There appears to be an overwhelming consensus among humanitarian actors that humanitarian space is contracting. This report reviews key trends and issues affecting humanitarian space over the last decade. It argues that the discourse of ‘shrinking’ humanitarian space, to which the solution is simply greater adherence to principles, is not borne out by the evidence. It is in fact a myth, based on diverse, narrow and misunderstood definitions of the concept of humanitarian space.
The report’s key findings are as follows:
- Evidence suggests that many of today’s challenges to humanitarian action not only have a historical precedent, but are also the result of an expanding humanitarian system that has extended its reach and ambitions into types of conflict and crisis that were previously off-limits.
- Contrary to common assertions, the humanitarian system is frequently exclusive, dominant, internally competitive and fragmented. It can also act as a vector of Western values and interests that are not universally shared in the places where it intervenes. These internal characteristics are surprisingly absent from discussions of humanitarian space.
- Prioritising external factors over internal ones or simply focusing on internal technical issues has led to solutions that do not effectively address the problem. This is evident in the most common proposed solution to the problem of humanitarian space, namely the call for protection of the humanitarian identity and greater adherence to the principles of humanitarian action.
Despite the fact that many definitions of humanitarian space recognise the importance of both relief and protection, the role of other actors in delivering these assets is rarely mentioned. A broader definition of humanitarian space is required. This should include the protection and assistance needs and priorities of affected people and the roles and duties of other key actors, including political authorities and armed groups. Other implications include the following:
- Given the broad range of issues and dynamics that emerge from this understanding of the term, in practice, it is actually more useful to avoid the term unless discussing it in its broader sense. Greater clarity and use would stem from being specific about the actual issue being raised and how best to use the leverage an organisation has to try and affect it. This could include aid agency access, civilian protection, civil–military relations, the behaviour of humanitarian donors and engagement with non-state armed actors.
- The ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for humanitarian principles does not lie with humanitarian organisations but rather with political authorities and military forces. However, humanitarian organisations can encourage these actors to meet their commitments.
- Humanitarian actors also need to negotiate more strategically among themselves to come to agreed positions and actions. Achieving this will mean finding a compromise between the two extremes of anarchic autonomy and top-down authority within the system, recognising the value of different approaches among different actors.
