The path of least resistance

In order to lay part of the groundwork towards answering the broader questions of the Role of ‘Mandates’ Study, this report delves into some of the elements characterising the humanitarian response in Ethiopia, based on the experiences of the participating organisations, as well as a range of other stakeholders.

For decades, aid agencies in Ethiopia have been responding mainly to refugee influxes and needs flowing from slow-onset recurrent natural disasters. This has been in line with certain requirements of the context, but also the preference of the government to frame humanitarian action within a state development agenda. Operating within the strict parameters dictated by the authorities, humanitarian organisations have hence largely come to follow an idea of humanitarian action that is synonymous with resilience. This has been reinforced through the UN-supported implementation of the NWOW. The priority has been to strengthen the capacities of local communities and institutions to anticipate, prepare, and respond to climate-driven needs. In view of the emphasis put on host government involvement and domestic resilience in the DRR agenda, this has arguably been the easy path to justify continued humanitarian engagement in the country. Addressing humanitarian needs within such a framework has however led to seemingly intractable tensions between tackling acute vs. protracted needs. Indeed, the recent sharp increase in sudden-onset conflict-induced needs largely took the humanitarian community unawares and unprepared, as a result of which both the timeliness and the effectiveness of the overall response significantly suffered.

With the current political opening towards civil society at the federal level humanitarian INGOs are at a crossroads. They have an opportunity to redefine the balance between encouraging state responsibilities and intervening in a subsidiary way while maintaining their humanitarian identity and upholding humanitarian principles. It will not be easy, but the alternative is not an option. Recent responses have reportedly been more timely, and there is also strong collaboration among INGOs for collective advocacy to address operational constraints. Further change will need to happen as a thoughtful strategic realignment between humanitarian identity, principles, and operations to better respond to humanitarian needs in Ethiopia. At the same time, contextual constraints will still limit the timeliness and effectiveness of humanitarian response, and this will need to be accounted for. Expertise built to address recurrent climate-related disasters, such as droughts, should not be lost. Humanitarian organisations should however integrate the necessary expertise, mindset, and protocols to better address all types of assistance and protection needs in their response. With regard to the principles, for example, they should not only become relevant when there is a conflict-induced situation. They need to be thought about strategically. Consequences flowing from compromises made need to be considered in advance. Notably, where the principle of independence is not prioritised from the outset, it is difficult to suddenly change the terms of the relationship between humanitarian actors and the state. If humanitarian assistance and protection interventions are implemented on the basis of long-standing agreements with local authorities and unverified targeting lists, for example, it may take time to (re)evaluate and (re)negotiate whom the aid is/should be prioritising. In the meantime, those most in need risk being cut off from all interventions.