The Darfur conflict is the first crisis to be called a ‘protection crisis’ by the United Nations. This has shaped international responses with a number of humanitarian organisations making efforts to improve the safety of civilians. This has helped to save lives and reduce the threat to civilians in some instances, but the limits of protection programming by aid agencies have also been starkly highlighted.

A report from the Humanitarian Policy Group at the Overseas Development Institute, in the UK, reviews the protection work by humanitarian agencies in Darfur. Humanitarian protection is described as work to help reduce harm to civilians from violence, coercion and deliberate deprivation. The report emphasises the complex nature of the conflict, and how labelling it a ‘protection crisis’ has triggered an unprecedented, though not necessarily effective, international humanitarian response focused on civilian insecurity.

The Darfur conflict has often been portrayed simplistically in the media as a struggle between ‘Arabs’ and ‘Africans’ which ignores its complex nature. The Government of Sudan has exploited longstanding local ethnic and economic tensions for political purposes, by mobilising the impoverished nomadic Arab groups into allied militia which are now known as the ‘janjawid’.  These militia have fought alongside the Sudanese military in a counter-insurgency campaign against mainly Zaghawa and Fur tribes. Violence has continued despite several cease-fire and peace agreements. And since 2003, it is estimated that over 200,000 people have been killed and over 2 million displaced.

In the past, civilian protection was seen as the responsibility of mandated humanitarian organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). However, this has now changed and over forty organisations in Darfur have protection programmes, in addition to traditional relief activities. Despite this, protection work in Darfur has faced significant challenges including:

• lack of a common protection strategy and inadequate analysis of the conflict and the threats to civilians
• ‘substitution’ by external agencies taking over government responsibilities to protect its civilians, which has contributed to worsening working relationships between them and created false expectations
• the problematic idea that humanitarian presence in itself will help protection, rather than merely delay or displace threats temporarily
• concentration of humanitarian efforts on camps leading to allegations of neglect of Arab pastoralist groups as well as inadequate attention to communities in rural areas
• problems in hiring experienced protection staff
• lack of focus on security issues amongst communities in camps.

Issues such as extortion of local communities and humanitarian agencies are yet to be addressed and there has been little overall assessment of the protection response. Given the role of humanitarian organisations in channelling politically charged information to the outside world, they risk not being seen as neutral.

To address these challenges, the report recommends:

• better analysis of the crisis in relation to civilian security and protection, making use of both local and international experts
• the specialist protection agencies should take the lead in working with less experienced agencies, with frameworks for coordination and engagement in place at an early stage for future responses
• considering whether the United Nations Mission in Sudan should coordinate protection, given its lack of operational experience
• reviewing current approaches to protection, especially regarding engagement with non-displaced civilians in rural areas, and the concept of ‘protection by presence’
• identifying opportunities for engagement between humanitarian organisations and government, focusing on reformers within government and openings at the local level.

Source(s):
‘The “protection crisis”: A Review of Field-based Strategies for Humanitarian Protection in Darfur’, HPG Discussion Paper, ODI: London, by Sara Pantuliano and Sorcha O’Callaghan, 2006 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: United States Government and others

id21 Research Highlight: 13 July 2007

Further Information:
Sara Pantuliano and Sorcha O’Callaghan
Humanitarian Policy Group
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 7JD, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: s.pantuliano@odi.org.uk; s.ocallaghan@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK