Consistent evidence is now emerging from disaster studies and conflict studies to show that religious people enduring trauma and emotional pain respond well to spiritual assistance, which can meet their spiritual needs within their own psychological vernacular (Chan and Rhodes 2013, 257–265; Schafer 2010, 121–130; Ager et al. 2010, 70–93). In humanitarian settings it seems clear that spiritual assistance alone—via prayer, ritual, fellowship and belief combined with wise spiritual counseling—is often sufficient. In some situations, it also seems wise to combine spiritual assistance with more secular and medicalized MHPSS approaches in a joint “psycho-spiritual” approach (Schafer 2010, 28).

Quality is an important factor in spiritual assistance and studies draw an important distinction between “positive” and “negative” religious coping. Some negative religious injunctions, counseling, and ritual can compound distress and stigma, and further reduce long-term health outcomes; to include proselytizing²³ as a negative form of spiritual assistance, whereby distressed people are manipulated into converting to supposedly feel better (Schafer 2010). Humanitarian guidance documents on spiritual care and MHPSS programming which aim to help FBOs and others to assure good quality spiritual assistance and MHPSS are now more widely available (Lutheran World Federation and Islamic Relief 2018; American Red Cross 2015).

If spiritual assistance and care are good quality, most studies from humanitarian settings tend to cite and confirm a 2005 meta-analysis that found: “across various stressful life situations, religious coping methods are consistently associated with improved psychological outcomes, including acceptance, hope, optimism, life satisfaction, spiritual growth and stress related growth” (Ano and Vasconcelles 2005, 461–480).

Palliative care for the long-term sick and dying is an area of health which deliberately combines physical, psychosocial, and spiritual support. Palliative care is now emerging as a new humanitarian field, accelerated by experience with HIV/AIDS, Ebola and now COVID19. Palliative care has a long association with spiritual assistance. “Spiritual care” and the need to work together with “spiritual care professionals” is at the heart of new concerted efforts by the hospice and palliative care movements to meet the huge increases in “spiritual distress” brought about by COVID19 and ensure that spiritually informed palliative care is given the appropriate priority in international policy at the United Nations and other global and regional health for a (Ferrell et al. 2020; Puchalski et al. 2020).

Dignified Care of the Dead

FBOs, religious communities and religious professionals have traditionally overseen and cared for the dignity of the dead, the comforting of the bereaved, and the rites of burial. In Indian disasters, for example, this role has a long history. It has also included overseeing mass burials when many thousands of people are killed simultaneously or in quick succession. For example, the 1999 supercyclone in Odisha, killed 10,000 people and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Ananda Marg coordinated the management of the dead (Bhattacharjee 2019). In armed conflict, burial practices are carefully protected and prescribed in IHL, and typically overseen by military religious personnel with the support of the ICRC and national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies when required.²⁴

Care for the dead has recently received new emphasis as a distinct field of humanitarian practice because of the large mortality rates and high levels of contagion in the Ebola and COVID crises. FBOs and religious communities are at the forefront of these activities and new standards of good practice are being set across the sector by FBOs and others.²⁵ These standards have coined the new humanitarian profession of “deathcare workers,” which looks set to continue as an important and often sensitive area of disaster relief and humanitarian action (ICRC 2020; WHO 2017).²⁶ The need for USAID to understand this role for religious communities and support it where necessary will be increasingly significant.

Normative, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Change

The spiritual, social, and moral role of FBOs and religious leaders has been important in encouraging changes in humanitarian norms, attitudes, and behavior in conflict, disaster, and disease. In all three contexts, FBOs, faith leaders and their communities have played slow and fast roles as “norm entrepreneurs” and “re-interpreters” within their own community to promote new normative requirements in crisis settings. One example of this role is religious support for the norms and rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

On IHL, the ICRC has maintained continuous dialogues and partnerships on the laws and ethics of war and the conduct of hostilities with faith leaders in Hinduism, Judaism Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism in recent years. Since 2001, the ICRC’s engagement with Islam has invested significantly in developing a strong conflict-related network of Islamic leaders to create shared understandings of the shared values between Islamic law and IHL, and to see faith-based support for respect for IHL with armed actors and across conflict-affected societies.

