That revival is at the heart of the Humanitarian Interventions through Lifesaving and Livelihood Support (HILLS) program. To reduce food insecurity in Syria’s conflict-affected areas, Global Communities and Syria Relief are helping farmers rebuild the wheat value chain from seed to bread.

Recently, HILLS provided 589 experienced farmers with seeds, fertilizers, fuel, and hands-on training to rebuild what years of instability had eroded. Across five carefully timed rounds of support, participants received the tools and training they needed to plant, protect, and harvest their crops. In return, each farmer contributed a small share of their harvest back to the program, creating a sustainable cycle that reinvests in future seasons. HILLS also rehabilitated a public mill and two bakeries in A’zaz City, linking farmers’ efforts directly to the bread on families’ tables.

“The agricultural engineers visited us regularly,” said Muhammad Mahmoud Othman, a participating farmer from the village of Tal Malid. “They provided agricultural training, field visits, and guidance on plant diseases. We learned things we did not know before.”

Despite harsh weather and limited rainfall, participating farmers successfully delivered 181.187 metric tons of wheat from their production back to Global Communities and our implementing partner, which was processed and fortified to boost its nutritional value. The resulting flour, totaling 143.223 metric tons, then became roughly 2,196,086 loaves of bread sold at subsidized prices to families across the region.

“We did our best, and despite the drought conditions, production was good,” said participating farmer Mahmoud Youssef Shabban. “… I hope this project continues in future years, because it covered almost three-quarters of the production costs. It greatly reduced the burden on farmers, especially in these difficult times.”

By reconnecting and strengthening every link in the wheat value chain, HILLS restored a daily staple that had all but disappeared from local markets. In doing so, the program is helping more than 338,350 people meet their immediate food needs while ensuring farming communities are equipped to thrive from one growing season to the next.

The post Rebuilding Syria’s Breadbasket from Seed to Loaf appeared first on Global Communities.

“We have been displaced from the southern countryside of Aleppo to Azaz 10 years ago. My husband is sick, I have 5 children — 2 of them have disabilities. We had a very bad economic situation, and I am the breadwinner for my family.” — Um Mohammad, mother of five children living in a temporary settlement in Northwest Syria

Her story is not unique. Across Syria, millions face similar struggles after experiencing 14 years of conflict and displacement. The country ranks sixth globally in the Hunger Hotspot Outlook for November 2024–May 2025. A staggering 14.56 million people are food insecure, with 9.1 million acutely affected and 1.3 million severely so. Inflation and currency depreciation have made basic food unaffordable, and  minimum wage in Syria now covers only 16% of the cost of basic food needs, as defined by the humanitarian benchmark known as the Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) — a tool used to estimate the minimum amount of money a household needs to survive. Rising costs and destroyed infrastructure have eroded resilience, leaving families like Um Mohammad’s with few options. 

That’s where the Lifesaving Interventions for Emergencies (LIFE) program steps in to assist internally displaced people in and out of camps in Northwest Syria. 

Supported by the U.S. Government, LIFE is a lifeline and was designed to meet the urgent everyday needs of families in the country’s hardest-hit areas.  It provides monthly food assistance through cash and vouchers tailored to meet the full nutritional needs of a household, in addition to daily distribution of free bread bundles. Each family receives $65 per month, enough to cover 2,100 calories per person per day, in line with humanitarian standards.   

In 2024 and 2025, LIFE reached over 10,000 households across 28 camps in Azaz and 17 villages in Idleb. In 2024 alone, the program provided food assistance to 170,000 people, safe water to over 127,000 displaced individuals, and support for farmers, children, and survivors of gender-based violence. 

For Um Mohammad, this support was critical. Her family was prioritized due to their severe health and economic conditions. The regular cash assistance helped her secure basic meals, continue her daughter’s medical treatment, and avoid the need for irregular labor inside the camp. It gave her a vital sense of stability, allowing her to focus on her children and husband’s care and begin imagining a future beyond crisis. 

As LIFE enters its third year, the program is expanding its impact to create durable solutions for displaced individuals returning to their areas of origin. For many, resettling home is both a hope and a hardship as communities face destroyed infrastructure, limited employment options, and fragile local economies.  

Long-term recovery planning is essential to ensure that returns are safe, voluntary, and sustainable. The LIFE program’s support includes rehabilitating community infrastructure to restore essential services and public spaces, strengthening local market systems to create sustainable income opportunities, and offering on-the-job training and livelihoods support to help individuals gain skills, secure employment, and reduce long-term dependency on aid. During this transition, LIFE will continue to provide clean water, safe shelter, and protection services while individuals plan for and begin reconstructing their lives.  

Together, these interventions form a bridge from emergency response to recovery, from instability and displacement to resilience and self-reliance. For families like Um Mohammad’s, LIFE is creating the foundation for rebuilding, healing, and moving forward. 

The post After More Than a Decade of Conflict, LIFE Offers a Path Forward for Syrian Families appeared first on Global Communities.

The past six months have brought both upheaval and hope for people displaced by conflict in northern Syria. Since the overthrow of the Assad regime in December 2024, more than 470,000 refugees have returned to Syria, and more than 700,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) — those displaced within the country, either within host communities or in temporary settlements or camps where Global Communities provides lifesaving assistance — have gone back to their areas of origin. While this movement represents progress toward stability and security for Syria, many challenges remain for families returning home to rebuild their lives.

The Challenge Ahead for Syrians Returning to Their Areas of Origin

Important infrastructure such as roads and power and water systems remain damaged after years of conflict, and sporadic clashes between ethnically affiliated armed groups continue to put civilians at risk. Unexploded ordnance — left behind weapons and ammunition such as landmines — also presents significant danger for those returning.  

