Neutrality requires humanitarian organisations to work in such a way that their action does not provide support to either side of the conflict, or is perceived as doing so.

Neutrality: humanitarian actors must not take sides in hostilities or engaging controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

With those funds under its direct control, Caritas Germany is in a position to operate independently of public donors and is in a position to decline funding if it would compromise Caritas Germany's neutrality.

As a complement to this, government donors would need to examine their counter-terror regulations and other policies, as well as funding relationships, to ensure they do not compromise the neutrality, and by extension the safety, of humanitarian actors.

PCHR calls for uniting and restructuring Palestinian security services on professional foundations that can ensure their political neutrality to be out of any partisan conflicts. 4.

In countries such as Ethiopia and Pakistan, governments have sought to exercise greater control over humanitarian aid, including in assessment and coordination. This has at times led humanitarian actors to conduct 'shadow assessments' to ensure impartiality. Interviewees in Afghanistan, DRC and Yemen also noted that some coordination improvements run the risk of edging out host government actors, for example when eliminating projects from appeals had the effect of reducing the role of the government in vetting projects.

To safeguard this neutrality, conflicts of interest must be avoided. However, if you do find yourself in such a position, inform your manager, who will then look for an appropriate solution to put an end to this situation.

MSF is able to do so because of its independence – especially its financial independence – which puts it in the position of being able to refuse money from any government and thereby ensure that its neutrality is accepted.

MSF was able to work in Kunduz thanks to negotiated agreements with all parties to the conflict that they would respect the neutrality of the medical facility.

To ensure and preserve the neutrality of humanitarian actors on the ground, a clear division of labour is essential between organisations providing aid (and protecting by presence), and organisations preventing abuse and/or placing pressure on the government over rights violations.

Pragmatic concerns for maintaining neutrality in these environments have always necessitated dialogue with militaries, in addition to other armed actors.

IAS also aims to work as close as possible with national authorities and in times of conflict also with other parties to the conflict as to ensure neutrality of the organization.

Gifts, remuneration or benefits, too, may compromise our neutrality.

This was particularly the case when the government was party to a conflict and where humanitarians' perceived neutrality could be compromised by interaction with armed forces.

As it is usually impossible to identify the perpetrators of crimes or their allegiance, we are unable to determine whether our aid helps or hinders one or more parties to the conflict – or, by extension, if these involuntary contributions compromise our neutrality.

Neutrality undermined: the impact of counter-terrorism legislation on humanitarian action in Somalia. Sara Pantuliano and Victoria Metcalfe, HPG Counter-terrorism laws and other measures are having a significant impact on humanitarian action in Somalia.

Rigid and over-zealous application of counter-terrorism laws to humanitarian action in Somalia and other conflicts undermines the independence and neutrality of humanitarian organisations in general, and could become an additional factor in the unravelling of the legitimacy and acceptance of humanitarian response in many of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Aid delivered through civil-military structures in Afghanistan has in certain cases contributed to the spread of corruption and the intensification of local conflicts. Moreover, it has blurred the distinction between military and humanitarian actors, thus undermining the perceived neutrality and impartiality of humanitarians, increasing security risks for aid workers, and reducing their capacity to deliver assistance according to need.

In other countries with UN integrated missions or peacekeeping missions with multiple roles, there continued to be the risk that the integration of mandates could undermine the perceived neutrality of humanitarian workers.

International agencies also perceive faith groups as potentially undermining the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality by virtue of their religious motivations, with fears that these may legitimize coercive proselytism or prompt exclusion of adherents of other faiths.

Some donors have also implemented vetting requirements – for staff, partners and sometimes for affected people. These slow response and can undermine the impartiality and perceived neutrality of humanitarian assistance, and further impact on security and access (NRC, 2018b).

Humanitarian access should not be imposed through the use of force, as association of humanitarian action with armed actors can undermine the neutrality of the response and compromise the safety and access of humanitarian workers and the people they serve.

However, the strategic importance of the IDP population means that they are rarely considered from a politically neutral point of view. By working with IDPs, humanitarian actors run the risk of compromising their neutrality and, despite, their best intentions, often get caught up in internal political affairs.

Military protection of humanitarian workers and projects compromises the neutrality of humanitarian organisations, causing them to lose their credibility.

