What role should humanitarian actors play in conflict and post-conflict situations? Should humanitarian and development actors pursue distinct or shared agendas? This report from UNDP examines some of the challenges facing humanitarian operations in the new global security environment. Challenges relate to the large number of actors and mandates involved in situations of conflict and protracted crisis – and a lack of clarity over how humanitarian, development and security actors should work alongside each other. This lack of clarity has resulted in a blurring of roles, which has in some cases undermined the concept of neutrality in humanitarian assistance.
Humanitarian providers play a vital role in countries undergoing and emerging from conflict. They form an important part of international work towards stabilisation and recovery. Despite the apolitical ideals of humanitarianism, however, providing humanitarian assistance is not a politically simple matter. The policies and practices of humanitarian actors face new and intensified challenges in the current international environment.
One set of challenges relates to the uncertain role of humanitarian actors in transitional or post-conflict situations. The neutrality of humanitarian missions and the physical security of humanitarian actors are also areas of concern.
- International actors have reached some agreement over effective programming in transitions and the shift from life-saving to life-normalising and life-improving interventions. But dilemmas arise over preserving independence within broader politics and how humanitarians should engage with state structures, political actors and militaries.
- Recent political and security developments impact on the neutrality of humanitarian missions. These include the US-led Global War on Terrorism, asymmetric warfare, counter-insurgency operations and the blending of civil and military responses.
- Humanitarian actors also struggle with the erosion of their physical security, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UN response to security challenges has implications for its own humanitarian access and methods of operations. This has a knock-on effect on the whole humanitarian system.
Issues of co-ordination of humanitarian operations, civil-military relations, operational security and principled programming have yet to be fully addressed. In the context of these challenges, areas for action include:
- Preserving space for neutral humanitarian action: Integrated missions should not always be the template for UN engagement in complex emergencies. UN political actors should seek integration when possible, and independence when necessary. Humanitarian actors should agree a definition of what constitutes humanitarian action.
- Assisting countries in chronic emergencies: There is an urgent need for innovative thinking in aid policy in protracted crises, involving humanitarian and development actors, political actors and international financial institutions. Previous efforts to find common ground between military and humanitarian actors and reinforce the concept of neutral humanitarian space have been sporadic.
- Rethinking security: Humanitarian action in disasters and conflict scenarios involves greater risk to personnel than other development or diplomatic activities. If humanitarian actors are to retain access and an operational role in conflict scenarios, graduated security structures will be needed. Security is best achieved through acceptance by the local community. Local organisations need greater ownership and control of humanitarian operations.
