What displaced people in the DRC think of humanitarian protection and how to learn from it

In today’s world, most humanitarian crises seem to be fundamentally protection crises. The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has reached a record high, as has the number of violations against children during armed conflict. More than 70% of women in crisis-affected settings have experienced gender-based violence, a cause and a consequence of displacement. Last year, most countries monitored by the Global Protection Cluster reported that civilians faced high levels of over half of its 15 tracked risks.

The protection policy of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) explains that protection is ultimately about reducing people’s exposure to the risks that cause them harm. At its core, humanitarian protection is about making people safer. An independent review commissioned by the same body bluntly concluded that humanitarians have ‘failed populations at risk’. The review blamed leadership problems and overly complicated coordination, but there was a large gap – in reviewing whether protection was people-centred and central to humanitarian action, the review did not consult affected people. The review was conducted in post-Covid times characterised by travel restrictions, which further complicated engagement with local actors and affected communities.

Through research – including two surveys and community discussion groups – over two years (2022–2024), Ground Truth Solutions (GTS), Victim’s Hope DRC and IES Congo talked to over 2,000 people who had received humanitarian aid across three eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – Ituri, North Kivu and South Kivu. These three provinces have seen frequent clashes among rebel groups, local militias and government forces. Atrocities such as civilian massacres, systematic rapes, massive population displacements, and the forced recruitment of child soldiers have turned these areas into a focal point for humanitarian efforts. This article taps into communities’ perceptions around safety risks, and the humanitarian support they have obtained to face these risks.

The findings highlight three critical insights:

1. Communities recognise the protective role of humanitarian aid.
2. Simple consultations with crisis-affected people often fall short of improving perceptions of protection.
3. Genuine participation in aid programmes appears to have the potential to foster a more positive outlook on protection outcomes.

By exploring these themes, we can better understand how crisis-affected people perceive protection, why current humanitarian approaches are still missing the mark, and what changes are needed to enhance their impact.

1. Communities acknowledge humanitarians’ protection contribution

Access to aid offers an alternative to drivers of violence and conflict. In focus group discussions, participants said humanitarian aid contributes to their protection and supports collective wellbeing by offering alternatives to the use of violence. In one community, it was explained that after food distribution, violence decreased since basic needs could be met without resorting to theft. Another person said that fewer youth would feel the urge to join armed groups to meet needs.

‘The aid reduces security risks in our community because some displaced people would be tempted to join bandit groups to attack the site [the displacement camp] due to lack of means to live.’
Displaced man in Fizi, South Kivu

‘Aid prevents us from becoming thieves.’
Displaced woman in Nyiragongo, North Kivu

‘This aid secures us and reduces our children wandering and even reduces the criminal activities of some young, displaced people.’
Displaced woman in Irumu, Ituri

Aid also has a preventive element, reducing exposure to safety risks. This is often true of food supplies. If what is needed to survive is provided by humanitarians and can be accessed in a safe and dignified way, people can avoid other, usually more dangerous ways, of addressing their needs.

‘We have lost loved ones because they went to search for food in an insecure area. Some never returned to the site. Some women would go far from the site to fetch firewood to sell to buy food, exposing themselves to risks of rape. If they receive aid at the site, they won’t expose themselves by going to fetch firewood. But this aid is not enough for the displaced; we need it constantly.’
Displaced man in Irumu, Ituri

‘We walk long distances into red zones to find food; but when there is aid, we avoid that.’
Displaced man in Beni, North Kivu

In Ituri, a few people in focus group discussions grasped protection risks beyond immediate safety concerns and were surprised that a majority of the people do not think that humanitarian actors try to reduce people’s risks (Figure 1) In the survey tool, the French term for threat that was used was ‘menaces de protection et ou de sécurité’. The survey was conducted in Swahili; the survey conductors used the words ‘Hatari’ and ‘Vitisho’ to talk about ‘security threats’. In addition, the following explanation was provided to survey conductors when reading the question out loud to respondents, should respondents request additional information to respond to the question: ‘A threat could consist of a feeling of insecurity due to the presence of an armed group, or the presence of a violent local authority that is violent, or the fear of sexual violence, physical violence in general.’ . For them, aid protects by reducing the overall vulnerability of communities:

‘Before the arrival of humanitarian aid, children suffered from kwashiorkor [a form of malnutrition]. This is no longer the case thanks to humanitarian aid.’
Displaced man in Irumu, Ituri

‘Humanitarian aid helps with health. On this site, there can be more than 4,000 people. Imagine living in a site without toilets, it’s a nightmare. We could have epidemics and cholera without this aid. Fortunately, we received help on this, which brought water, latrines and showers.’
Displaced man in Irumu, Ituri

Residents from the three IDP camps we visited were grateful for the preventive element inherent in humanitarian aid. When assistance aligns with what people need and prioritise, it can act as a shield, offering short-term protection in times of difficulty. As with the conclusions drawn in the IASC policy review, however, what is missing are testimonials for interventions that go beyond vulnerability and look holistically at protection risks (threats, as well as the capacities of communities to respond to them). The qualitative observations confirmed our quantitative results: 70% of the respondents did not think humanitarians are trying to reduce the threats they are facing (Figure 1). This disconnect may stem from differences in how threats are understood and defined by those affected.