“People are eager to return,” reports Hans Bederski, Global Communities’ Country Director for Syria, but limited economic opportunities combined with ongoing violence and “hardly any efforts at mine clearance” mean that many families are not transitioning as safely and quickly as they should.  

Compounding these challenges, dramatic reductions in funding for humanitarian assistance over the past several months have left relief agencies — including Global Communities — with limited or no resources to meet ongoing needs for camp residents and returning populations. Humanitarian groups estimate that the U.S. government’s recent cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have resulted in the termination of more than $237 million of U.S. aid to Syria, which in turn has had a “ripple effect” on other donor governments withdrawing funding, according to Bederski.  

Global Communities’ Response 

Despite ongoing insecurity and gaps in humanitarian funding, Global Communities staff and displaced families in Syria see many opportunities to usher in a new level of stability and security for IDP camp residents and people returning to their areas of origin. Thus far, Global Communities has focused its response efforts on several camps in northern Syria, which were particularly underserved during the government transition and abrupt funding cuts earlier this year. Our staff provide vital food, shelter, and water, sanitation, and hygiene assistance in the region, and in 2024 alone, these programs reached more than 320,000 people with aid.  

Global Communities’ longer-term goal, however, is to go beyond temporary measures for camp residents and promote self-sufficiency and stability by supporting people who have returned or are in the process of returning to their home communities. An aid strategy that only targets camps could shift returnee flows and even incentivize some family members to stay behind instead of returning to their places of origin, Bederski notes.  

“We want to invest in ‘pull’ factors,” or aid that makes returning to areas of origin more viable such as economic support, basic shelter repairs, and access to essential services like electricity and sewage systems,” he says. This assistance could help families achieve greater stability and reduce the likelihood of their return to camps, which are not meant for long-term residence. 

While Global Communities remains focused on the most urgent humanitarian needs within IDP camps, additional funding could expand assistance for returnee families, providing support to restoring homes and livelihoods, and agricultural kits to help with the first planting cycle for those rebuilding in rural areas. These efforts could help hundreds of families resettle successfully, secure a first harvest and prepare for the coming winter.

What You Can Do Today

Donate: With your support, we can ensure that families affected by conflict and disaster don’t just survive — they rebuild, recover and thrive. Give now.

Learn more: See how our work in Syria is making a difference today and laying the foundation for long-term recovery.

The post Returning Home At Last: A Fragile New Chapter in Northern Syria  appeared first on Global Communities.

For decades, the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence have underpinned humanitarian action. They provide a foundation for delivering aid with integrity and fairness, and they help ensure that assistance reaches those in need based on vulnerability and urgency, rather than political or personal interests. In recent years, however, we have seen significant challenges in the application of these principles, including their outright violations. Attacks on aid workers, access restrictions and other constraints imposed by parties to armed conflicts inhibit the ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver effective, principled assistance.

Recently, a group of humanitarian workers from our organization met to discuss the risks and challenges to principled humanitarian action. The following colleagues participated in the exchange: Jasper Vaughn, Communication and Information Management Officer, Humanitarian Response; Elise Hannaford, Director, Humanitarian Response; Eva K. Mejia, Country Director, Honduras; Marshall Karidozo, Director of Monitoring & Evaluation and Acting Program Director, Syria; Will Musombi, Senior Advisor, Humanitarian Response; and Noah Steinberg Distefano, Senior Regional Manager, Americas.

The conversation was edited for length and clarity.

Paula: What are the origins of humanitarian principles and what do they mean for Global Communities?

 Jasper: The onset of the modern set of humanitarian principles dates back to the 19th century, when they were first promoted by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Today, these principles are embedded in the international humanitarian law, including four Geneva Conventions, ratified by almost all countries in the world. These treaties lay out legally binding obligations aimed at protecting individuals who are not participating in hostilities, including civilians.

In 1994, the humanitarian principles were codified in the voluntary Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (the Movement) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief.  Global Communities is signatory to this code.

While the humanitarian principles are well-defined by the international community, there are still tensions and misconceptions about their practical application.

Paula: What are the challenges associated with the implementation of humanitarian principles and how do you address them?

Elise: In theory, the humanitarian principles sound straightforward, but in practice, humanitarians face challenges around their implementation and they are unevenly applied across crisis contexts.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has led to a serious reckoning in the humanitarian community. Our organization has lost two colleagues, Hani Jnena and Alaa Abu Al-Khair, who have been killed in Israeli airstrikes since the start of the war in October 2023. Many of our colleagues have also lost their family members. These tragic losses are profoundly felt by our teams. Our colleagues work tirelessly to deliver lifesaving assistance to their communities while facing unfathomable danger, severe trauma and significant logistical challenges caused by widespread insecurity and restrictions on aid. We continue to call for an immediate ceasefire and unequivocal adherence to international humanitarian law so that we can deliver aid in a safe and timely manner. As we continue to provide assistance in Gaza, we will keep evaluating our response to ensure that we adhere to the humanitarian principles.

---

Jasper: Well said, Elise. In recent years, humanitarian assistance has become very politicized. We have seen governments attempting to influence humanitarian actors to pursue non-humanitarian goals, such as foreign policy or military objectives. It can be very difficult for humanitarian actors to balance their adherence to the principles with these intense pressures from high-level political figures or even donors.

In addition, in fast-paced and emergency environments, it can be challenging for humanitarian actors to know how to best include local governments as necessary partners in humanitarian action without compromising principled aid delivery. First, if a government is a party to a conflict, our collaboration with them may be worrying to our program participants, who may no longer see us as an independent or neutral party. Second, local governments often have strong opinions about which populations should receive aid. If these populations are not those most in need of humanitarian assistance, we risk compromising the principle of impartiality.

