This section outlines the aims and overarching research questions for the SOHS. It describes the intended audience and sets the scope of the research by defining the core unit of analysis: the humanitarian ‘system’.
2.1 Aims and research questions
As with previous editions, the three primary research objectives for the SOHS are:
- To define and describe the architecture of the humanitarian system(s): What are the current levels and trends in funding flows? What is the distribution of human and financial resources? What are the numbers/types of agencies involved? How has the composition of the humanitarian system and its borders changed over the past decade? What are the trends?
- To assess the humanitarian caseload: How many humanitarian responses took place in the study period? What are the locations and types of emergencies? What are the approaches to making a reasonable estimate of people in need of humanitarian assistance, those for whom humanitarian assistance is intended, and people actually receiving humanitarian assistance? What are the trends?
- To assess performance: How has the humanitarian system performed both on key policy-relevant questions and on OECD DAC criteria at the programme/project level and at the policy/structure level? How well is the humanitarian system meeting the expectations of crisis-affected populations? What are the trends and how does this period compare with previous periods? What are emerging key policy issues and shifts in practice?
In addition to these continued objectives, this new addition will add another research objective: - To identify key trends and challenges in the operating environment specific to this study period and to assess how the humanitarian system has performed in the face of those contemporary challenges. In addition to the core functions the system is expected to perform over time, how has it faced up to substantial new challenges that emerged in the 2022-25 period? How does its performance on these key trends in the operational environment set it up for the future?
2.2 Function and audience
The SOHS serves both a learning and an accountability function for the humanitarian system. The primary aim is to inform policy and practice across constituencies in the humanitarian system: from donor governments and philanthropy, United Nations (UN) agencies, INGOs and national/local NGOs to the Red Cross/Crescent Movement, academics and consultants. It does this by providing a robust and evidence-driven analysis of humanitarian performance and trends, which can be used by decision-makers and change agents to hold humanitarian actors to account, motivate improvement and identify pathways to get there. While the Report’s analysis will be relevant for those seeking to bring evidence-driven change and improvement to the humanitarian sector, it does not aim to make concrete specific recommendations. Beyond humanitarian audiences, its findings on the connections between humanitarian action and development and peace efforts will be relevant for those working within those systems.
The report also more broadly acts as a global resource for individuals and organisations with an interest in how humanitarian assistance is provided, and who wish to know whether humanitarian action is meeting expectations. The SOHS findings aim to address a broad audience that includes crisis-affected populations, organisations that work in, or with, the international humanitarian community, and members of the public in donor countries (particularly via engagement with relevant media) – although the way in which these findings are communicated will differ accordingly.
2.3 Unit of analysis: Definition of the international humanitarian system
Actors working to support people affected by crisis all constitute a part of the broad humanitarian landscape or ecosystem. This ecosystem includes survivors of disaster and their communities as first responders, families and diaspora, religious groups, the private sector, local civil society groups and local/national NGOs, local and national governments, international NGOs, the UN, donors, among others. As such, international humanitarian action is but one piece of that puzzle and not necessarily the most important one for individual people affected by crisis in different contexts. It is, however, the subsection of the broader humanitarian landscape that the SOHS report is mandated to assess every 3-4 years.
As in previous reports, the sixth edition will provide a longitudinal analysis of the size, shape, and performance of international humanitarian action. While recognising the fundamental importance of the broader landscape of crisis action and the changing nature of its configuration over time, the report defines its unit of analysis as the international humanitarian system. We provide a working definition below and describe how the study will consider actors that straddle or lie beyond the margins of this system.
Defining international humanitarian action
The SOHS study team adopts a working definition of the international humanitarian system as: The network of interconnected institutional and operational entities through which humanitarian action is undertaken when local and national resources are, on their own, insufficient to meet the needs of a population in crisis. These entities are operationally or financially related to each other and share common overarching goals, norms, and principles. However, the level to which these entities are related in a cohesive (versus fragmented) manner may vary over time or geographic space. The international humanitarian system is international in the sense that it is cross-border, and humanitarian in the sense that at least one actor involved in its funding or delivery self-identifies with the goals, norms, and principles of humanitarianism. These actors may be funded by governments as well as private individuals and entities, and include local, national and international NGOs conducting humanitarian activities; UN humanitarian agencies; the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement; host government agencies and authorities; regional intergovernmental agencies; multilateral agencies; government aid agencies; and other offices that provide humanitarian funding and coordination.
Humanitarian action is the principled provision of assistance and protection in order to save lives, prevent and reduce suffering and preserve people’s dignity, in crises arising from armed conflict, climate hazards and other causes.(2) Humanitarian action is international when these activities involve resources (financial, technical or in-kind) provided by an entity in one country to respond to a crisis in another. International humanitarian action excludes actions that are fully resourced within the country experiencing the crisis, which fall within the domain of domestic crisis management.
Connections on the borders of international humanitarian system
The working definition helps to set a scope for the report, albeit one that can be contested. There is limited clarity and consensus on the borders of what counts as humanitarian action versus longer-term development assistance, on which actors count as local versus global, and the extent to which relevant principles(3) are enacted that make these actions ‘humanitarian.’ As established in the fifth report; to better understand the role of international humanitarian action, it is important to recognise the importance of locally led action and the range of different sources of support available to crisis affected people. Similarly, the system’s engagement in fragile contexts and the growth of protracted crises requires stronger considerations of its connections with development and peace actors.
The sixth report will continue with the approach of the fifth edition to recognise these porous margins and increase its understanding of the efforts of broader actors in crisis affected contexts. The report will not, however, seek to assess the performance of these other entities. It will maintain its focus on holding the international humanitarian system to account by assessing the effectiveness of its engagement with these other efforts to support people affected by crisis. This report will seek to deepen the recognition and examination of connections with these wider systems and consideration of how actors in these systems view the role and performance of humanitarians.
2 ALNAP. 2015. The State of the Humanitarian System 2015. London: ALNAP; IASC. 2015. Human Rights Up Front: An Overview Geneva: IASC
3 These principles have traditionally been considered to include humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. However, some actors contest the appropriateness of the continued use of some of these principles, such as neutrality.