There are now 120 million refugees and forcibly displaced people in the world, i.e. one person in 69, representing 1.5% of the world’s population, according to the UNHCR!
In 2002, there were 32.9 million.
In 2012, there were 45.2 million.
In 2017, there were 68.5 million.
In 2021, there will be 89.3 million people forced into exile by war and disaster.
At this rate, how many will there be tomorrow?
If we consider some of the major trends at work on our planet – extreme poverty, disasters, conflict – and if we just want to be realistic, there is an urgent need to prepare to help a growing number of victims of war, disasters and epidemics.
The humanitarian raison d’être is to save lives. Current wars, such as those in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, are characterised by their intensity, their multiplication and their duration, and they mainly affect civilian populations, feeding the ever-increasing flow of forcibly displaced people and refugees.
This thermometer of global fever is a key indicator of both human suffering and the destabilising effects of the domino effect, ultimately washing up on the beaches of the English Channel or the Mediterranean.
If this is an urgent humanitarian issue, it is also a political issue that cannot be satisfied with failure!
Russia’s attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022 led to the questioning of borders by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. It is an example that will inspire others. Azerbaijan did just that when it forcibly expelled 100,000 Armenians from their ancestral homeland of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.
This is the risk now facing Georgia, having already lost South Ossetia and Abkhasia. Hamas’s murderous attack on the Israeli population on 7 October triggered a war whose terrifying consequences for the Palestinian civilian population are frightening to contemplate.
Globalisation has given way to a multipolar world in which values, interests and fierce competition are at odds.
And yet, at a time when humanitarian aid is being called on from all sides by a growing number of crises and victims, it is increasingly being asked to do everything, even though financial resources are cruelly lacking and access to populations in danger is becoming more difficult and dangerous.
The proof? This year, the United Nations, with OCHA and its partners, identified 300 million human beings in danger to be helped. As a result, only 180 million have been selected as worthy of aid. And we’re not even sure we’ll get there, because at the time of writing, at least 80% of the essential funding is still missing, i.e. a total of 46.4 billion dollars this year. And what will become of the 120 million people who have been turned down? Who cares?
Isn’t that simply disgraceful in a world with a market capitalisation of around 95,000 billion?
So let’s put it bluntly. If humanitarian aid is an insurance policy for every life in danger, it is also a vital insurance policy for everyone. Less humanitarian action means more forced displacement, more despair, more radicalisation, more massive and uncontrolled migratory movements, and more hotbeds of conflict that risk exploding in their turn.
At a time when the old empires are aspiring to become empires again, when nations want to protect themselves, clear-sightedness and experience teach us that at the start of the 21st century there are global risks such as climate change, the water crisis (pollution, overexploitation, flooding, drought), the demographic explosion in Africa and the return of war which, even if we favour the “every man for himself” rule to protect ourselves, mean that we have to face up to them and find solutions for everyone that no one can find alone.
This does not call into question the democratic legitimacy that peoples and nations give themselves, but it should lead them to contribute to humanitarian life insurance for everyone. And, to take the logic to its logical conclusion, wouldn’t that be fair to all possible regimes responsible for their populations?
Here, the ethic of conviction meets the ethic of responsibility. So let’s not shoot the humanitarian ambulance.
Thank you for your support for Défis Humanitaires (faireundon).
Alain Boinet.
PS1/ If you have an example of positive humanitarian action, you can send us your testimonial which we will publish or use in a future article. We look forward to hearing from you. Send to: contact@defishumanitaires.com
PS2/ Défis Humanitaires would like to thank the authors of the articles and interviews published in this issue as part of our editorial policy, without our magazine endorsing all the points of view expressed.
INSO South deputy safety advisor, Wilfreud Mbouyavo using a sattelite phone near an INSO car
The question of the safety of humanitarian workers (or members of UN field teams) has been part of the history of modern humanitarian aid since its inception. It goes hand in hand with the questions of “how far to go” and “how to act while managing what risks” that are consubstantial with this commitment, at least when it comes to intervening in areas of armed conflict (or natural disasters with banditry and looting). As Alain Boinet pointed out in an article published in Droit et pratique de l’action humanitaire in October 2019, as well as in Défis Humanitaires: “If humanitarian action is a duty that comes under the ethics of conviction (according to the opposition between the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction theorised by the philosopher Max Weber), its implementation in contexts of insecurity generates multiple risks, particularly for humanitarian staff, for whom organisations must assume responsibility“.
There was a time when humanitarians were held in relative esteem as representatives of a form of neutrality and independence that helped everyone. This esteem was far from absolute, but it offered some protection to the teams. Then there was a period when being a humanitarian didn’t offer much protection. Finally, there was a time when humanitarian staff were specifically targeted (attacks, murders, hostage-taking, etc.).