Aid diversion is also a threat to humanitarian principles. This can happen when stakeholders prevent aid from going to populations most in need and instead divert it to other groups. Also, donor requirements designed to prevent aid diversion may unintentionally hinder the timely and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. It is crucial to balance these safeguards with the need to ensure that aid reaches those in need without unnecessary delays or obstacles.

---

Eva: I would like to share a real-life example from Honduras, where Global Communities has been operating since 1985. For nearly four decades our main focus was sustainable development. This changed in 2020, when our country experienced a superimposed humanitarian crisis caused by two devastating hurricanes, Eta and Iota, which hit us in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the aftermath of these disasters, we began implementing the Honduras Emergency WASH and Shelter (HEWS) program (2020-2022), funded by the United States Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA). In the span of weeks, our country team turned into a humanitarian actor, and we became bound by the humanitarian principles.

At the very beginning, our staff were not familiar with these principles, and it was challenging for them to apply them while selecting program partners and recipients of aid. In development programs, the selection criteria can be different. For example, while we certainly want to reach the most vulnerable populations, we also apply the “cost-benefit” and “value for money” lens when choosing the communities we work with.

Additionally, we are used to working closely with local governments, and we did not predict that this would be a problem. Yet we soon learned of a growing perception that we were providing humanitarian aid mainly to neighborhoods and communities who were sympathizing with the Honduran government. After an internal reflection, we realized that we need to get better at using the humanitarian approach and terminology to coordinate assistance with local actors and to communicate the eligibility criteria to our communities. 

We learned a lot within a short period of time, and we took decisive actions to overcome these challenges. The key was to build trust within the communities and to link local leaders with municipalities for a more coordinated, transparent and principled response.

Now, four years later, we continue implementing humanitarian projects and we have a very strong relationship with BHA. Thanks to Global Communities’ Global Support Team, our staff is well-trained on humanitarian principles, and we systematically monitor their application.

---

Elise: Well said, Eva. Your team’s experience in pivoting between development and humanitarian work is incredibly valuable as we support other country teams in becoming humanitarian-ready.

---

Marshall: To me, all four humanitarian principles are intertwined, and it is very rare to witness a situation where only one principle is threatened or violated.

The Syrian context, where I work, is extremely complex. Ten years ago, when Global Communities began its work in Syria, we focused on the blanket distribution of life-saving commodities, such as food and water. Today, our goal is to provide more systematized support to internally displaced people, but we face interference from local committees, camp managers and other local actors who exert power over a specific area. For example, they sometimes give us lists of people who should or should not receive aid, which is in complete violation of the principles of independence and impartiality. In response, we have instituted a robust verification mechanism, which includes community-based needs assessments and validation exercises with other humanitarian stakeholders.

We are incredibly committed to delivering aid in an impartial way. One of the best practices in addressing these challenges is hiring local staff who understand the language, culture and power dynamics in their communities. They have been very helpful in identifying and responding to the instances of bias and discrimination. In some cases, we also employ third-party monitoring teams who lead these verification exercises, and we do our best to ensure that our distribution centers are out of reach of military establishments.

Finally, Global Communities has been very active in Syria’s cluster system, which strengthens coordination and accountability for the delivery of services.

---

Elise: Many thanks for your examples, Marshall. Your monitoring & evaluation team plays a key role in ensuring that we abide by humanitarian principles, and I appreciate that we have such a strong team.

I also want to mention the importance of our community feedback mechanisms, which not only improve the quality and accessibility of our programming but are also pivotal in holding us accountable and preventing misconduct.

---

Will: Humanitarian principles are extremely important. In conflict settings, it is critical for us, humanitarians, to engage in dialogues with leaders on both sides of the conflict and assure them of our commitment to neutrality. We have to explain that our mission is solely to deliver humanitarian aid. That we will not take sides and we will not discriminate against people based on which side of the conflict they are on. That we do not have a political or military agenda. Establishing clear communication channels and trust with all parties is key to ensuring a safe and uninterrupted passage of people and goods. Otherwise, we can face bureaucratic and security-related impediments to our work.

Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have seen increased targeting of aid workers. We see attacks on humanitarian convoys. Hospitals are being bombed. Humanitarians are being killed, kidnaped and detained. This is unacceptable. Humanitarian relief personnel must be respected and protected at all times.

---

Elise: Indeed. I also want to highlight how challenging it can be to abide by the humanitarian principles during the first phase of an emergency response. We need to make quick decisions with imperfect information, and even with the best intentions, there can be unintended consequences. It’s important to have open discussions, learn and improve.

Paula: How do you apply humanitarian principles to the selection of program partners?

 Elise: Many local organizations we work with have dual mandates. The key is to ensure that they apply humanitarian principles in the process of delivering humanitarian aid. We conduct scrupulous verification and monitoring of our current and prospective partners, and we strengthen their capacity to engage in principled emergency response. We take any violations very seriously and address them immediately.     

---

Jasper: This balancing act also applies to our relationships with donors, especially government donors. Governments may participate both in humanitarian and non-humanitarian activities within the same crisis context. For example, they may engage in diplomacy or send military assistance to a conflict party while also financing humanitarian aid to conflict-affected populations. Humanitarian actors must constantly think how to preserve their independence and neutrality in these very complex situations. While the humanitarian principles are well-defined by the international community, there are still tensions and misconceptions about their practical application.

Paula: How do you balance the principle of impartiality with social inclusion and gender integration while developing eligibility criteria for recipients of humanitarian aid?