An essential first step in the early stages of this religious engagement was to understand and clarify perceptions that each side had of the other (Wigger 2005).⁸⁰ With various concerns understood and misperceptions cleared on both sides, second stage ICRC religious engagement has then developed into a more detailed joint analysis of the common ground between Islamic Law and IHL (see Aldawoody 2019; Al-Dawoody 2017). This has occasionally resulted in specific religious pronouncements that speak directly to the conduct of hostilities or the development and application of particular weapons.²⁷ These scholarly discussions and agreements with religious leaders are followed up by the ICRC in constant networking on the ground with religious influencers within and around armed actors.

The ICRC’s religious engagement has recently expanded to Buddhism, where relationships with religious leaders are now being developed along a similar pattern of engagement that focuses first on mutual understanding before passing to shared analysis of the norms of war and humanitarian action.²⁸ In many ways, the ICRC’s strategic religious engagement is the most developed of any humanitarian organization and works hard at mutual understanding and authentic joint action even if it always has the single purpose of increasing respect for IHL.

Supporting Internally Displaced Populations (IDPs)

FBOs and religious communities are important humanitarian actors in the protection and assistance of IDPs. Many large global FBOs work as “implementing partners” to WFP, UNICEF, and UNHCR in the provision of food, water, health, livelihood, and education, thus playing a huge structural role in the system of humanitarian safety nets.

In more niche areas, evidence suggests that local FBOs have a distinct advantage as trusted first responders and those best able to reach hard-to-reach communities. Many faith communities are a guaranteed source of immediate funds and volunteers in a displacement crisis. This is well illustrated from Jos in Nigeria (Orji 2011) and is a common phenomenon in emergency IDP, refugee, and migrant settings across the world. Other reports show how FBOs often have exceptional access into communities that are hard-to-reach for international or secular organizations. Small Christian organizations with pre-existing relationships and parish structures in northern Myanmar were first to respond and preferred by government as leaders of a humanitarian response over international organizations who were excluded. Supported remotely by international FBO partners, they were able to have fast and sustainable humanitarian impact (Benson and Jaquet 2014). The same was true for a remote partnership between local Imams and NRC around the 2005 Pakistan earthquake (Russell 2014).

Additionally, the community development skills of local FBOs often translate quickly and well in displacement settings to help build and empower community consciousness and link IDPs into local rights-based services. In Sri Lanka, the Buddhist-inspired Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement’s “political awakening unit” has worked with IDP communities to advocate and secure important gains in health, education, and public transport. The Catholic inspired Socio-Pastoral Institute in the Philippines used its “community formation” approach to similar effect after flood displacement in Manila (Barry-Murphy and Stephenson 2014; Ager, Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, and Ager 2015). A common faith can, in itself, be an important aid to increasing community integration and social cohesion for IDPs, migrants, and refugees with the communities around them. Sharing same-faith prayer sessions, religious buildings and festival food has often been the beginning of humanitarian solidarity between displaced people and host communities.

Refugees

Religious communities and FBOs play wide-ranging roles in direct support to refugees and IDPs in many situations and as advocates for support.²⁹ Many FBOs are part of humanitarian relief efforts ranging from food distribution, livelihood support, education, children protection, and spiritual support. Various FBOs have missions and mandates expressly focused on refugees and migrants while for others the work forms part of their broader programs. The leading organizations are part of humanitarian cluster arrangements. However, a continuing concern is the limited engagement of the major humanitarian organizations with local faith communities both in ensuring that programs reach the most vulnerable groups and in providing direct support.

Religious traditions are rich sources of ethics and values that can motivate their adherents to welcome “the other” and thus support action for refugees and IDPs (Guidos 2020). Narratives from many world religions center around forced migration. Examples include the Exodus from Egypt or Exile to Babylon in Judaism, Mohammad’s forced migration from Mecca to Medina (the hijra) in Islam, or the infant Krishna’s escape from infanticide in Hinduism (Hein and Niazi 2016; Hollenbach 2020). In commemorating these events, many religious communities recognize the need to welcome the exile. Likewise, religious traditions look to the core principle of a common human family, thus recognizing the inherent human dignity of others. Faith communities and faith-inspired organizations draw on these theological resources to advocate for compassion, tolerance, peace, and welcoming “the stranger.” Recognizing the negative impacts of some religious voices, different traditions can and often do work to counter racism and xenophobia and combat distorted narratives. In a statement released in advance of the 2020 World Day of Migrants and Refugees, Pope Francis rooted his call on the world to “welcome, protect, promote, and integrate refugees, migrants, and IDPs,” in the story of the infant Jesus’s forced flight into Egypt (Pope Francis 2020; The Holy See 2020). The Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development is charged in part with promoting action and support towards refugees and sees its charge rooted in the social doctrine of integral human development in the Catholic Church. Islamic Relief Worldwide grounds its support for refugees in the principles and teachings of the Qur’an. There are similar calls in other religious traditions.

