Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen: do the pieces fit?

A variety of codes and standards for humanitarian assistance have been put forth in recent years. Many NGOs have agreed to abide by these codes. There is uncertainty, however, about if and how these codes are actually being put into practice. Have we moved from words to action? One response to this concern has been a proposal to establish a humanitarian ombudsman. This paper analyses two choices facing an eventual ombudsman: whether to attempt to take punitive actions to enforce the codes and standards, or whether instead to facilitate agencies' own internal efforts to improve accountability to their beneficiaries. It proposes a pluralistic approach, wherein a variety of methods, structures and local perceptions are accepted as potentially appropriate, but where a clear moral stance is still maintained. Some suggestions are outlined for how flexible forms of policy analysis may be used to combine an acceptance of the validity of a vast range of humanitarian actions while still retaining a strong stance against practices that may harm beneficiaries or feed the causes of conflict. Realism about each agency's room for manoeuvre is essential, especially local institutions. A modest but principled stance will involve helping actors to consider the impact of their work on conflict and to find ways to improve the quality of their interventions as perceived by beneficiaries.