Conflicting parties try to exploit or divert humanitarian assistance for their own political and military purposes and thus undermine the principles of the neutrality and independence of humanitarian assistance.

However, the role played by the government in the conflict and its involvement in attacks on civilians has made it difficult for humanitarian organisations to engage with the government around civilian safety and risk, especially as it was felt that this would compromise the neutrality of these organisations.

Disclosing sensitive information on protection interventions and related patterns of violence and harm against civilians can compromise the neutrality of humanitarian organization and entail negative operational consequences.

Some organisations, while committed to giving impartial assistance and not taking sides in hostilities, do not consider that the principle of neutrality precludes undertaking advocacy on issues related to accountability and justice.

Discussing the interface between humanitarianism and human rights, ZEID RA'AD AL-HUSSEIN, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that perspectives are conditioned by how the actors involved are perceived. The neutrality principle does not work for human rights workers. While humanitarian action stands in for collapsed services, human rights workers stand up for the rights of those most violated; and if respect of various parties is not enjoyed, there is a risk of complicity. He said a common-sense approach has to guide work in the field because life is complex and the international community has to understand that each actor has his or her own guiding principles.

The line between development aid based on national interests and emergency aid based only on need, never clearly drawn in official US policy, now seems much less visible. Even while the GHD [Good Humanitarian Donorship] initiative was being launched, complaints were intensifying about the US military co- opting humanitarian roles in Afghanistan, and NGOs being pressured to display the USA logo. USAID, like some other major donors, has also become more deeply involved in programming, second-guessing needs assessments and earmarking within projects. When interviewed, US officials did not allow that these inconsistencies represent serious impediments to implementing GHD. Some were frankly dismissive of the possibility of disinterested donor giving. No bilateral donor is neutral, said one. On the contrary, the funding differentials for emergencies across regions render donor neutrality ‘a ridiculous concept ... you take care of your own backyard’.

The line between development aid based on national interests and emergency aid based only on need, never clearly drawn in official US policy, now seems much less visible. Even while the GHD [Good Humanitarian Donorship] initiative was being launched, complaints were intensifying about the US military co- opting humanitarian roles in Afghanistan, and NGOs being pressured to display the USA logo. USAID, like some other major donors, has also become more deeply involved in programming, second-guessing needs assessments and earmarking within projects. When interviewed, US officials did not allow that these inconsistencies represent serious impediments to implementing GHD. Some were frankly dismissive of the possibility of disinterested donor giving. No bilateral donor is neutral, said one. On the contrary, the funding differentials for emergencies across regions render donor neutrality ‘a ridiculous concept ... you take care of your own backyard’.

MSF's concept of neutrality was perceived differently in the Yemeni context. National staff suggested that it would be difficult for the community to conceive of an organisation without political motivations, partly because of linguistic and conceptual differences in understandings of 'neutrality'. Given the highly politicised nature of Arab society, political neutrality is generally not understood in the same way that Western humanitarian organisations articulate the concept. For example, neutrality was not possible in the Iraq war or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and individuals were generally assumed to have a political stance on most issues. Political neutrality in Yemen was thus more localised, and focused on MSF's neutrality in tribal conflicts. In Yemen, emphasising 'religious neutrality', plurality and openness to all religions was seen to be more important than references to political neutrality.

Humanitarian investments may in some cases support state institutions but may also not be optimal for longer-term capacity-building. This is not necessarily counterproductive for the state; on the contrary, maintaining all parties' perception of humanitarian agencies' neutrality is essential if agencies are also to be able to work with states and affected communities in the post-crisis phase as a credible and trusted development interlocutor.

The need to balance conflicting priorities in order to establish and maintain "humanitarian space" is a constant characteristic of food assistance operations in many of today's protracted crises. The stakes are high; as explained above, maintaining perceptions of humanitarian agencies' neutrality is essential for the agencies' ability, during and following a crisis, to work effectively in areas affected by conflict. The perception that humanitarians' neutrality and independence from political agendas is compromised can be dangerous or deadly for humanitarians and the populations they are trying to assist.

Without diminishing the effectiveness of different approaches, the ICRC is convinced that there remains a need for neutral and independent humanitarian action in times of armed conflict; neutrality is a pivotal aspect of humanitarian intervention and is not a concept that can be abandoned and taken up again at will.