Operational Considerations for the Core Humanitarian Principles

This is the third article on principled humanitarian action. In the first article, I introduced humanitarian principles and reviewed the dynamics in the humanitarian ecosystem and the subsequent challenges to principled action. In the second article, I suggested an operational framework that unpacks the continuous nature of principled action and allows us to have more coordinated action on this subject, composed of our strategic intentions, operational realities, and learning capacity.? In this new article, I suggest some key considerations that we could regularly review in the operational environment to identify potential risks to our humanitarian principles in the field to make informed decisions and take active action.?

The operating environment realities for humanitarian actors are not getting any easier with the negative impact of restrictive measures, changing perceptions of humanitarian action by host governments and non-state actors, increased insecurity, and access constraints like bureaucratic impediments. In addition to the internal challenges in our humanitarian actors' capacity and the sectors' ways of working.?

The core principles are tied and overlapping, they should not be viewed operationally as separate concepts. Sometimes a dilemma could arise from pushing one principle forward while putting a risk to others. However, breaking down these into specific considerations would be the first step to unpacking this complexity to help us deal directly with the issues as they arise that do not necessarily pose a dilemma or better articulate and manage the dilemma at hand.?

As we clarified this, let us look at some of these considerations.?

1. Considerations to Humanity “Human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found. The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life and health and ensure respect for human beings”??

We could take this principle for granted as we tend to be comfortable with prioritising our humanitarian imperative first to try and meet those humanitarian needs and protection of affected populations wherever they arise. But to bring this principle into practice requires critical considerations, for example:

• The type of the crisis and the ability and willingness of the state and non-state actors to understand and implement the applicable laws (IHL, IHRL, IRL), and subsequently their views and consent to international humanitarian action.
• Our ability to understand the context and the root causes of humanitarian suffering as we need to ensure that our humanitarian plans and actions are conflict-sensitive and do not cause harm (as a minimum) and explore early opportunities for strengthening social cohesion and community resilience where possible.?
• We usually try to meet the first half of the principle that “human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found” but then we could often fail in the second which is to properly capture and meet the basic needs in a timely and quality manner and ensure the protection, respect, and dignity of the people in need.?

For that, we have put many international standards and technical specifications to try to assess ourselves against and adhere to, for example:

The Centrality of Protection includes ensuring that leadership, coordination, and engagement in protection and all sectors are more strategic, aligned and directed toward a stronger humanitarian response.

The Core Humanitarian Standards for Quality and Accountability (CHS) sets out Nine Commitments that organizations can – and should – make to people affected by crises or situations of vulnerability to deliver quality, effective and accountable support and assistance. As a core standard, the CHS describes the essential elements of principled, accountable and high-quality support and assistance.

The Sphere Handbook includes the minimum humanitarian standards in four vital areas of response: water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion (WASH), food security and nutrition, shelter and settlement, and health.??

• Advancing our humanitarian imperative is often at the heart of many of our humanitarian dilemmas, for example:

Should we start a response to those needs that we can access now while we know those more critical needs in other inaccessible areas will be left out for months to come??

Should we remain silent in face of key violations of people's rights to maintain an operational footprint to meet life-saving humanitarian needs?

Are we consistent with our principles across all our operations or are we being manipulated (or perceived to be) by political or other agendas and taking sides?

When it is ok to say we better leave and who bears the consequences for the people impacted by those decisions we make every day, and so on.???

2. Considerations to Impartiality “Humanitarian action must be carried out on the basis of need alone, giving priority to the most urgent cases of distress and making no distinctions on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religious belief, class or political opinions"?

In light of the operational realities we highlighted above, we should consider different factors when we approach our impartiality:?

• Impartial humanitarian action is largely rooted in IHL where “impartial humanitarian organizations” have specific rights and obligations but that also is realized in real terms in how much this is understood and respected by the different state and non-state actors involved in the conflict or complex crises. This requires an advanced understanding of the:?

Humanitarian legal space for us to offer and conduct our humanitarian action activities. For example, being able to promote inclusion and prevent any actions that could promote the exclusion of affected populations on any basis other than the need (like beneficiaries vetting).?

Humanitarian operating space which includes the capacity to negotiate and secure access to the affected locations in a timely and regular manner to be able to properly assess, design, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate our programs.?

• This also requires the technical capacity and timely and sustainable resources to:??

