Paper details

Paper authors	Anaide Nahikian
In panel on	Negotiating Humanitarian Access in Violent Conflict
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

Although access obstruction in conflict settings has emerged as a critical operational and policy concern across the humanitarian sector, there remains a dearth of analysis regarding the ways that humanitarian organizations perpetuate self-inflicted access obstacles. Drawing on qualitative interviews conducted with local and international actors negotiating frontline humanitarian access, this paper will examine this phenomenon in the context of Somalia. On the one hand, humanitarian actors must confront “traditional” access constraints: a bolstered state authority seeking to demonstrate its control over territory in light of weakened state-society relations; al-Shabaab, a recalcitrant, multifaceted, and extremist non-state armed group that has created a persistent and volatile security environment; and private actors (known as “access gatekeepers”) driven to control access by economic aims. On the other hand, humanitarian organizations, at the policy level, have responded to these obstacles in ways that have further widened the gap between practitioners and the affected populations they aim to serve. As a consequence, humanitarian programming has become increasingly divorced from on-the-ground daily needs, leading local actors and civil society to question the long-term positive impact of the humanitarian enterprise. A key lesson from this context is that discourse on access obstruction must not simply examine the constraints faced by humanitarian organizations related to security challenges, but must also interrogate the value and limitations of humanitarian programming.

Back