 Elise: These principles may seem contradictory, but most often, they are not. Our goal is to provide appropriate support to those most affected by a crisis and be as inclusive as possible. For example, while we cannot exclude anyone based on gender or age, often women and girls, and children generally, are most vulnerable in crisis settings and may get prioritized for aid. Our Child Protection in Emergencies programming is a good example of this. This is not an exclusion of other populations, but rather a recognition that children are most in need of protection in a particular context.      

---

Marshall: Local cluster systems are incredibly helpful in developing appropriate, context-specific eligibility and vulnerability criteria. In Syria, for example, there is a ranking system, and everything is validated and shared with our community representatives. This creates a common understanding about who qualifies for assistance, which helps reduce community tensions and pushback. 

Paula: Is there anything else you would like to share?

Noah: In addition to the core humanitarian principles, which are static, there are also minimum humanitarian standards, for example the Sphere standards. They are more technical in nature and aim to improve the quality and accountability of the humanitarian sector.

---

Elise: This is a good point, Noah. You are right, the humanitarian principles do not shift, but the minimum standards get updated regularly. In fact, the Core Humanitarian Standards on Quality and Accountability were updated earlier this year. Our Humanitarian Response Team is reviewing them, and we will ensure that our country teams are up to date.  

Paula: Thank you for your insights!

The post Humanity at Risk: Addressing Challenges to Principled Humanitarian Action appeared first on Global Communities.

The post Protection in Emergencies appeared first on Global Communities.

Global Communities has a rich history of providing emergency aid and protection services to refugees and internally displaced people in many crisis settings, from Ukraine and Gaza to Syria and Guatemala. This includes our Child Protection in Emergencies (CPiE) programming, which supports the well-being of children and addresses risks created or exacerbated by crises. In emergencies, children are often the most vulnerable and at-risk population group. They face a range of threats, including violence, exploitation, family separation and a loss of education.

Global Communities employs community-based and multisectoral approaches to CPiE. We work to strengthen children’s resilience, prevent further harm and foster protective environments by engaging with children’s families and communities. We partner with caregivers, community leaders, local authorities, schools, nutrition specialists and health workers. Our CPiE interventions are usually implemented through Child-Friendly Spaces (CFS), community-based organizations (CBOs) and mobile teams trained to provide a variety of services to children. They encompass both prevention and response services, ranging from awareness raising and recreational activities to psychosocial counselling and case management. They are designed to meet children’s most immediate needs and support their long-term recovery. CFS allow children and caregivers to receive assistance in physically and emotionally safe environments. Mobile teams bring services to children and parents where they are: in their homes, schools or healthcare facilities. This increases access and outreach to the most vulnerable.

Children enrolled in our CPiE programs also participate in life skills sessions and basic literacy and numeracy training, which helps them return to school when they are able to. Moreover, we facilitate parenting sessions which offer information about early childhood development, help caregivers manage their own stress, and provide parents with tools to help their children cope with the crisis. Our crisis response also includes cash assistance, for instance to ensure that children have stable housing, and other specialized services, for example removing children from harmful work.

Global Communities implements large CPiE projects in Syria and Ukraine. These are very distinct contexts, requiring different approaches.

• In Syria, we have been providing direct services in displacement camps since 2016. We are the primary service provider in our communities because of the lack of local authorities and institutional services.
• Our Ukraine CPiE programming began in 2022 in response to the full-scale Russian invasion. Here, we employ a localization approach and provide services primarily through our local partners, typically CBOs. The goal is to fill gaps in state services and strengthen the capacity of local actors to deliver humanitarian assistance.

Caring for War-Affected Children in Ukraine

For over two years, Ukraine has been engulfed in a full-scale war, with devastating consequences for its children. As of March 2024, 600 children have been killed, 1,357 children have been injured and 3.2 million children need protection services.

The impact of the war on children cannot be overstated. Physical and psychological violence, displacement, loss of homes and loved ones, and restricted access to education and services prevail in their lives, negatively impacting their well-being. Furthermore, since the war started, the risks of child exploitation, neglect, abuse and gender-based violence have increased. Children affected by the armed conflict have lost not only their usual living conditions but also their social connections. They have been forced to part with their friends, classmates, teachers and sometimes family members. These changes have caused severe stress, anxiety and trauma.

Since 2022, Global Communities has been implementing the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, financed by the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Child protection is one of the key pillars of CLEAR. Most CPiE interventions are led by small organizations whose employees have experienced the consequences of the war themselves. They apply the best practices of child protection in their communities with the program’s technical support grounded in global insights. These interventions include recreational activities, psychosocial services (such as art therapy classes) and life skills education for children, and psychosocial support for parents. Our partners not only help improve the psychological well-being of children and their parents, but they also support the integration of internally displaced people into host communities, which fosters social cohesion. Our program participants establish new social connections and make new friends, which helps reduce feelings of alienation. This is very important for children’s further development and well-being.

Healing through Art in the Sokyriany Community

One of CLEAR’s partner CBOs, Poshuk Innovatsi (Search for Innovations), works in Sokyriany—the most remote hromada (territorial community) of the Chernivtsi oblast (region). Global Communities is the only international organization providing humanitarian assistance to internally displaced people in this community.

Chernivtsi is located in the western part of Ukraine, which has been relatively unaffected by direct hostilities, but has received tens of thousands of displaced people fleeing the fighting in the east. Children who arrive at Chernivtsi from the occupied territories demonstrate signs of severe stress, anxiety and trauma. They are scared to be separated from their parents, do not want to leave their temporary homes and have problems with sleeping at night. Their parents are stressed, too. Busy addressing their families’ urgent needs, like housing and livelihoods, they often lack time to focus on their children’s emotional needs.

