This report focuses on: approaches to secure access; principles and partnership; governance, accountability and value for money; and new technology and innovation. It notes that the difficulties of conducting detailed field research in unstable environments have limited the literature’s scope and findings. There is a lack of empirical evidence and quantitative analysis. Among its findings, the review identifies a growing evidence base to indicate that relatively effective approaches in securing access include: risk management as opposed to avoidance, actively negotiating access and acceptance, and using less heavy-handed protection measures when appropriate.
The report synthesises the evidence on delivering aid in highly insecure environments and highlights lessons and research gaps. The study reviewed both secondary as well as primary/grey literature (where readily accessible) produced since 2007. Of the 118 documents consulted, over half (69) were research studies, good practice guides or policy reviews that employed literature reviews and fieldwork as the main methodology (over half involved fieldwork). Of the additional materials reviewed, 28 were evaluations: 16 single-agency evaluations, four donor evaluations, four real-time evaluations and four inter-agency evaluations.
Quality of the literature
Difficulties in conducting detailed field research, particularly beyond major capitals, have limited the scope and findings of much of the literature. There is a lack of empirical evidence and quantitative analysis, or combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. Overall, there is only a relatively small pool of authors, researchers and evaluators working in this subject area.
Approaches to secure access
The literature shows that active acceptance-based approaches are considered more successful in providing assistance to beneficiaries than approaches that rely on heavy protection – so-called ‘bunkerisation’. A blend of approaches will often be necessary.
Remote management has emerged as one of the principal strategies used by humanitarian agencies to maintain access to populations in need. Aid agencies are still struggling with some very basic challenges in implementing programmes by remote management, however.
The literature examining the effectiveness of interventions, the appropriateness of programming, and the comparative risks of operating in different sectors in highly insecure contexts, including what works at scale, is limited. Agencies are increasingly employing cash transfers as an alternative to in-kind aid, primarily as a substitute for food aid.
Local partners and other national assistance actors, such as faith-based organisations, are becoming increasingly important in working with affected populations. However, there has been little research on the nature and scope of the role of local organisations in highly insecure environments.
Humanitarian principles and collaboration
Much of the literature in this area underscores the importance of the core humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence in underpinning acceptance approaches. Notably lacking is an understanding of how principles are put into practice, as well as a mapping of patterns of access in insecure environments. Another significant gap in the literature and in practice is an understanding of how local organisations collaborate in managing their risk environment, and how the international coordination system should support these efforts.
Through a resilience framework, aid actors are seeing greater potential for shared programming across the humanitarian/development divide to address the needs of the most vulnerable populations. There is, however, a growing recognition of the difficulties involved in applying multiple sets of aid principles – including the Paris, fragile states and humanitarian principles – in insecure environments.
Governance, accountability and value for money
The literature reflects growing interest in engaging host states more effectively in humanitarian response. However, much of this has focused on natural disaster contexts, with very little on the role of the state in supporting aid operations in highly insecure contexts. Recent literature concludes that aid workers need to be much more aware as to host-state capacities and limitations as regards providing a secure environment for humanitarian action, and should base their security planning on the level of state-support actually available.
Currently, the formal requirements as to donor accountability for aid projects in insecure areas are similar to other, more stable environments. This indicates a need for greater policy development on the part of donors to focus their support to partners in high-risk environments and provide a more detailed framework of whether and how additional support will be provided, as well as a realistic appraisal of accountability and reporting requirements for different contexts.
While there has been some adaptation of beneficiary accountability mechanisms in highly insecure environments, the literature is weak on the broader questions of beneficiary perceptions of their needs and the aid they receive in insecure environments.
Partly because of methodological difficulties, evaluations and the wider literature have typically paid little attention to questions of cost-effectiveness.
Innovation and technology
Aid agencies are increasingly making use of innovations in information and communication technologies to improve remote engagement with partners and beneficiaries, and in project monitoring. Practitioner analysis and guidance on these issues is proliferating, but various constraints remain with regard to the use of technology in insecure environments, and much of the technology is still in its infancy.
Research gaps
The study identifies eight priority areas for additional research:
- Quantitative analyses and mapping of access trends, including country-level data on aid presence (coverage)
- Detailed, technical guidance on good practice in remote management
- Analyses of the effectiveness of differing sectoral interventions, and whether and how certain sectors can operate ‘at scale’ in high insecurity and under remote management
- Detailed analyses of the role of local partnerships in insecure environments
- Analyses of the operational implications of the principles that guide the approaches of different aid actors in insecure environments
- Examination of the principles and practice regarding the aid activities of non-Western assistance actors in insecure environments
- Analyses of donor policy and accountability practices for remote-managed assistance in insecure environments
- Beneficiary perceptions of how their most urgent needs are being met, or not, in insecure environments, and the value of beneficiary accountability mechanisms.