Organizations led by women, girls and gender-diverse people play a crucial role in humanitarian action, and they are often involved in the most transformational gender work that takes place. Among displaced communities, for instance, research shows that when conflict-affected women and girls are given opportunities to have their voices heard and participate in humanitarian action, it not only results in a more accurate understanding of their needs, but it can have transformative effects on gender relations. Similarly, one of the most prevalent messages to emerge from research on gendered dynamics of conflict is the central role played by women’s collective action and social movements in pathways towards inclusive peace. This shows the need for external interventions not to overlook the priorities and activism of women themselves. In many fragile contexts, locally rooted efforts to promote and secure women’s empowerment exist independently of international interest and agendas. For instance, in Afghanistan, the commitment to women’s rights among some of the most influential Afghan civil society organizations pre-date the influx of international interventions that occurred in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In more recent years, efforts have been made to align the pursuit of gender equality with the localization agenda to promote the role of crisis-affected communities in humanitarian action. The Women’s Refugee Commission, for instance, noted that:
However, key localization policy architecture for the humanitarian system, like the Grand Bargain, has faced challenges in incorporating and implementing a gender focus. In fact, the initial Grand Bargain commitments made in 2016 omitted gender priorities altogether. Under the influence of the Friends of Gender Group (FoGG) – a collective of Grand Bargain signatories steering its gender work – the Grand Bargain 2.0 framework sought to rectify this and was successful at integrating gender equality and women’s empowerment issues across the 2021 framework document. To support this process, FoGG members also produced a series of guidance notes applying a gender lens to four priority workstreams in the Grand Bargain, including cash assistance, participation, localizaton and needs assessments.
A significant challenge, however, to the implementation of gender-responsive localization under the Grand Bargain is the lack of an effective accountability mechanism for tracking signatory progress. This is reflected in low levels of reporting against key gender commitments like the proportion of funding going to women-led organizations (WLO) and women’s rights organizations (WRO), which is an optional indicator and was completed by only five signatories in 2021 and 2022. It has been very challenging to track progress on the Grand Bargain due to a lack of data, affected by the absence of commonly applied indicators and categorization approaches, including definitions for WROs and WLOs.
To address this, the Gender Reference Group in the IASC has developed a common definition of WROs and WLOs that will, once formally endorsed in 2023, be integrated into the tracking systems for partnerships with and funding to WROs and WLOs. In the most recent independent review of the Grand Bargain, progress on the participation of WRO and WLO actors in global and country-level decision-making forums is reported, including in the advisory boards of country-based pooled funds (CBPF), which are a central funding mechanism for local organizations. Internally, the FoGG has been working to promote the role of WROs and WLOs within the Grand Bargain structure, including advocating for the representation of these organizations in the facilitation group, and active participation and leadership within national reference groups. The FoGG itself is also in the process of shifting its leadership towards WRO and WLO actors.
The localization agenda and its gender focus are still evolving, and localization is by no means a silver bullet for promoting the leadership of conflict-affected women, girls and gender-diverse people in humanitarian settings. Localization faces various barriers and challenges, including the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities in local contexts. For instance, interviews conducted with local humanitarian partners and women in Syria indicated that the majority of ‘localized’ funding went to larger, male-dominated NGOs, ‘which have been able to negotiate larger scale programmes precisely because of their more conservative social and political affiliations’. Of particular relevance to this paper are challenges relating to the humanitarian principles.
There is a perception that acting in line with the principles is a challenge for local and national organizations involved in humanitarian action, due to the proximity of these actors to local contexts and communities. This is particularly relevant in highly politicized conflict environments.For instance, Médecins Sans Frontières has argued that:
There are also assertions that ‘you don’t have to be neutral to be a good humanitarian’. Indeed, humanitarian crises, including the wars in Ukraine and Syria, have brought into question the dominance of neutrality in Western humanitarian practice and enlivened debates about ‘alternative forms of humanitarian action’ that concentrate on different sets of principles, including solidarity, resistance and social justice. Moreover, the concept of international actors as somehow immune from the politics of conflicts is potentially ‘overly naive’ because all humanitarian actors, national and international, face challenges in upholding the principles, and it could be argued that any humanitarian presence in conflict zones is ‘inherently political’.
Localization faces various barriers and challenges, including the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities in local contexts.
The case of Myanmar demonstrates these dynamics. Women’s organizations in Myanmar have argued that expectations for the blanket application of the humanitarian principles can hinder the role of local organizations. For instance, the ability of these organizations to work in accordance with the principles of neutrality and impartiality is challenged by the nature of unequal power relations between the military, civil society and warring parties. However, local actors are often best situated to deliver aid given their knowledge of local conflict dynamics, access and trust. Myanmar presents a hostile landscape for humanitarian organizations, including intentional acts of violence against international aid workers and the military junta not allowing humanitarian actors to access conflict-affected communities. Trust is therefore particularly important in a context in which the role of international organizations has been rejected by communities due to their perceived relationship with the junta – because such humanitarian organizations are beholden to the authorities of the territories they are in for their operation and mobility. In this context, women’s organizations have chosen a human rights-based approach that demonstrates solidarity with persecuted and marginalized communities. This has supported the development of trust with communities, but it has tested the principle of neutrality. The Myanmar case exemplifies the reality of a highly politicized environment, where applying a rights-based approach, while not being neutral, can support access and positive relationships with communities.
While the example of Myanmar shows the challenges faced by women’s organizations in upholding the principle of neutrality, using the principles to delegitimize locally led humanitarian action may be more reflective of the position of international humanitarian organizations than the realities of conflicts on the ground. As the SOHS report findings indicate, the humanitarian system is not ‘neutral’ but is marked by its own embedded power dynamics, assumptions and political incentives. For instance, commentators note that international agencies suggest that all aid should be neutral in an effort to ‘guard their space’ in an environment of shrinking donor funding and increasing pressures to localize aid. Similarly, it has been argued that the humanitarian principles can operate as a ‘convenient escape from much harder conversations about gaps in commitment, leadership and political will’. In order to promote gender-equality in contexts of armed conflict, the role of conflict-affected communities, particularly marginalized groups, in humanitarian action should not be undermined by arguments about their capacity to uphold the principles. Such observations do not necessarily imply that neutrality as a principle should be abandoned entirely, simply that the expectation for its blanket application in conflicts requires critical examination and is both context- and actor-dependent.