Poshuk Innovatsi began its CLEAR programming by meeting individually with displaced families to show them that they were not alone and to inform them about psychosocial support available to them through CLEAR.  After that, the CBO involved staff of local schools to support the integration of displaced people. Then, they organized a series of creative lab classes for displaced and local children, where they could express their feelings through different activities, such as drawing, painting and sculpting.

At first, displaced children used dark colors and drew tanks, explosions and soldiers. During the clay therapy sessions, they ruined their own crafts, bursting with anger. Later, psychologists who facilitated these activities explained to the children how to express and process their feelings more flexibly. For example, the kids learned how to tear fabric and use it make Motanka dolls, which are traditional Ukrainian talismans representing prosperity, goodness and hope. When displaced children showed signs of improvement, they started working in pairs with local children and making friends.

Children are the most vulnerable category among internally displaced people. Often, they cannot express their worries with words, and we can see them only through their drawings, crafts, games, movements and behavior. Our task was to help them cope with the emotions caused by the horrors of the war and the challenges in a new place of living. We wanted them to relax and start living full lives.

Inna Yatsyshyna, Director of Poshuk Innovatsi

Poshuk Innovatsi’s social integration efforts culminated in a heartwarming family eco-picnic. There, children and their parents could relax in nature, connect with each other and participate in fun activities. Alongside new local friends, they planted trees, contributing to the emotional and physical well-being of their community.

Supporting Displaced Children and Caregivers in Syria

There are 5.5 million internally displaced people across Syria, including more than 2 million in camps and informal settlements. Idleb and Aleppo governorates in the northwest host the most displaced families, many of whom had to flee multiple times over the course of the 13-year conflict. The majority of displaced people living in camps have exhausted nearly all their economic, financial, physical and social assets, and they are dependent on humanitarian aid, particularly for life-saving services such as water and food.

Protection of children remains a serious and widespread challenge in Syria. Specific issues include porous child protection referral mechanisms, weak case management, dysfunctional formal justice systems and a very limited access to specialized services, such as psychosocial support or care for survivors of gender-based violence. There is a dire need for comprehensive prevention and response interventions to reduce and mitigate risks to children caused by the conflict and displacement. Other needs include community sensitization and mobilization, and strengthening of local institutions, including traditional and religious bodies, so that they can provide better services to at-risk children.

Global Communities began protection programming in Syria in 2016, working both inside and outside of camp settings in northern Syria. To mitigate risks to children, we work through stationary CFS and mobile outreach teams. We implement most extensive CPiE programming in the Atmeh Camp, which is located in the Idleb governorate and hosts an estimated 170,000 people. Our teams provide a wide range of services to children and caregivers, including awareness raising on child rights, play and learn activities, life skills, parenting skills, peer support groups, counselling and referrals to essential services. We reach approximately 30,000 children and caregivers every year.

Promoting Girls’ Empowerment in the Atmeh Camp

Selin* is an 11-year-old girl who was born in the Atmeh Camp and – like most of her peers – has never had a home beyond the camp. Selin’s main caretaker is her mother; her father has been imprisoned for ten years. For a very long time, Selin lived in isolation. She used to avoid socializing with her peers, and she frequently showed signs of fear and confusion. When our team met Selin, they referred her to one of our social workers, who paid a home visit to her family.  

The social worker observed that Selin had significant domestic responsibilities, despite being so young. She had to take care for her brothers, in addition to caring for her elderly grandmother. She was not allowed to leave the house, and she could rarely play with other children. She was also caught in a conflict between her mother’s and father’s families regarding her care. The social worker took time to explain to Selin’s mom how important play and learn activities are for children’s development. The mom noted that Selin loved drawing and was very talented, so the social worker suggested enrolling Selin in structured psychosocial support services, including art therapy. Eventually, our team registered Selin at one of our CFS centers and invited her mom to participate in parenting sessions. This changed Selin’s mother’s perspective on the importance of play and relationships with peers.

These activities contributed to boosting Selin’s self-confidence, and she made new friends. Gradually, she began participating and playing with groups of children, overcoming the shyness and confusion that were initially apparent when she joined the center. Selin is now one of the outstanding children in the center, actively engaging in activities with other children.

Tarek Fakhereddin, Senior Child Protection Officer, Global Communities

Through interventions like these, child protection efforts not only provide immediate relief but also lay the groundwork for long-term resilience and recovery. Ultimately, by ensuring the safety and security of children, these initiatives contribute to building more stable and sustainable communities in the aftermath of crises. Investing in children’s physical, emotional, and educational needs not only ensures their individual growth and development, but also helps to mitigate the same risks experienced by children in their communities in the future.

*The name has been changed to protect Selin’s identity.

The post Protecting Children in Emergencies: Perspectives from Syria and Ukraine appeared first on Global Communities.

Last month, the World Bank held its 2024 Fragility Forum – a biannual conference that brings together policymakers, researchers and practitioners from humanitarian, development and peacebuilding communities to exchange knowledge and ideas about how to improve our approaches in fragile, conflict and violence-affected settings. This year’s theme was “Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World.” 

After the Forum, I asked my Global Communities’ colleagues who attended the event for their reflections. Kelly Van Husen, Vice President for Humanitarian Assistance; Patricia Dorsher, Senior Manager for Humanitarian Business Development; Meena Grigat, Director of Humanitarian and Nexus Business Development; and Patrick Woodruff, Manager for Humanitarian Assistance participated in the exchange. The conversation was edited for length and clarity. 

