Ensuring better outcomes for civilians in armed conflict

The increasing complexity of protracted armed conflicts that impact civilian lives demonstrates the urgent need for a reassessment of the role of humanitarian principles – humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence – as well as current humanitarian assistance objectives and planning processes. Common contributory factors stemming from humanitarian organizations that exacerbate negative outcomes for civilians in conflict include different interpretations of the humanitarian principles, siloed leadership and reporting structures, and the marginalization of local organizations. The worst implication of these factors is the emergence of economies dependent on humanitarian aid and further intense cycles of violence. In armed conflicts, humanitarian organizations can improve the outcomes for civilian victims by collaborating with each other, taking a coherent approach to assistance and utilizing conflict analysis and conflict-sensitivity assessments. A coordinated approach to providing assistance, such as the joint operating principles (JOPs) adopted by aid agencies in northern Syria in 2014, can decrease the risks of violence against humanitarian organizations and between communities. Research workshops on four protracted armed conflicts in Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen consistently provided evidence for the importance of local community involvement in leading discussions on the work of humanitarian organizations. This can be achieved by ensuring greater participation of domestic organizations in local and regional consultations during the preparation of a humanitarian response plan (HRP), and by encouraging consultations between humanitarian organizations and those working on peace and development issues. International humanitarian organizations can improve their work through the prioritization of contextual learning and by offering longer assignments for their international staff. It is also essential to ensure that in-country recruitment opportunities are not monopolized by a single political or ethnic group, which can compromise the impartiality of organizations. The leadership of UN organizations and large NGOs is highly siloed. Tensions frequently arise between agencies focused on the humanitarian response and those active in peacebuilding and development. The challenges confronting humanitarian coordinators are exacerbated by a dysfunctional internal reporting system and by competition for resources among agencies of the UN system.