Research recommends more attention to protracted crises in revised Sphere standards

“In a natural disaster-prone area like Haiti, the humanitarian strategy needs to emphasise going beyond the minimum standards to ensure that people can withstand additional future shocks.” Photo: A temporary shelter site in Pétionville after the 2010 earthquake. © ECHO/Susana Perez Diaz

The LSE research team analysed the contributions and limitations of the Sphere standards in protracted crises based on case studies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Haiti as well as on a review of the available literature. Their recommendations will feed into the 2018 Handbook to better guide humanitarians working in such situations.

Protracted crises are markedly different from acute ones. In protracted crises “a significant proportion of the population is acutely vulnerable to death, disease and disruption of their livelihoods over a prolonged period,” the LSE study explains. “Short, acute crises are the exception, not the rule” as more and more crises now last around 10, 20 or even 30 years.

Protracted crises show recurrent relapses, stagnation and a sustained state of emergency. Rather than resulting from a single acute shock, they emerge from a constant state of vulnerability caused by a combination of factors. They entail a mix of disasters ranging from armed conflict and waves of violence, natural hazards like droughts, earthquakes and floods to epidemics, with national authorities often unable to manage the scale of these complex crises, the report notes.

Protracted crises typically involve “repeated and even permanent livelihood disruptions which directly impact the affected population’s capacity of resilience and psychological coping mechanisms.” Moreover, communities become more susceptible to future shocks, exposing them to even further deterioration of their livelihoods. “What makes communities fall back into crisis, even after humanitarian assistance, is the neglect of underlying vulnerabilities,” the report states.

The report suggests that standards for humanitarian response need to reflect the differences between protracted and acute crises. How can the Sphere standards respond to this need?

To formulate recommendations, the LSE research team studied how and why Sphere standards have been used in situations of protracted crisis as well as their contributions and limitations in “ensuring affected people’s protection, dignity and quality of life in situations of prolonged insecurity and volatility”.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has been through a 20-year-long protracted crisis. Underlying poverty makes it prone to conflict and epidemics and vulnerable to natural disasters, the report notes, while its ethnic and linguistic diversity sparks violent encounters and exacerbates the difficulty of governing.

The study found that the Sphere standards are widely used in the DRC. They function as benchmarks that guide all fundamental humanitarian activities and are also used in development work.

Humanitarian actors in the DRC nevertheless face several challenges in achieving the Sphere standards, noting that lack of funding was largely responsible. Seemingly never-ending crises tend to cause donor fatigue.

On the other hand, some humanitarians interviewed also see opportunities in protracted crises. Projects can be easier to plan, implement and evaluate when there is an already functioning humanitarian system. And if resources are lacking, building local capacity as part of delivery of assistance is a potential and positive alternative.

The interviews showed that resilience is vital in protracted crises and new standards related to resilience could be as important as the life-saving sectors of the Sphere technical chapters. Likewise, psychological assistance may deserve more visible attention rather than being simply subsumed in the health chapter.

Interviewees agreed that organisations must make every effort to link humanitarian interventions with development efforts to make a real impact, although they also acknowledged that balancing urgent life-saving priorities and long-term development can be difficult.

Protection was mentioned in every interview as a major challenge in the DRC crisis. Some of the issues raised included difficulties in accessing affected populations, implementation delays due to security issues and the challenge to remain impartial and neutral when negotiating with host populations, government officials or armed groups.

The DRC case study shows that humanitarian actors use Sphere to justify their work not only in relation to government but also vis-à-vis armed groups and host communities. It indicated that promotion of the Sphere standards among government officials is important to support their responsibility as duty-bearers for the provision of humanitarian assistance. Simultaneously, there is a parallel need to increase awareness of the Sphere approach – particularly the Protection Principles – among donors.

Haiti has faced recurring crises since the 1990s. Government instability and frequent hydro-meteorological disasters are major factors and – despite an influx of NGOs and aid from around the world – the country today remains one of the poorest in the Western hemisphere.

The absence of a strong state as well as prolonged food insecurity and malnutrition, which are common to protracted crises in other parts of the world, are compounded in Haiti with an increased exposure to natural hazards. High unemployment rates, lack of media presence, and poor internet access are other underlying vulnerabilities that hamper relief and development work.

The study revealed that Sphere standards are used in Haiti as benchmarks instead of as a “minimum” because of difficulties in meeting these indicators due to dwindling donor interest in protracted crises. Several interviewees reported a trade-off between full support to some people, and limited support to the full affected population.

More attention to disaster risk reduction and resilience is required, particularly in a natural disaster-prone area like Haiti, as the humanitarian strategy needs to emphasise going beyond the minimum standards to ensure that people can withstand additional future shocks.

The idea of a “transition” from emergency work to development efforts was highly contested by the humanitarians interviewed in the study. Many pointed to the concept of “convergence” of humanitarian and development efforts in the Haitian context.

In addition, the study pointed to a need for more specific and adapted protection guidance, such as preventing sexual attacks in camps, greater emphasis on participatory approaches with vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities and enhanced attention to resilience in urban areas.

In asking the research question of how and why the Sphere standards are used in protracted crisis, the LSE study confirmed that Sphere is widely used, generally seen in a favourable light and considered very comprehensive.

However, the study also asks whether the minimum standards are sufficient for protracted displacement. As the authors point out, “people can tolerate certain conditions for a few months but [if they] are supposed to live under these conditions for many years… [donor] complacency can clearly hamper further development and resilience.”

In exploring the second research question about the contributions and limitations of the Sphere standards in situations of prolonged insecurity and volatility, the study found that “Sphere has provided a useful tool for humanitarian practitioners to identify needs and plan appropriate interventions, and… the established framework of indicators enables a quick response during acute crises and relapses within protracted crises… However, given the duration of such crises, it is crucial that the focus shifts to resilience-building.”

The LSE report made the following recommendations for Sphere to consider:

Commenting on the LSE report, Sphere’s Executive Director Christine Knudsen said that “We are grateful to the research team for this in-depth study of how the Sphere standards are being used and can be better used in protracted crises to guide humanitarian response. As we see protracted crises as the ‘new normal’ globally, it is important for us to reflect on the implications of this study and how to bring the findings into the Handbook revision process, advocacy tools and improved collaboration among humanitarian and development organisations.”

This is the second in a series of research projects carried out by LSE graduate students with Sphere’s support. The first studied the .