Critiques of the needs-based approach underpinning impartiality highlight that, whether it is intended or not, humanitarian action always has the potential to shape gender relations, both positively and negatively. However, the ‘practical and limited scope of the basic needs approach is not well suited to foster awareness of the subtle and often unintended gendered effects of policies and programmes’. Similarly, analysts have brought attention to the way in which the limited technical focus of needs assessments can fuel conflict and insecurity. For instance, in South Sudan, armed groups have exploited the technical focus of needs assessments to control local populations, exposing them to greater insecurity. They have done this by pushing populations into contested territories, then asking agencies to provide assistance on the basis of need; this has further fuelled resource allocation-related tensions between different communities.This has been possible because humanitarian needs assessments have failed to situate and assess physical needs within the broader political contexts in which operations takes place.
Observers argue that an approach that is sensitive to conflict dynamics in contexts like South Sudan would involve moving beyond purely needs-based interpretations of impartiality to a ‘more expansive agenda’, in which the humanitarian sector’s existing principles are complemented by a concern for social injustice and the aim of redressing structural inequalities. In South Sudan, structural inequalities and injustice include gender disparities, which can be viewed as both an outcome and a feature of conflict, seen particularly in the prevalence of gender-based violence, but also as a part of the underlying social norms and power dynamics that drive violence.
A recent UN Human Rights Council investigation in South Sudan highlights how rape and sexual violence are perpetrated by all armed groups across the country as a tactic of war. Such violence has been enabled by ‘near-universal impunity’ for perpetrators in the country’s justice system. In South Sudan, the marginalization of gender-based violence in the public justice system is an example of the gendered nature of political settlements in fragile contexts, which can be characterized by relationships between violent forms of masculinity, conflict, gender-based violence and women’s marginalization in public life.
Recognition of the interconnection between gendered power relations and conflict has driven calls for humanitarian action that integrates approaches under the triple nexus and WPS frameworks. These agendas recognize that humanitarian interventions alone may be limited in their ability to address the gendered drivers and outcomes of conflict. However, they can work in a way that coordinates across the humanitarian, development and peace spheres to contribute towards more long-term, transformative outcomes. Arguing along these lines, a Gender and Development Network briefing states that ‘[t]o be meaningful, gender-responsive humanitarian action must connect women and girl’s rights in crisis settings to WPS’s call for conflict prevention, women’s participation and resilience’. In the research for this series of papers, practitioners similarly argued that meaningful engagement with gender by humanitarian agencies would involve a rights-based approach that challenges power, gender norms and promotes gender justice.
At the same time, the varied interpretations of humanitarian principles are challenging the ability of organizations to break down the different sectoral approaches to conflict and gender. This is seen particularly in differences of opinion over whether humanitarian action should be kept as ‘apolitical’ as possible and whether actors should avoid peace and development issues to protect the neutrality and independence of organizations. For instance, a recent ALNAP briefing points towards ‘widespread concerns’ about the tensions that arise between humanitarian principles and the nexus approach, which can involve closer collaboration with state-based parties in conflict. But, as this paper has noted, when retaining an ‘apolitical’ stance leads humanitarian actors to overlook the political, economic and social dimensions of conflict they risk reinforcing existing gender inequalities and conflict dynamics.
One way in which agencies attempt to overcome the risks and limitations associated with politically blind programming is through conflict-sensitivity assessments. Conflict sensitivity is generally underpinned by recognition that if humanitarian organizations do not have a full grasp of the contexts in which they operate, then their interventions can become implicated within processes that further stoke violence. As the South Sudan example shows, this also applies to the operationalization of humanitarian principles. In recent years, there have been efforts to embed a stronger gender focus in conflict-sensitivity frameworks. For instance, Saferworld’s 2020 gender-sensitive conflict analysis guidelines recognize that ‘harmful gender norms fuel not just gender inequality but also conflict, broader discrimination, exclusion and violence’. This approach aims to highlight how different types of violence, including economic violence, gender-based violence and political violence, are used to maintain power in public and private spaces, and how these spaces are connected. Saferworld’s approach also aims to gain a fuller picture of conflict-affected people’s needs in peacebuilding and humanitarian programming, arguing:
In the context of Afghanistan, Oxfam has also promoted the role of conflict sensitivity that incorporates gender concerns. However, there are a number of operational challenges associated with implementing gender-responsive conflict sensitivity. These include the perception that conflict analysis can slow humanitarian assistance down and compromise the ability of agencies to achieve their fundamental, life-saving objectives. The analytical approaches used can also fail to fully address how interventions interact with conflict dynamics, instead focusing on more technical geospatial, nutritional or agricultural data. This can be connected to humanitarian actors overlooking how aid could be diverted or instrumentalized by armed groups, which, as shown in South Sudan, has the potential to fuel or fund conflict. Based on its analysis in Afghanistan, Oxfam concludes that poor local-level context analysis can lead to conflict dynamics being overlooked and to programming that focuses more on ensuring continued funding, rather than on doing no harm.
The role of funding incentives points towards the need to integrate political-economy analyses into any approach that aims to be conflict sensitive. An example of good practice in this area is the Gender, Inclusion, Power and Politics (GIPP) toolkit, which merges political-economy and gender analysis and has been developed through piloting in conflict contexts like Myanmar. The GIPP approach involves outlining formal power structures as well as less tangible, invisible and hidden forms of power, including personal behaviours, norms, ideology and beliefs as pervasive systems of power. Using gender-sensitive analytical approaches in conflict contexts can help overcome the limitations associated with the implementation of impartiality. Applying gender-sensitive analytical approaches alongside needs assessments can help expand the framework of analysis conducted in humanitarian assessments to include the social, political and economic drivers of conflict and the effects of these dynamics on women, girls, marginalized or minority groups. Integrating gender, power and economic analysis can support the conflict sensitivity of integrated practices that coordinate across humanitarian, peace and development sectors.
