This report, based on case studies conducted in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan and South Sudan, considers principled humanitarian action from the perspectives of both NGOs and donors. It examines hurdles that can prevent humanitarian organisations from adhering to the principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality. It considers the impact of non-needs-based funding, the transition gap and the lack of safeguards for principled action in political and security strategies.
This report outlines the legal framework underpinning humanitarian principles, and the various policy commitments and procedures humanitarian organisations have used at the global, country and organisational levels. It covers two areas: 1) how practitioners use the principles in operations, why they are relevant and what challenges are associated with their implementation; 2) challenges and opportunities in terms of institutional funding, which impede or facilitate adherence to the principles.
Although legal and policy frameworks underpin the humanitarian principles and their daily use by organisations, critical challenges continue to hamper implementation. For example, practitioners may still struggle to balance or prioritise the principles in a consistent and transparent way. This report shows that training of international as well as local staff could be improved in order to ensure a common understanding of humanitarian principles and the need for their uniform application.
The risks associated with decisions to prioritise the principles are not only borne by an organisation, but also by the humanitarian community as a whole. When one humanitarian organisation prioritises (or compromises) a principle, that decision may have an impact on the perception and treatment of the wider humanitarian community. Adherence to principles could be enhanced through the development of clear guidance and systems for implementing and monitoring compliance, clear decision-making frameworks and investment in common NGO approaches, such as codes of conduct or ‘red lines’.
Given the extent to which humanitarian organisations rely on states for funding, the availability of donor support can determine whether principled humanitarian action is feasible. Yet despite some improvements, global funding allocations still favour responses in geographically or politically strategic countries over neglected or protracted crises, rather than being directed primarily by needs and vulnerabilities. In addition, funding timelines and administrative procedures can hinder a principled response.
Recommendations for humanitarian organisations include the following:
- Establish mechanisms to strengthen the systematic implementation and monitoring of policies focused on the humanitarian principles, both within organisations and collectively.
- Strengthen the ability of staff to interpret and prioritise the principles as tools for navigating obstacles – through guidance for principled decision-making and consistent training and capacity building.
- Continue to invest, individually and jointly, in assessments to strengthen needs-based programming. This will involve engaging in advocacy with donors to secure sufficient funds and time to conduct assessments as a basis for project proposals and development.
- Agree a compact with donors on measures to strengthen and safeguard adherence to the humanitarian principles in the area of funding.
Recommendations for states, including donor agencies, include:
- Support better needs assessment through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Needs Assessment Task Force, the Assessment Capacities Project and other mechanisms, and develop shared global indicators and mechanisms to promote allocations based on need.
- Adopt safeguards to avoid narrow definitions of humanitarian action, and to separate humanitarian action from crisis management, stabilisation, counterinsurgency and comprehensive approach-style strategies.
- Ensure sufficient flexibility to allow projects to be driven by need.
- Invest in activities that enable humanitarian organisations to strengthen acceptance strategies, including the additional security and logistics costs required for operations in insecure or remote locations.