It is the consequences of this deterioration that the United Nations Security Council has sought to address once again, as part of its ongoing concern over the last ten years, by passing Resolution 2730 on 24 May, calling on States to respect and protect humanitarian and United Nations personnel in accordance with their obligations under international law. This resolution, adopted by 14 votes with one abstention (Russia), was presented by Switzerland and co-sponsored by 97 Member States. It should be recalled that, already, Security Council Resolution 2175 of 29 August 2014 reported “(…) an increase in acts of violence perpetrated (…) against national and international staff of humanitarian organisations (…)”. Resolution 2286 of 3 May 2016 also stressed that “(…) humanitarian workers (…) are increasingly the targets of acts of violence (…) violence against the wounded and sick, medical personnel and humanitarian workers“.
What are the obligations under international law that underlie these various United Nations resolutions? As Alain Boinet points out in his article, “they are the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1997 and 2005, as well as the rules of customary international humanitarian law which oblige the parties to an armed conflict to respect and ensure respect for IHL, which provides for the protection of the wounded and sick, medical personnel and humanitarian workers: Rule 31 of customary IHL stipulates that humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected. Rule 55 establishes the principle of freedom of movement for humanitarian relief workers“.
To find out more about the determinants and issues at stake in this situation addressed by the UN Security Council, we need to talk to INSO (International NGO Safety Organisation), an NGO founded in 2011 and based in The Hague in the Netherlands, which acts as a ‘platform’ dedicated to coordinating and advising on safety issues for humanitarian organisations working in high-risk contexts. INSO works in 17 countries for 1,202 NGOs and employs 1,307 people in the field:
On 24 May, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2730 calling on states to respect and protect humanitarian and UN personnel. How did INSO welcome this initiative, and what does it mean to you ?
INSO: INSO welcomes Resolution 2730 as an essential reminder to conflict actors of their obligations to ensure the protection of humanitarian workers. The clauses calling for concrete actions to assess the risks to humanitarians and create relevant recommendations through regular reporting and solid evidence are highly welcome. This is recognition that the data generated by field-based platforms such as INSO is essential for NGO security and access.
From January 2023 to May 2024, INSO documented 1,944 incidents affecting humanitarians, including 57 killed, 208 injured and 185 abducted. What is your analysis of the trend in the number of incidents involving humanitarians ?
INSO: Every incident is worrying, and it is always worrying that our colleagues are exposed to this type of incident; any violation of IHL is unacceptable, but it is worth noting that in recent years, the number and annual rate of serious impacts on NGOs around the world have often been stable or declining; the drivers of this trend are due to a number of factors both internal and external to NGOs. However, changes in conflict patterns in Afghanistan and Syria have been important factors. In addition, although important to our perception of risk, incidents involving NGOs represent a relatively small proportion of all reported incidents in the field, ranging from 0.9% to 1.5% of all recorded incidents in any given year.
At the same time, crime accounts for the majority of incidents involving NGOs. The fact that the overwhelming majority of serious incidents involving NGOs are motivated by some perception of wealth rather than targeting because of the activity or profile of NGOs is consistent with this trend.
Nevertheless, despite a steady annual decline in deaths of NGO workers in particular, it is possible that, as we continue to interrogate the 2023 data, we will see a temporary reversal of the downward trend in serious incidents. This is because crises have erupted rapidly in places such as Sudan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, contributing directly to the increase in the number of deaths of NGO workers.
The national staff of humanitarian organisations are paying the heaviest price for the insecurity on the ground. Can you at INSO corroborate this fact ?
INSO: There is a clear demand for a global analysis for NGO headquarters staff so that they can better support their teams in the field, including national staff. To this end, INSO produces dozens of reports tailored to the needs of humanitarian leaders and managers, who make up a network of around 140 NGOs and donors at global level (headquarters) – 1,200 NGOs in the field.
In fact, national or local colleagues are the most likely to suffer a serious incident. If we look at the reasons for this, we see that the percentage of incidents involving national staff is almost identical to the percentage of national staff in the overall NGO population, which in both cases is over 90%. This is the most reliable determinant of the composition of victims of serious incidents, along with other factors that contribute to NGO risk, ranging from risk tolerance to sub-national dynamics. This highlights the importance of field-based platforms for understanding and managing risk for NGOs, as it is difficult to understand risk when you are not close to partners.
Among the data, it is worth mentioning that it is the national staff of international NGOs that are most affected rather than the staff of national NGOs. This is linked to the fact that national staff of international NGOs represent the largest group of humanitarian workers in the field. Nevertheless, INSO works tirelessly to understand the internal and external nuances that can amplify risk, to ensure that analysis, advice, training, crisis management and emergency support are guided by the needs and profiles of our partners.
INSO staff discuss the context with members of the local community. Credit: C. Di Roma/INSO
What characterises the evolution of security for humanitarian personnel ?
INSO: Security risk management for NGOs has improved dramatically with the introduction of field-based platforms to help NGOs make informed decisions. With this development, we have seen NGOs share information at unprecedented levels; by having a platform, NGOs understand and contribute to collective security. In addition, while localisation continues to drive humanitarian strategies, the field approach to analysis and advice has enabled national NGOs to access the support systems traditionally available to their larger international counterparts.