Paula: In most of the sessions I attended, the panelists painted a bleak picture. The world is increasingly fragile, marred with compounded crises and intertwined risks, from protracted conflicts and climate disasters to chronic political instability and widespread food insecurity. The World Bank estimates that by 2030, almost 60% of the world’s poor will live in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). During the opening session, Anna Bjerde, Managing Director of Operations at the World Bank noted that we cannot end poverty without addressing fragility. She also said, “I’m going to be very honest with you. … We are not preventing conflict.” Why? What are the key factors behind these alarming trends?  

Patricia: I have been working on our humanitarian assistance portfolio for the past few years and found it difficult to identify funders who are willing to address the root causes of conflict in contexts like Syria, where the outcomes are very political. For example, investing in infrastructure in the non-regime areas could help stabilize the lives for millions of people, but humanitarian donors do not see this as their purview and development actors do not want to pay for something where there is no recognized government counterpart to work with. We have been working to find intermediate solutions, but with funds decreasing, humanitarian donors want to focus on the urgent, lifesaving activities and not those that can help counter systemic fragility.  

Patrick: Well said, Patricia. Humanitarian and development organizations are often forced to choose between working with actors considered illegitimate by the international community and restricting or even halting programming to at-risk populations. This was evident after the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan. The disengagement of many actors, including donors, not only left many people at increased risk, but resulted in brain drain of trained humanitarian workers who fled the country or went underground. The lack of funding and support for national non-governmental organizations has led to devastating backtracking on hard-won gains in the rights of women and minority groups. We can see this trend in almost every major crisis today, from Ukraine and Syria to Gaza and the West Bank. Furthermore, many, if not most humanitarian and development organizations are overly reliant on government funding from the Global North. It makes it increasingly difficult to respond to the needs on the ground when the donor countries are aligned with one side of a conflict. While this is understandable from a political standpoint, porous funding streams leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people without lifesaving aid, in direct contradiction to the humanitarian principles.

Patricia: So true! During the session on “State Building in Protracted Crises,” I was struck by the discussion on Palestine led by Nigel Roberts, former Country Director for Gaza and the West Bank at the World Bank. Roberts talked about how the World Bank is designed to be apolitical – at least at a technocratic level – but is beholden to a board that is, by nature, political. Because of this dichotomy, the World Bank has missed many opportunities to help realize economic improvements and development objectives for Palestinians. This resonated with me. In humanitarian assistance, we frequently grapple with the mandate to be “neutral” and “apolitical,” and yet our largest government donors are responsible for carrying out domestic and foreign policies. Being neutral or apolitical is often thought of as the refusal to choose sides, but we fail to recognize that this is also a choice with consequences. It raises the question of what it means to be neutral or apolitical, and if it is ever truly possible.  

Paula: How can we, and others in the sector, address these challenges?  

Patrick: To me, some of the most impactful discussions at the Fragility Forum were around the need to stay engaged in challenging situations, including by finding ways to work with illegitimate or diplomatically isolated actors. Many panelists emphasized that humanitarian organizations have the moral responsibility to remain engaged in order to alleviate suffering. They also noted that continued engagement decreases the financial and social costs that result from humanitarian and development actors leaving in the face of these challenges. Of course, there is no easy solution to this, and every organization needs to make its own decisions based on acceptable risk levels. I think that the most important thing that organizations can do is to protect the foundations of humanitarian work, which is rooted in the principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence. By reinforcing these ideals, organizations will be better positioned to respond to crises based on needs. 

Meena: The sessions I listened to reinforced the importance of investing time and resources into developing an in-depth understanding of the local context. It is very important to build long-term relationships with local communities and actors, and to conduct political economy and conflict analyses. We must be ready to work with communities and local systems over the long-term in order to see impact. 

Patricia: I have to echo what Meena said. You can’t ignore the political context and conflict dynamics. Understanding them at the macro, meso, micro and even household levels is essential if we want to work effectively in fragile and conflict-affected areas. I also want to second what Patrick said about staying engaged. When a new crisis emerges, donors and implementers cannot just forget about conflicts that have been going on for years or decades. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a sudden reassignment of critical funding and programming to Ukraine and its refugees. Now, the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza dominates the headlines. While we must respond to these new crises to the fullest extent possible, we must still remember about people in Yemen, Syria and other fragile states with protracted conflicts and instability. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their needs deserve to be met, too. I am proud of our programming in Syria, where we have been addressing food security, protection, water, sanitation and shelter needs for a decade. I truly hope donors will remain engaged there for years to come. 

Kelly: One theme that I heard repeatedly in the sessions I attended was around the need to be agile and innovative. This is not necessarily new, but the speakers highlighted how critical it is for implementers – particularly those working in fragile contexts – to be flexible: constantly evaluating, assessing and identifying new opportunities to shift programming to better meet humanitarian needs and more effectively achieve program outcomes. The Forum also reinforced the need for continued advocacy to our donors, policymakers and other stakeholders around flexible funding mechanisms. In a volatile world we live in, funding mechanisms must have built-in opportunities, such as crisis modifiers, to quickly adapt and pivot to rapid emergency response.  

Paula: Indeed. The ability to fluidly respond to changing circumstances is a game changer. We have witnessed how crucial this is in many contexts. In Ukraine, for example, our long-term development program – Decentralization Offering Better Results and Efficiency (DOBRE) – was able to quickly mobilize its networks and provide rapid emergency response right at the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. This paved a way for the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program, which we launched soon after in two regions overlapping with DOBRE. By layering life-saving humanitarian interventions with development assistance, we can more effectively respond to the crisis, set the stage for post-war recovery and foster lasting resilience to shocks and stresses.  