Public-private partnerships between governments and faith-inspired organizations have provided important services to refugees in a wide range of situations. The U.S. refugee resettlement program stands out as an example of an effective partnership between FBOs and governments, as six of the nine refugee resettlement agencies have strong faith links. Together, they possess decades of experience supporting and assisting refugees towards integration. In Europe, individual religious communities and leaders as well as interreligious groups (both established institutions and spontaneous local responses) support widely varied initiatives to support refugees and to facilitate their integration. Since 2015, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (ZMD), representing over 300 mosques, has played a critical role in the migration crisis; ZMD among other refugee-focused projects recruited 1100 volunteers, organized German courses in over 40 mosques, and opened 35 mosques as sleeping spaces for up to 200 refugees to sleep. ZMD also advocates on behalf of refugees, working with the German government to ensure better integration outcomes (Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland 2015). These are among prominent examples of specific refugee and IDP focused programs that involve direct support or engagement as partners in broader efforts (for example with UNHCR and the World Food Program).

Networking, Advocacy, and Campaigning

The rich if patchy evidence available repeatedly points to networking as a strategic capacity and humanitarian advantage in FBOs and religious communities. Religious networks can be deployed to leverage operations and advocacy and function locally, nationally, regionally, and globally across all global faith communities. Religious networks are often thicker than others because shared religious identity, observance, and worship can produce an exceptional bond of trust and mutual obligation. Religious networking and advocacy are also enhanced by the widespread practice of volunteering which is pervasive across most faith traditions (Heist and Cnaan 2016). Inter-religious networking and advocacy around humanitarian crisis is also common.

Faith-based humanitarian networks are most evident today in institutions and approaches that are tied to Christian and Muslim communities and connected with the formal UN coordinated international humanitarian system. Caritas Internationalis embodies hundreds of national Catholic humanitarian organizations (usually of the same name) while Action for Churches Together (ACT) does the same for Protestant and Orthodox church agencies actively engaged in humanitarian work.³⁰ The Humanitarian Forum brings together a network of Muslim humanitarian organizations with a specific purpose of inspiring “northern” and “southern” humanitarians to work better together.³¹

Faith-based humanitarian and advocacy networks also develop intensely around particular “focal conflicts” which are seen by one faith to involve the particular persecution or suffering of its people. For example, Palestine and Rakhine State (in Burma) are focal conflicts for a number of Muslim humanitarian networks. The persecution of Yazidis and Christians in Iraq, and Christians and Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, have produced similar global networks of support as did the conditions of the Falashas in Ethiopia across the Jewish community in the 1980s. States and regional organizations of states often involve themselves in similar networks of humanitarian and advocacy support to persecuted people with whom they share a faith identity as, for example, the OIC have done for Muslims in Rakhine and the US, UK and EU have done for Christians across the Middle East.

Advocacy and campaigning is a strong part of all religious traditions which share a commitment to “speak truth to power” in a prophetic voice alongside their commitment to show practical compassion to people in need.³² This advocacy commitment arises from their commitments to bring about social justice that is wider and more lasting than immediate charity (Ferris 2011).

FBOs and religious communities are formidable policy advocates and single issue campaigners who have helped set the humanitarian agenda by shedding light on several specific emergencies (Darfur, for example) and on particular issues of arms control, like landmines and nuclear weapons, as well as on large systemic challenges like poverty and hunger. A recent example is the Catholic Church’s global focus on climate action, which was launched in a major doctrinal statement, Laudate Si! and has been spun out into global campaigning action engaging parishes and governments (Global Catholic Climate Movement 2016).

They have also contributed to policy discussions and debates. And their on-the-ground experience, reflected both in documented research and in dialogue, have contributed to the shaping of development policy, thinking, and practice in many ways, though this is rarely acknowledged as such.

The Jubilee debt campaign leading up to the millennium year 2000 was a prominent example, with an alliance of religious actors calling for a full revamping of debt arrangements. These efforts continue, in new forms, during the COVID-19 emergencies. Religious communities have taken a role of “speaking truth to power” in some settings that has involved opposition to some development strategies, for example financing of dams and coal fired electricity plants. Significant efforts were made to engage faith actors in the consultation processes that were an essential feature of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), that, in turn, were critical elements of the work-out arrangements for the Highly Indebted Poor Country arrangements.

