Why safeguarding matters in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations (Part II)
Safeguarding is often framed as a matter of policy, but at its heart it is about power. Humanitarian responders operate in environments where people depend on them for support and resources. This dynamic creates conditions where exploitation can occur, especially when organisational safeguards are inconsistent or poorly enforced. Large humanitarian organisations face a particular set of challenges. Their complex structures, multiple departments, dispersed teams, and high staff turnover can create blind spots.
Accountability becomes fragmented, and it is not always clear who is responsible for enforcing safeguarding standards. Communication between teams can be inconsistent, meaning concerns raised in operational contexts may never reach HR or designated safeguarding leads. Training varies widely depending on role, location, or contract type, leaving staff with uneven awareness of what safeguarding requires in practice..
Many organisations rely heavily on formal reporting systems, assuming they are sufficient. Yet evidence consistently shows that most victim-survivors never report SEA, especially when the only reporting pathway is through the same organisation that misused its power. Cultural norms and local power dynamics can further discourage disclosure, particularly when shame, stigma, or marginalisation shape how communities respond to abuse. During sudden emergencies, safeguarding checks may be deprioritised in favour of rapid deployment, creating additional risks.
Smaller organisations face a different set of vulnerabilities. With limited staff and resources, safeguarding can become informal or reactive rather than embedded. Without dedicated safeguarding roles, early warning signs may be missed, and disclosures may not be handled safely. Recruitment practices may rely on personal networks or rapid hiring without thorough vetting, increasing the risk of harmful individuals entering the organisation. Policies may be outdated or unclear, and staff may not know how to apply them. Reporting options may be limited or non-existent, leaving survivors with nowhere to turn. In close-knit teams, personal relationships can make it harder to challenge colleagues or escalate concerns.
In both large and small organisations, perpetrators can exploit these gaps. They learn how to navigate policies, avoid scrutiny, and operate unnoticed. Understanding these organisational weaknesses is essential for designing systems that genuinely protect communities.
Comments