News > Blog
Humanity at Risk: Addressing Challenges to Principled Humanitarian Action
Published 11/19/2024 by Global Communities
By Paula Rudnicka, Sr. Manager for Public Affairs. Audio production by Kallista Zormelo.
For decades, the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence have underpinned humanitarian action. They provide a foundation for delivering aid with integrity and fairness, and they help ensure that assistance reaches those in need based on vulnerability and urgency, rather than political or personal interests. In recent years, however, we have seen significant challenges in the application of these principles, including their outright violations. Attacks on aid workers, access restrictions and other constraints imposed by parties to armed conflicts inhibit the ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver effective, principled assistance.
Recently, a group of humanitarian workers from our organization met to discuss the risks and challenges to principled humanitarian action. The following colleagues participated in the exchange: Jasper Vaughn, Communication and Information Management Officer, Humanitarian Response; Elise Hannaford, Director, Humanitarian Response; Eva K. Mejia, Country Director, Honduras; Marshall Karidozo, Director of Monitoring & Evaluation and Acting Program Director, Syria; Will Musombi, Senior Advisor, Humanitarian Response; and Noah Steinberg Distefano, Senior Regional Manager, Americas.
The conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Paula: What are the origins of humanitarian principles and what do they mean for Global Communities?
Jasper: The onset of the modern set of humanitarian principles dates back to the 19th century, when they were first promoted by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Today, these principles are embedded in the international humanitarian law, including four Geneva Conventions, ratified by almost all countries in the world. These treaties lay out legally binding obligations aimed at protecting individuals who are not participating in hostilities, including civilians.
In 1994, the humanitarian principles were codified in the voluntary Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the Movement) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief. Global Communities is signatory to this code.
While the humanitarian principles are well-defined by the international community, there are still tensions and misconceptions about their practical application.
Paula: What are the challenges associated with the implementation of humanitarian principles and how do you address them?
Elise: In theory, the humanitarian principles sound straightforward, but in practice, humanitarians face challenges around their implementation and they are unevenly applied across crisis contexts.
The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has led to a serious reckoning in the humanitarian community. Our organization has lost two colleagues, Hani Jnena and Alaa Abu Al-Khair, who have been killed in Israeli airstrikes since the start of the war in October 2023. Many of our colleagues have also lost their family members. These tragic losses are profoundly felt by our teams. Our colleagues work tirelessly to deliver lifesaving assistance to their communities while facing unfathomable danger, severe trauma and significant logistical challenges caused by widespread insecurity and restrictions on aid. We continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and unequivocal adherence to international humanitarian law so that we can deliver aid in a safe and timely manner. As we continue to provide assistance in Gaza, we will keep evaluating our response to ensure that we adhere to the humanitarian principles.
Jasper: Well said, Elise. In recent years, humanitarian assistance has become very politicized. We have seen governments attempting to influence humanitarian actors to pursue non-humanitarian goals, such as foreign policy or military objectives. It can be very difficult for humanitarian actors to balance their adherence to the principles with these intense pressures from high-level political figures or even donors.
In addition, in fast-paced and emergency environments, it can be challenging for humanitarian actors to know how to best include local governments as necessary partners in humanitarian action without compromising principled aid delivery. First, if a government is a party to a conflict, our collaboration with them may be worrying to our program participants, who may no longer see us as an independent or neutral party. Second, local governments often have strong opinions about which populations should receive aid. If these populations are not those most in need of humanitarian assistance, we risk compromising the principle of impartiality.
Aid diversion is also a threat to humanitarian principles. This can happen when stakeholders prevent aid from going to populations most in need and instead divert it to other groups. Also, donor requirements designed to prevent aid diversion may unintentionally hinder the timely and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. It is crucial to balance these safeguards with the need to ensure that aid reaches those in need without unnecessary delays or obstacles.
Eva: I would like to share a real-life example from Honduras, where Global Communities has been operating since 1985. For nearly four decades our main focus was sustainable development. This changed in 2020, when our country experienced a superimposed humanitarian crisis caused by two devastating hurricanes, Eta and Iota, which hit us in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the aftermath of these disasters, we began implementing the Honduras Emergency WASH and Shelter (HEWS) program (2020-2022), funded by the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA). In the span of weeks, our country team turned into a humanitarian actor, and we became bound by the humanitarian principles.
At the very beginning, our staff were not familiar with these principles, and it was challenging for them to apply them while selecting program partners and recipients of aid. In development programs, the selection criteria can be different. For example, while we certainly want to reach the most vulnerable populations, we also apply the “cost-benefit” and “value for money” lens when choosing the communities we work with.
Additionally, we are used to working closely with local governments, and we did not predict that this would be a problem. Yet we soon learned of a growing perception that we were providing humanitarian aid mainly to neighborhoods and communities who were sympathizing with the Honduran government. After an internal reflection, we realized that we need to get better at using the humanitarian approach and terminology to coordinate assistance with local actors and to communicate the eligibility criteria to our communities.
We learned a lot within a short period of time, and we took decisive actions to overcome these challenges. The key was to build trust within the communities and to link local leaders with municipalities for a more coordinated, transparent and principled response.