In some religious communities there are well developed and articulated approaches and policies on development issues that complement conventional development approaches or contest them. For example, as mentioned above, the scope and influence of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ is exerting wide influence across the world. Another example is the Islamic approaches on finance, where there is substantial analysis pointing to significant merit in applying the core principles of shared responsibilities for investment outcomes (Alterman and von Hippel 2007). Third, there are several Buddhist analyses of development approaches, notably involving the environment but also education.³³ Indigenous perspectives on environment are also significant. Clashes with indigenous communities have contributed significantly to various development policies including the important principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.³⁴

Most FBOs also use their religious calendar as campaigning seasons. This is especially important in Islam for the donation of Zakat during Ramadan, and around Eid Al Adha when Muslim FBOs focus on hunger, poverty, and food insecurity with major programs to distribute Qurbani meals that are often focused on communities currently facing war, disaster, and disease. In Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church elaborated a “development calendar” linking specific positive practices like hand washing to specific religious celebrations. Christian FBOs routinely engage in Lent and Christmas fundraising and campaigning emphasizing special humanitarian themes like water, displacement, or livelihoods. These seasonal campaigns similarly ask religious communities to make personal sacrifices of money and time to help others in need in humanitarian crisis.

The commitment and capacity of FBOs and religious communities in strategic advocacy at local, national, regional, and global levels makes them an essential group of stakeholders for USAID staff to include and engage as strategic influencers in country and regional strategic plans and specific projects activities.

Counter-Terrorism and the Muslim FBO Experience

Counter-Terrorism (CT) measures and legislation have posed complex new challenges for both humanitarian and development actors in recent years, with distinctive impacts for Muslim FBOs. This focus comes as part of the “global war on terror” which involves efforts to restrict any possibility of funding going to support terrorist organizations (Norwegian Refugee Council 2018). In this context, the whole humanitarian sector has faced extra accountability measures and restrictions, but Muslim FBOs have been put under particular pressure because of the wide shadow of suspicion on the societies around them, and because of their humanitarian activities transferring money and resources into local communities (Barzegar and El Karhill 2017, chapter 2). One particular problem has been the risk of de-banking for Muslim NGOs in humanitarian settings where CT measures encourage banks to shed accounts of organizations they perceive as risky clients (Gordon and Taraboulsi-McCarthy 2018).

Conclusion

Across the complex topical terrain of religion & development it is vital to always seek nuanced and balanced understanding of when religious dimensions are present and primary, and when they are absent or secondary—and what implications follow. In exploring markers in the intellectual history that have shaped development thinking, numerous themes emerge for contemporary development approaches and for future research. In our view, some of the key thematic areas include civil society space, participation, disaster preparedness, resilience, public private partnerships community driven development, empowerment, fragility, and conflict. Going forward, key challenges will include identifying and prioritizing the most impactful operational and research approaches, while also developing meaningful and practical ways to handle especially sensitive areas.

Acknowledgments

Support for the production of this research paper was provided by the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. Its publication as part of a special open-access issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs was made possible through the additional support of the Templeton Religion Trust.

Disclaimer Statement

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development, the co-conveners, or the United States Government.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katherine Marshall

Katherine Marshall has worked on international development for some five decades. A senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and Professor of the Practice of Development, Religion, and Conflict in the School of Foreign Service, she also directs the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD), whose mission is to bridge gulfs separating the worlds of development and religion. A long career at the World Bank was as an operational manager.

Sudipta Roy

Sudipta Roy is a Senior Researcher at the World Faiths Development Dialogue at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affair. He is currently co-leading several research and learning programs in South and Southeast Asia that focus on religious dimensions of development, freedom of religion and belief, and social cohesion. Sudipta also directs the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies—a consortium of higher education and research institutions in the United States and Bangladesh.

Chris Seiple

Chris Seiple (Ph.D., The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy) is President Emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement and Principal Advisor to the Templeton Religion Trust’s Covenantal Pluralism Initiative. A former U.S. Marine infantry officer, he has served as a Senior Fellow for Comparative Religion at the University of Washington’s Jackson School of International Studies, as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Evidence-Based Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement (2020), and as Co-Chair of the U.S. Secretary of State’s “Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group” (2011–2013).

Hugo Slim

Hugo Slim is Senior Research Fellow, Las Casas Institute for Social Justice, Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford. He has combined a career in academia and humanitarian agencies, including Save the Children, the UN, the ICRC, Oxfam GB, and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. He was Reader in International Humanitarianism at Oxford Brookes University and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. He is a Visiting Professor at Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University and Academic Director of the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights.