Figure 1: Do you feel that humanitarians are trying to reduce exposure to security threats?

Of those who felt that humanitarians were trying to reduce the threats they are exposed to, 45% said that the attempts were successful (Figure 2). This is a positive result The question had not been asked to the participants who felt humanitarians are not even trying to reduce their risk (only 30% said they do), which would have very likely increased the negative results: if you perceive humanitarians as not even trying to reduce your risks, chances are you don’t think they have succeeded in reducing it. , but it also left 54% saying that while humanitarians tried, they failed. Why is that? What do communities expect humanitarians to do, or do better?

Figure 2: Have humanitarians been able to reduce your or your community’s exposure to the threats?

2. Communities don’t feel consulted on protection risks

Listening is the first step, and it doesn’t happen enough. In North Kivu, currently the most violent province in the DRC, only one in three community members said that their community was consulted on the threats they face in their daily life (Figure 3). In South Kivu, protection consultations seemed to happen more frequently.

Not listening to communities – via both active consultation and the implementation of feedback mechanisms – is potentially extremely harmful. In such cases, humanitarian responses will likely not align with community needs, and could instead damage the community resilience and capacity.

‘Only one organisation has come to ask us about the security problem on the site.’
Displaced man in Fizi, South Kivu

‘Some ask us about [our safety concerns], and others do not. And those we talk to do not give us feedback on what we told them. So, I wonder if they only come to ask us as a formality.’
Displaced man in Fizi, South Kivu, religious leader

Figure 3: Have you or your community been consulted about your security threats?

3. Consultations alone do not lead to better protection

Where it is happening, listening is still not enough. There was scarcely any difference in people’s perception of the success of protection efforts, whether they were consulted or not (Figure 4). At face value, it may then seem that consulting communities on protection doesn’t lead to actions to obtain concrete protection outcomes. There are two plausible assumptions that might help to explain it: first, consultations often focus on making predetermined programmes safer, rather than on addressing the broader safety of the communities themselves; second, the needs and requests of the communities often fall outside the mandate or capacity of aid organisations.

Figure 4: Have humanitarians been able to reduce your or your community’s exposure to these threats?

In the three communities we visited, people identified different protection issues. In South Kivu, respondents described a relatively peaceful IDP camp. Interpersonal conflicts, they said, were quickly solved by committees of elders. A few residents identified dangerous animals like hippopotamuses as the greatest threat, which occasionally enter the camps at night. People did not prioritise what may typically be thought of as protection interventions, instead asking for tools to cultivate land or job opportunities to become financially independent.

In Ituri, people were most concerned about young people stealing or joining violent groups to try to make ends meet. People asked that aid actors not forget about the youth and find solutions to prevent them resorting to violence.

In North Kivu, people feared the armed groups who terrorise the community, saying that someone is killed almost weekly. They also felt harassed at times by the military, who were also struggling to make ends meet and at times resorted to pillaging. People asked for humanitarians to work more effectively with the military to increase the security of the camp, or to ramp up of the community’s self-defence weaponry arsenal.

‘As support from NGOs, the most effective way to ensure safety would be to provide […] essential equipment for the young patrollers The name of the group mentioned by the respondent is intentionally omitted. While the respondent views this group as a protector, it has been denounced by the national government and declared illegal. , and ideally some form of financial incentive to encourage them.’
Community leader in Uvira, South Kivu

‘Humanitarians have the option to provide funding either to the government or directly to soldiers. This enables them to deploy to the battlefield and combat the [armed group nearby], thereby ensuring our security.’
Displaced woman in Oicha, North Kivu

But our dialogue shows that too often such asks that fall outside the scope of humanitarian capabilities are used as examples to simply brush away most community prioritisation as ‘too hard’. There is a murky middle ground that could better be reached between impossible protection requests and agencies fiercely sticking to their mission statements. Mandates, real or self-ascribed, should not be the major determinant of aid contributions. If these consultations were more genuinely collaborative, where communities and aid actors could discuss which threats are manageable within humanitarian capabilities and which are not, more effective solutions might emerge. For example, even if humanitarians can’t directly address a threat like wild animals, they could still contribute by, at a minimum, coordinating with conservation groups or authorities to find solutions, helping with practical measures such as constructing durable fencing and quality shelters, or ensuring secure food storage. Similarly, while humanitarians may have limited influence over unchecked military actions, fostering a more structured and cooperative approach to military engagement, where possible, can help reduce tensions and mitigate mistrust or harassment of vulnerable communities.

4. Genuine community participation could be a solution

One in 10 people we spoke with in DRC confirmed that they had recently participated ‘in decisions, implementation, or monitoring of aid and services’ (Figure 5). Active participation, rather than mere consultation, bears potential for better protection outcomes. Let’s have a look at the 307 people in our survey who attested that humanitarians are trying to reduce protection risks (Figure 6):

• Among those who were not involved in designing, deciding upon, or delivering humanitarian aid, only 41% answered that the programmes helped to reduce threats.
• Those who had been actively involved generally reported better protection outcomes, with 64% saying programmes helped to reduce threats.