Put in place effective risk management activities that mitigate and respond to the various risks impacting the humanitarian space including the counter-terrorism regulations and sanctions, and bureaucratic and administrative impediments while ensuring our duty of care to our staff, partners, and the communities we serve including tackling the possible risk transfer to them.

Advance our communication, policy and advocacy work in coordinated and coherent ways to increase their effectiveness in promoting the humanitarian needs and protection of people and enabling populations access to those humanitarian activities and basic services essential for their survival and dignity.?

• Impartial humanitarian action is about ensuring that response is prioritized and targeted based on the need alone, which requires the capacity to:

Assess, and target the diverse and overlapping needs of the most vulnerable population, including groups who are affected differently by the crisis, and are facing exclusion, discrimination, and inequality (including the factors of age, gender, and disability).

Understand the context and integrate conflict sensitivity into our programming to ensure that it does not exacerbate existing marginalization and discrimination.?

• This also means that we should have the right data and know how to safeguard them:??

Ensure that we do not collect data for recipients of aid more than what is required for delivering timely and quality impartial humanitarian assistance and strictly safeguard those data at all times.

Ensure that we carefully review and verify data received from state, non-state actors and other sources that might not use similar methodologies to those depended on by humanitarian actors or might be impacted by the views and desires of those in power and hence not always representing the actual needs.?

Ensure that we do a pre-assessment of any data agreements we want to sign mainly to understand the minimum data required to conduct a certain activity, assess the associated risks for sharing/receiving the data, and safeguard the recipients of aid from the risks of exclusion or any other protection risks they could face.?

3. Considerations to Independence “Humanitarian action must be autonomous from the political, economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold with regard to areas where humanitarian action is being implemented”??

We could hardly maintain total independence in the ever-complex environment in which we operate and the way international humanitarian action is structured and funded. Some factors to consider:

• The larger part of international humanitarian funding comes from institutional and non-institutional donor agencies, multilateral funds, private funds and foundations, private sectors, and state actors for whom the humanitarian agenda is part of wider agenda spanning their foreign policy, security, and other political and economic interests. But this means different things in different contexts on how to impact our entry, acceptance and also the safety and security of our teams, partners and communities we serve.?
• The increasingly shrinking space for us to plan and deliver impartial humanitarian action as state, non-state and third-party states all pose increasing impediments or self-justify (sometimes due to the first point above) their direct interventions in our humanitarian programs. This includes our staff and partners' mobility (e.g., imposing armed escorts and Mahrams), needs assessments, beneficiaries' selection and targeting, partners' and suppliers' selection, activities/modalities selection (e.g., requesting food, denying protection), and other operational processes including recruitment and procurement.
• But this is also about our internal capacity and ways of working, especially on how we manage the risks and partnerships, to be able to determine those boundaries we accept and develop our capacity to develop sustainable support networks and negotiate favourable conditions for our organisations.?
• The complexity of the online and social media age as our organisational reputation and general perceptions of humanitarian action are extremely vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation on its humanitarian activities, and the humanitarian needs and protection of the affected communities. Which requires different sets of skills, capacities and partnerships to tackle.?

4. Considerations to Neutrality “Humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or engage in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature”?

Perhaps the most debatable among all principles but we often get quickly polarized in our discussion to be neutral and not neutral without sufficient evidence of what and how this was a problem and what it means for our humanitarian action forward. Some of these considerations include but are not limited to:

• Our capacity to understand well the crisis and the root causes of the humanitarian needs and the role that the different actors play in its dynamics. Where do our active partnerships (donors, national states, third-party actors, etc.) stand from this ongoing crisis??
• And then how deep and far we are willing (and technically able to) to tackle those causes below the surface of a humanitarian emergency, which could be of political, environmental, economic, social and other complex natures.?
• What is the impact of those dynamics on our acceptance and capacity to negotiate effective and impartial access and advocacy for communities impacted by the conflict in disproportionate ways??
• Is this international idiom, which requires some distance and lack of direct interest or limited impact by the local dynamics on the international organization as a whole, transferable to the local structures in the field, especially our teams and local partners, and how does this look like in terms of our capacity to deliver an impartial humanitarian response.?

The list is not exhaustive but reflects some of the considerations I see or experienced to be able to develop an operational picture of how these principles could be interpreted in the field. You might see other priorities or understand things differently reflecting your diverse organizational cultures and rich personal experiences, so please share your alternative views in the comments sections below.?