Notes

1 See, for example: UNICEF (n.d.), Santeto (2020); and DFID-funded real-time research on this under way in Pakistan at https://www.poverty-action.org/recovr-study/state-engagement-with-religious-leaders-effective-covid-19-crisis-response.

2 See Berkley Center/WFDD/JLI repository of resources on faith responses to COVID-19 at http://bit.ly/faith-and-COVID-19.

3 For the series, see https://www.thelancet.com/series/faith-based-health-care.

4 See https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/10/22/religion-and-views-on-climate-and-energy-issues/.

5 COP conferences refer to “Council of Parties” The UNFCCC is the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change (UNFCC stands for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-cop.

6 See http://www.arcworld.org/.

7 See https://slidelegend.com/queue/the-bristol-commitments-alliance-of-religions-and-conservation_59ddaf6b1723dd77602df18d.html.

8 See https://creationcare.org/.

9 The Earth Charter motto is “Turning Conscience into action for a thriving earth.” https://earthcharter.org/.

10 See for example the Indigenous Environmental Network https://www.ienearth.org/.

11 The Pachamama is the highest divinity of the Andean people, concerned with fertility, plenty, the feminine, generosity and ripening crops. The English translation is “Mother Earth;” in Quechua and Aymara the term means earth, cosmos, universe, time, and space.

12 For a summary, see Kaiser Family Foundation (2021). For a larger discussion, please see Rodger (2018).

13 See https://www.ccih.org/cpt_resources/ccih-publications-on-family-planning/ and FP2020 (2019).

14 See https://arigatouinternational.org/en/.

15 Two examples are VIVA, Together for Children, https://www.viva.org/about-us-na/ and The Salesian Preventive System of St. John Bosco (Don Bosco), http://www.donboscowest.org/pedagogy/preventive-system.

16 See Magner et al. (2015). For guidance on how to engage with religious communities, particularly Muslim, see Shoulder to Shoulder (2018), and other resources at https://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/resources.

17 For a discussion on human trafficking and recommendations see https://www.g20interfaith.org/modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking/.

18 Talitha Kum at https://www.talithakum.info/.

19 For example, the Circle of Concerned African Women Theologians, and the inter-religious network African Women of Faith Network. See also Hayward and Marshall (2015).

20 See https://www.musawah.org/.

21 The idea of “spiritual needs” and “spiritual assistance” has long been used in international humanitarian law around the roles of religious personnel, known (with Christian bias) in the Geneva Conventions as “chaplains.” See for example ICRC (1975).

22 For example, see Additional Protocol 1, Article 15, paragraph 5.

23 The specific bounds of appropriate efforts to evangelize (proselytize) are quite well defined in the humanitarian sector, drawing on international humanitarian law. These boundaries are far less clear in the development field where the general principles are quite widely accepted but where there has been little specific discussion of boundaries of appropriate behavior and considerable disagreement including tension as to the possible risks and harms involved.

24 See ,for example, the recent conference for religious chaplains on IHL at the Vatican which included religious professionals from other faiths at https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/10/31/191031a.html.

25 See WHO EPI-WIN Guidance documents at https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/epi-win-updates.

26 During the COVID-19 emergency issues on treatment of the dead have arisen in several settings, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh among them.

27 For example: Advice and Guidance to the Fighters on the Battlefield – A Fatwa by His Eminence Sayyid’ Ali Al-Sistani, The Holy City of Najaf, Iraq, 12 February 2015 at https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/25036/; Pope Francis’ Statement on the 70th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Vatican City 11 August 2019 at https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-08/pope-francis-recalls-70th-anniversary-geneva-conventions.html.

28 For details of the initial conference of Buddhist leaders and ICRC and the background paper for the conference, see https://www.icrc.org/en/document/reducing-suffering-during-conflict-interface-between-buddhism-and-international.

29 This section based on Banchoff, Vail, and Marshall (2020).

30 See Caritas Internationalis at https://www.caritas.org/ and Action for Churches Together at https://actalliance.org/.

31 See The Humanitarian Forum at https://humanitarianforum.org/.

32 The phrase “speaking truth to power” comes from the Quakers but encapsulates the prophetic vocation of all faiths.

33 See Seeds of Peace, published monthly by the International Network of Engaged Buddhists. https://inebnetwork.org/engagements/seeds-of-peace/.

34 See https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ipeoples/freepriorandinformedconsent.pdf.