Ethiopia also comes to mind, where we are implementing the Resilience in Pastoral Areas South (RIPA South) project. In March 2022, amid one of the driest rainy seasons on record, RIPA South activated a Crisis Modifier to address urgent needs of the most vulnerable people affected by the drought. The Crisis Modifier sets aside funds for emergency response measures to save people’s lives, rescue livestock and safeguard economic gains made possible by development activities. We have categorized these interventions into three windows: livestock support, multi-purpose cash assistance and access to water, sanitation and hygiene.  

Paula: Where else is Global Communities adapting or innovating in the face of fragility and constant change? 

Kelly: Gaza was mentioned several times during the Forum. Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, we have pivoted more than 20 years of programming to address the urgent needs resulting from this devastating humanitarian crisis. Our teams are managing to adapt and innovate in Gaza, despite extremely constrained and dangerous circumstances. As you know, 2.2 million people are at the imminent risk of famine, and we are proud to serve as the World Food Programme’s (WFP) main implementing partner. We have been able to shift our WFP work from cash to in-kind assistance, and we have pooled resources and knowledge to partner with others, for example the World Central Kitchen, to provide hot meals. We are also distributing nutritional supplements to pregnant women, nursing mothers and small children who are at increased risk of malnutrition. In addition, we are setting up latrines and sinks, and he have provided winterization support to many families. This represents critically needed agility and creativity that has enabled us to continue working in this extremely challenging environment.  

Paula: Agility in adapting to evolving needs is vital in our efforts to ensure efficient, timely support in both stable and crisis conditions. I imagine we have had to adapt and innovate our own internal processes and mechanisms to make it happen.  

Patrick: Yes, absolutely. Global Communities is currently developing Protocols for Emergency Response, so that we are humanitarian-ready even in relatively stable environments. I am personally involved in this effort. We want to ensure that our organization has systems in place to respond to natural disasters and conflicts quickly and effectively. We place a heavy focus on increasing the resilience, preparedness and ability of our country teams to respond with existing programming. This is often done by leveraging our ongoing development programs, like in Gaza, Ukraine or Ethiopia. 

Kelly: We work at the intersection of sustainable development and humanitarian assistance, so strenghtening the capacity of our country teams to pivot from development programming to emergency response is one of our main internal priorities.  

Paula: Many panelists emphasized how important it is to strengthen local institutions and make them more inclusive in order to solve conflicts and maintain peace. For example, Bjerde said that it is crucial to focus not just on services but also on the institutions behind the services, making sure that their capacity is built. “When things go wrong, when things get difficult and hard, it’s those institutions that need to actually step up even more,” she said. What are your thoughts on this? 

Patrick: I agree. This brings up the topic of localization, which was frequently mentioned at the Forum too. To protect hard fought gains, we must ensure that local and national actors – who do the vast majority of the work on the ground – have the adequate resources and power to adapt their programming in a way that is contextually appropriate.   

Paula: Right. Ultimately, it is the local communities and institutions who have the intimate understanding of their needs and priorities, and who can design context-specific and culturally relevant interventions. This came up a lot in the session “Gender Equality in FCV Settings: Moving from Humanitarian Responses to Creating Resilience.” Amini Kajunju from the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Center for Women and Development spoke very passionately about investing in community-driven solutions, leveraging local expertise and elevating local women leaders. She also stressed that civil society organizations are central to providing services in fragile settings, especially when state institutions are weakened. I know that our sector has a long way to go to fully realize the localization principles, but I think we are making strides. For example, localization is a core strategy of our CLEAR project in Ukraine, where we invest in small, community-based organizations (CBOs), which deliver emergency assistance and protection services to war-affected populations. Of course, this approach has its challenges. When I visited Ukraine last year, many CBO leaders shared their struggles with strict donor compliance requirements. We hear it in other settings, like Syria, too. This is where we come in with our capacity strengthening interventions, which are extremely helpful, but take time. 

Paula: How else did the conference connect with the work you are doing at Global Communities? 

Meena: The session “Troubled Borders: Subnational Conflict in Middle Income Countries” was relevant to the context in northern Ghana, where we have extensive experience implementing water, sanitation and hygiene programs. The region is one of the key focus areas under the U.S. Global Fragility Act. Communities in the districts along the borders of northern Ghana are part of interconnected trade and migration networks, and there are major concerns over the spread of violent extremism into these communities. The speakers stressed the complexity of border economies and governance institutions, and the need to consider market systems, the flow of goods and ideas, the role of the state, and the ability of local actors to arbitrate conflict. 

Paula: Great point. Conflicts and the climate crisis do not recognize borders. Several panelists also emphasized the need to support countries receiving refugees and discussed the global impact of the war in Ukraine. The fragility that has emanated from Russia’s invasion has cascaded globally, affecting countries not just in Ukraine’s vicinity, but states on other continents. For example, the conflict has had a major impact on the global wheat supply, resulting in a widespread food security crisis.  

Thank you for sharing your reflections. As some of the panelists noted, sustainable development is not possible without sustainable peace, and we need tectonic shifts and holistic approaches to address the interconnected global risks and polycrises. I left the Fragility Forum and our conversation with the following recommendations:  

• Anticipate better and be prepared to ensure effective, timely support when conditions change. 
• Remain engaged when challenges arise. Ensure stable funding streams. Continuity is vital when fragility grows.  
• Acknowledge that conflicts and the climate crisis do not recognize borders. 
• Focus on prevention and resilience building. Address the drivers and root causes of fragility. 
• Strengthen state institutions, engage the private sector and invest in civil society organizations, including women- and youth-led groups, which are often first responders in fragile settings and play a huge role in recovery efforts. 
• Improve governance and the rule of law. 
• Ensure that interventions are inclusive and gender-responsive. Talk to people you typically do not engage with. 
• Localize development and humanitarian interventions. 