Now, four years later, we continue implementing humanitarian projects and we have a very strong relationship with BHA. Thanks to Global Communities’ Global Support Team, our staff is well-trained on humanitarian principles, and we systematically monitor their application.
Elise: Well said, Eva. Your team’s experience in pivoting between development and humanitarian work is incredibly valuable as we support other country teams in becoming humanitarian-ready.
Marshall: To me, all four humanitarian principles are intertwined, and it is very rare to witness a situation where only one principle is threatened or violated.
The Syrian context, where I work, is extremely complex. Ten years ago, when Global Communities began its work in Syria, we focused on the blanket distribution of life-saving commodities, such as food and water. Today, our goal is to provide more systematized support to internally displaced people, but we face interference from local committees, camp managers and other local actors who exert power over a specific area. For example, they sometimes give us lists of people who should or should not receive aid, which is in complete violation of the principles of independence and impartiality. In response, we have instituted a robust verification mechanism, which includes community-based needs assessments and validation exercises with other humanitarian stakeholders.
We are incredibly committed to delivering aid in an impartial way. One of the best practices in addressing these challenges is hiring local staff who understand the language, culture and power dynamics in their communities. They have been very helpful in identifying and responding to the instances of bias and discrimination. In some cases, we also employ third-party monitoring teams who lead these verification exercises, and we do our best to ensure that our distribution centers are out of reach of military establishments.
Finally, Global Communities has been very active in Syria’s cluster system, which strengthens coordination and accountability for the delivery of services.
Elise: Many thanks for your examples, Marshall. Your monitoring & evaluation team plays a key role in ensuring that we abide by humanitarian principles, and I appreciate that we have such a strong team.
I also want to mention the importance of our community feedback mechanisms, which not only improve the quality and accessibility of our programming but are also pivotal in holding us accountable and preventing misconduct.
Will: Humanitarian principles are extremely important. In conflict settings, it is critical for us, humanitarians, to engage in dialogues with leaders on both sides of the conflict and assure them of our commitment to neutrality. We have to explain that our mission is solely to deliver humanitarian aid. That we will not take sides and we will not discriminate against people based on which side of the conflict they are on. That we do not have a political or military agenda. Establishing clear communication channels and trust with all parties is key to ensuring a safe and uninterrupted passage of people and goods. Otherwise, we can face bureaucratic and security-related impediments to our work.
Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have seen increased targeting of aid workers. We see attacks on humanitarian convoys. Hospitals are being bombed. Humanitarians are being killed, kidnaped and detained. This is unacceptable. Humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected at all times.
Elise: Indeed. I also want to highlight how challenging it can be to abide by the humanitarian principles during the first phase of an emergency response. We need to make quick decisions with imperfect information, and even with the best intentions, there can be unintended consequences. It’s important to have open discussions, learn and improve.
Paula: How do you apply humanitarian principles to the selection of program partners?
Elise: Many local organizations we work with have dual mandates. The key is to ensure that they apply humanitarian principles in the process of delivering humanitarian aid. We conduct scrupulous verification and monitoring of our current and prospective partners, and we strengthen their capacity to engage in principled emergency response. We take any violations very seriously and address them immediately.
Jasper: This balancing act also applies to our relationships with donors, especially government donors. Governments may participate both in humanitarian and non-humanitarian activities within the same crisis context. For example, they may engage in diplomacy or send military assistance to a conflict party while also financing humanitarian aid to conflict-affected populations. Humanitarian actors must constantly think how to preserve their independence and neutrality in these very complex situations. While the humanitarian principles are well-defined by the international community, there are still tensions and misconceptions about their practical application.
Paula: How do you balance the principle of impartiality with social inclusion and gender integration while developing eligibility criteria for recipients of humanitarian aid?
Elise: These principles may seem contradictory, but most often, they are not. Our goal is to provide appropriate support to those most affected by a crisis and be as inclusive as possible. For example, while we cannot exclude anyone based on gender or age, often women and girls, and children generally, are most vulnerable in crisis settings and may get prioritized for aid. Our Child Protection in Emergencies programming is a good example of this. This is not an exclusion of other populations, but rather a recognition that children are most in need of protection in a particular context.
Marshall: Local cluster systems are incredibly helpful in developing appropriate, context-specific eligibility and vulnerability criteria. In Syria, for example, there is a ranking system, and everything is validated and shared with our community representatives. This creates a common understanding about who qualifies for assistance, which helps reduce community tensions and pushback.
Paula: Is there anything else you would like to share?
Noah: In addition to the core humanitarian principles, which are static, there are also minimum humanitarian standards, for example the Sphere standards. They are more technical in nature and aim to improve the quality and accountability of the humanitarian sector.
Elise: This is a good point, Noah. You are right, the humanitarian principles do not shift, but the minimum standards get updated regularly. In fact, the Core Humanitarian Standards on Quality and Accountability were updated earlier this year. Our Humanitarian Response Team is reviewing them, and we will ensure that our country teams are up to date.
Paula: Thank you for your insights!