Figure 5: Have you participated in decisions, implementation, or monitoring of aid and services, or in any other way?

Figure 6: Have humanitarians been able to reduce your or your community’s exposure to your security threats?

The small sample size of that group hinders decisive conclusions The sample size is small because the question on risk reduction success was a follow-up question to those who previously said that humanitarians try to reduce their risk. This survey design feature reduced the overall available sample for this question to 307 people. , but hints to its potential: to do better in protection means directly being led by communities in shaping decisions and actions around humanitarian protection strategies. This approach also necessitates a greater allocation of project resources towards community engagement activities, as fostering active participation demands significantly more effort than information-sharing or the establishment of passive feedback mechanisms.

What do humanitarians need to improve?

Understanding what protection is about

Humanitarian protection is about making people feel safer by supporting their efforts in reducing risks of violence and abuse. When we asked a displaced man in Oicha, North Kivu, if he had been consulted on the risks that he is exposed to, he explained: ‘Humanitarians say that the security issue is not part of their mission; they distribute aid, that’s all’. The legal framework for protection that emerged from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workshops in the 1990s, and the subsequent ‘professionalisation’ of the activity, with dedicated experts and exclusive terminology, seems to have created a fortress around the concept. This may be preventing humanitarian organisations from properly centring protection in their operations and understanding that aid efforts can make people feel safer when done properly, and create new protection risks when done poorly.

Passing on the torch to transition from consultations to co-creation

Consultations aren’t enough. Communities must not only be actively consulted to better understand their safety concerns, they must also help determine what type of intervention is needed to reduce risks. Humanitarians must show humility when defining protection at the community level, investing in better dialogue with communities before the project begins and throughout the life cycle of any intervention, while respecting and leveraging community knowledge and experience. In many cases, community-based protective mechanisms already exist, which humanitarians can utilise and strengthen to help mitigate the threats. To do all this properly requires a shift in the humanitarian sector, prioritising quality over quantity. Meaningful engagement and proximity to communities can be time-consuming and resource heavy. Local actors are well positioned to lead this shift. They are closer to the ground, have better contextual understanding, and often greater flexibility.

Using community-based evaluation approaches

This shift also requires a more community-based evaluation approach to understand whether the protection programme has effectively reduced risk instead of just filling out and ticking boxes of quantitative matrices. ‘Humanitarian aid diminishes risks when we are able to denounce them and when there is a follow-up until the risk is erased’, a community leader in our group discussion in South Kivu said. Communities are the protagonists in determining whether appropriate outcomes have been achieved, and whether the design is fit for purpose once the programme is revised. Typical protection monitoring mechanisms are installed to count incidents across a conflict zone or a country, but not to monitor progress on risk-reduction efforts. This requires the views of the people affected. Their absence is a key blocker to deliver on the protection commitment – a conclusion already drawn by the IASC review.

Aligning aid with community priorities

Decision-makers in headquarters and donor offices might be well versed in decoding ‘protection mainstreaming’ and ‘do no harm’, and in describing the differences between a ‘protection activity’ and a ‘protection output’ and advocating for a ‘rights-based approach’ or a ‘results-based approach’. Yet, for individuals in dire need in places like the communities we visited in Ituri or North Kivu, these distinctions are irrelevant. In voicing their priorities and preferences, people look at the security hazards in their daily lives, and the barriers that stand in their way to walk into a less risky, more peaceful, better future with income opportunities and stability. Their responses on what they need to be resilient and to live without aid dependency are tailored around what it takes to break those barriers, indifferent to whether the support is labelled ‘peace’, ‘humanitarian’, ‘development’ or ‘rights’. Aid interventions should be informed by community priorities rather than being dictated by funder or organisational priorities. This might include seriously rethinking their operationalisation of humanitarian principles and values. In North Kivu, several people from the same community urged humanitarians to include militaries in their distribution plans, convinced that if they received aid, they would not harass people at night to steal the little they have.

Concluding remarks

Displaced communities in DRC recognise the role humanitarians can play in supporting their safety, offering alternatives to violence, and reducing vulnerabilities and exposure to threats. And, increasingly, the aid sector is recognising that civilians themselves are key players in safeguarding their communities, that engaging state and non-state actors is not enough. For protection programming to be effective and sustainable, it must involve genuine community leadership and participation, extending beyond mere consultations, to ensure that co-designed interventions are firmly rooted in the communities’ desired outcomes. Only then can humanitarian protection truly have an impact.

Tim Buder is Programme Coordinator at Ground Truth Solutions.
Junior Habimana is Country Director at Victim’s Hope DRC.
Dora Muhuku is a Gender and Public Health Expert at IES Congo.

The authors sincerely thank Meg Sattler and Gemma Davies for their time and feedback in reviewing this article.