Humanitarian actors generally respond to the consequences of violence at the expense of proactive approaches to reduce violence. This policy brief debunks a number of assumptions that undermine change, and outlines the implications for practice and policy.

Assumption: Affected civilians are vulnerable beneficiaries.
Reality: Civilians can, and do, influence the behaviour of armed actors. Supporting community capacities should start with what they are already doing and build from there.

Assumption: It is too risky to engage in dialogue with armed actors.
Reality: Humanitarian actors must go beyond longstanding concerns about compromising principles and mitigate potential risks. Reducing violence can only happen when engaging with the sources of threats.

Assumption: Conflict is linear. Humanitarian action is a frontline response, peacebuilding and livelihood action are not.
Reality: Situations of violence and conflict are dynamic. Peacebuilding action should start early, while reducing violence can be intrinsically linked to livelihoods. Humanitarian actors should seek to contribute to peace; peacebuilding actors should seek to more systematically strengthen the protection of civilians.

Assumption: Life-saving assistance is a priority over conflict-sensitivity analysis.
Reality: There are high costs to not carrying out such analysis. Organisations should consider how responses to conflict-sensitivity analysis can contribute to reducing violence or promoting a pathway to peace.

Assumption: Metrics of success should be quantifiable.
Reality: The aid sector must reevaluate what constitutes success and how it’s measured, as well as whose evidence is privileged and why. Defining and measuring success should start with communities, focusing on lived experience and diverse voices.

Momentum is building among humanitarian protection actors seeking to more systematically reduce violence and strengthen the protection of civilians. But there remains a real risk that progress might be undermined due to a lack of commitment, ambition, collaboration and funding. Organisations need to honestly consider what it would take to systematically reduce threats of violence, what strategic and substantive changes are required to do so, and what appetite they have to make these changes.

Report by the Overseas Development Institute