The post Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World: Reflections from the 2024 Fragility Forum   appeared first on Global Communities.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive issue that disproportionately affects women, girls and vulnerable individuals during emergencies. In disaster or conflict-affected areas, gender inequalities and power dynamics can both exacerbate existing risks of GBV and create new ones. While risks are always context-specific, we see many similarities in different crisis settings, from Ukraine and Syria to the West Bank and Gaza.

There are also GBV risks related to humanitarian interventions, which are often designed by men, lack gender and safety considerations, and underprioritize the unique needs of women and girls.  

Our Approach

Global Communities works in humanitarian settings around the world and implements GBV in Emergencies (GBViE) programming in several countries. We use this approach to respond quickly to new and worsening GBV risks for women, girls and other vulnerable groups. GBViE is a lifesaving and important component of our emergency response and humanitarian programs.  

While we tailor our responses to the unique risks and needs of crisis-affected populations, we implement several standard GBViE activities. For example, during the onset of an acute emergency, such as an earthquake or recent displacement, we focus on lifesaving services that address women’s and girls’ immediate safety needs. We also use conflict- and gender-sensitive approaches to adapt our existing programs. While responding to protracted conflicts, we tend to prioritize work with community-based structures to empower women and improve the overall protective environment for them.  

Responding to GBV in the West Bank and Gaza

Much of the world is currently watching and responding to the unfolding crisis in the Middle East. On October 1, 2023, Global Communities initiated its Pioneers-Raedat Project — a five-year initiative to promote the empowerment of women in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. A week later, on October 7, Hamas attacked Israel and Israel declared a war against Hamas. These events have led to a devastating humanitarian crisis for civilians in Gaza and changed the context for which Pioneers-Raedat had been designed. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by the conflict, facing significant threats to their lives and safety, including increased GBV concerns.  

• One-third of those killed are women and children.
• There are 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with approximately 5,522 expected to deliver in the next month; they face dramatically reduced access to maternal and newborn care.
• 788,800 women and girls have been displaced from their homes. 
• 2,056 women have recently become widows or the heads of households. 
• Overcrowding and a lack of water and sanitation is impacting women’s menstrual hygiene practices.
• Queues for bread are over 5 hours on average and essential food items are almost depleted.

In acute emergencies, such as in Gaza, the extreme security threats, lack of services and deterioration of family social support networks raise a variety of risks. For example, overcrowding in shelters for displaced people increases the risk of physical or sexual abuse. The extreme lack of access to basic commodities, such as food, increases the risk of exploitation and abuse as women try to provide for themselves and their families. 

In this context, Global Communities is modifying existing programs to address some of these risks. Currently, it is still extremely difficult for non-governmental organizations to access Gaza and deliver aid. The frontline staff, who would implement such activities, are focused on protecting their families, while experiencing significant trauma.  

There is a significant impact in the West Bank as well, with increasing safety concerns, movement restrictions and psychological distress linked to the suffering in Gaza. Moreover, economic deterioration is making life more difficult for women there. We are poised to respond to this situation with immediate response activities, including: 

• Gathering information about protection and GBV risks and needs. 
• Responding to immediate protection needs with cash and dignity kits containing hygiene and sanitary items.
• Mapping available GBV and protection services, and helping women access them.
• Disseminating key messages about emerging risks and protection strategies.
• Providing basic Psychological First Aid to prevent further traumatization. 
• Advocating for GBV risk mitigation practices, such as safe and gender-responsive distribution of aid.
• Planning for the next phase of psychosocial support sessions, safe spaces for women and girls, and case management for GBV survivors.

It is important to view these different types of activities and contexts along a spectrum. Immediate and well-coordinated efforts are essential to mitigate the impact of the crisis on women and girls. Humanitarian actors, like us, need to prioritize their safety, well-being and dignity. This lays the foundation for early recovery and development efforts that will focus on promoting women’s resilience and agency.  

Implementing gbviE in other Contexts

Global Communities implements GBViE in other contexts too, including Syria and Ukraine, which have unique GBV risks and response needs. For example, for the past seven years we have been providing GBViE services in the displaced persons camp in northwest Syria, where there are no services provided by local institutions. Because the civil society in this region is still weak, Global Communities is the primary service provider, implementing a comprehensive, geographically concentrated approach to fill a range of service needs in a community prioritized based on the level of need and vulnerability. 

In Ukraine, Global Communities implements GBViE through local partners under the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR) program. This project includes capacity strengthening and mentoring of local organizations to increase their ability to respond to the crisis. The government of Ukraine continues to provide services through local institutions in many parts of the country. Local civil society organizations, which were strong before the 2022 escalation of the conflict, have pivoted to providing humanitarian response. In this situation, Global Communities fills specific geographic and service gaps, and supports local actors, which had no humanitarian experience prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion. These organizations are eager to build on their previous experience to better serve their communities in this crisis.  

In all these crises, Global Communities provides tailored packages of services for women and girls. Addressing GBV must always be “localized” and built on the priorities and preferences of those most affected – women, girls and other vulnerable individuals who are at risk of or have experienced GBV. GBV is a sensitive, personal issue that is felt uniquely by those affected. We will continue to work with women, girls and their communities to support a reduction in violence they face and a realization of their human rights.

The post Preventing and Responding to Gender-based Violence in Humanitarian Settings appeared first on Global Communities.

The post Promoting Positive Youth Development & the Advancement of Adolescent Girls and Young Women appeared first on Global Communities.