And over the last ten years ?
INSO: NGOs have seen an unprecedented growth in on-the-ground support for their risk management efforts, and have exploited it well. What’s more, these efforts are increasingly inclusive; for example, more than 40% of INSO’s 1,200 or so partners are national NGOs.
The establishment of reliable mechanisms for collecting and sharing data at local level, stimulated by the Saving Lives Together framework, is at the heart of this evolution. The task ahead is to support and intensify relevant initiatives at an operational level. Through platforms on the ground, NGOs are demonstrating their willingness to support collective security through the sharing of information and views, in contrast to some of the rhetoric currently being propagated around the challenges of risk management.
What is your perception, at INSO, of the measures taken by humanitarian organisations to mitigate and manage security risks for their staff in the field? What is working ?
INSO: We work with NGOs on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in all our field offices. Through these engagements in safety roundtables, training and site reviews, we see how important information sharing is. At our round tables, where NGOs feel comfortable sharing what has worked and what hasn’t, we learn and our NGO partners learn. Safety risk management is a constantly evolving process and regular and open communication ensures that we can keep up with this evolution.
We know that NGOs are fully committed to the ‘Stay and Deliver’ principle. Our data shows that only a very small percentage of individual serious incidents result in NGOs losing access or withdrawing permanently. This suggests that NGOs understand the risks they face and feel they have the capacity and support on the ground to deal with these risks.
Nevertheless, through meetings with key informants, regular engagement and surveys, INSO has found that the rapid onset of a crisis can change NGOs’ perceptions of risk, their presence and their strategies, over a relatively short period of time. This is probably because NGOs balance the duty of care with the need to stay and deliver. In such cases, they take into account humanitarian needs, resilience, programme criticality and conflict sensitivity, while questioning their tolerance of risk.
The traditional components of security risk management, based on humanitarian principles and acceptance, remain the most useful tools for mitigating risk. As the contexts, and the world, in which we work change in unforeseen ways, best practice in risk mitigation has proved its worth.
INSO teams near Goma, DRC, discuss with their partners. Credit: O. Acland/INSO
What is your view on safety training ?
INSO: NGOs understand that capacity building and training are key elements of security risk management, and essential to fulfilling their duty of care obligations. For example, in 2023, INSO trained around 7,600 humanitarians through courses including security management, crisis management, humanitarian access and negotiation, personal security and first aid. NGOs are seeking to increase their internal capacity to analyse risks, plan and implement both preventive and mitigating measures. This includes their national staff, who account for 92% of INSO training participants, and a growing contingent of female participants, who represent around one in five learners.
From this volume of engagement, the INSO training team has strengthened its understanding of a number of best practices. Firstly, effective training must be accessible. This can range from solutions such as on-the-job training, to using technology to deliver online training. Secondly, adaptation based on solid learning engineering is essential to meet the diverse needs of humanitarians. For example, self-paced e-learning courses may be best for widely promoting the fundamentals of security management, while training based on realistic scenarios and including exposure to stress may be more effective for equipping field staff with vital knowledge and skills.
Finally, the most useful training for humanitarians is that designed by humanitarians, with a critical eye to contextualisation, based on data-driven information, and offering evidence-based content and methods.
In conclusion, how do you see the future security environment for humanitarian workers ?
INSO: Field platforms and support structures will continue to shape the ability of NGOs to address risks and access challenges. At the same time, NGOs will face bureaucratic and administrative hurdles that can lead to mission failure, even if they often do not represent explicit threats to physical security. Also in the short to medium term, NGOs will face multiple rapidly emerging crises requiring a review of programme resilience and duty of care. This will also require all stakeholders in the sector to leverage field operational support systems and collective security to ensure that risk management resources are optimised. In addition, among a number of potential emerging threats, as Resolution 2730 demonstrates, misinformation will be a significant challenge for NGOs in the future. Ultimately, the security of humanitarians will be ensured by operational partners, their needs and the support they can receive on the ground.
Many thanks to INSO for this precise insight into a decisive subject, and we remind you that, for more information on the subjects of this interview or INSO in general, readers can contact you atglobal.analysis@ngosafety.org.
Pierre Brunet
Writer and humanitarian
Pierre Brunet is a novelist and a member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in Bosnia in 1995, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, the Calais Jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and north-eastern Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: “Barnum” in 2006, “JAB” in 2008, “Fenicia” in 2014 and “Le triangle d’incertitude” in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical articles, opinion pieces and columns.
Pierre Brunet is a novelist and a member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in Bosnia in 1995, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, the Calais Jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and north-eastern Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: “Barnum” in 2006, “JAB” in 2008, “Fenicia” in 2014 and “Le triangle d’incertitude” in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical articles, opinion pieces and columns.
You must be logged in to post a comment.