Threats to U.S. humanitarian aid

Humanitarian relief and development aid is one of the unheralded bipartisan success stories of recent years.  The amount of aid provided by the U.S. government has steadily increased, while Congress and the Obama Administration have passed sensible reforms to increase its effectiveness.

What is even less well-known is that this aid to people in Syria, South Sudan, Nepal and many other countries is delivered by private sector groups; specifically, non-governmental organizations (NGOs.)  These groups, varied in size and mission, make up a multibillion dollar sector, employing hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. and overseas.  They assist tens of millions of people and promote the liberal humanitarian values that are a core element of the post-War global order.

{mosads}These international aid groups increasingly work in high-risk environments.  This makes their employees and operations targets.   Most of the time they are accidental targets.  But in a troubling turn, militant groups and even state actors are deliberately attacking NGO staff and property.  From hospitals in Yemen to offices in Afghanistan, aid workers run the risk of violence, kidnap and ransom and other serious threats.   And as raids on food supplies in South Sudan and elsewhere indicate, international NGO equipment and goods are being more frequently targeted for theft and destruction.

That comes through in news reports and statistics from the Aid Worker Security Database and other sources.   It is also the troubling message of the Summer/Fall 2016 Edition of the Clements Worldwide Risk Index.  Clements surveyed more than 400 organizations of varied sizes, including over 100 international NGOs operating in every region.  Data on groups’ “Top Losses” provide a striking picture of immediate threats to international NGOs

Property Damage: Political Risks Grow

Aid groups lose more to property damage and destruction than to any other cause.   These losses typically fall into two categories:  vehicle fleets and inventory.  Both of these losses are closely tied to political violence.

While individuals and groups still break into offices and steal vehicles, theft and looting is increasingly centered on the inventory of goods NGOs distribute to beneficiaries—food, tents, clothing, mosquito nets, etc.  This theft is often occurring in areas in which rival political forces engage in violence with one another and against civilians.   Crime is a common method to fund their operations.

In a like way, losses incurred to vehicle fleets increasingly occur in conflict and other high-risk zones.  While most vehicle damage is due to accidents, about 40% of analyzed fleet claims occurred in the 22 countries designated as severe or extreme risk by Lloyd’s of London.   After staff, vehicle fleets are usually an international NGO’s second highest cost.  Losses in this area not only impede operations.  They can impose severe financial costs, especially on smaller NGOs.

General Liability:  Lawsuit Culture Takes Root Outside the US

NGOs are also experiencing more third party lawsuits from staff, customers and others.   For many years, humanitarian aid groups viewed themselves as immune from lawsuits faced by commercial enterprises.  There seems to have been an assumption that regular recourse to the courts was a particularly American phenomenon directed at “deep pocket” corporations.

There is no doubt humanitarian aid groups will continue to fulfill their mission to beneficiaries, protect employees and mitigate risk.  Congress will continue to do its part to help fund NGO relief and development programs. The needs are too great to do anything less.

Smita Bhargava is Vice President of Programs & Special Risks at Clements Worldwide, a Washington, D.C.-based insurance provider for expatriates and international organizations.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.