The significant challenges to the principles and practice of humanitarian agencies outlined above have triggered an intensive search for new approaches to the delivery of humanitarian aid. Initially, these new approaches focussed on “minimalist” and “maximalist” positions¹⁹. The former asked for a return to the original humanitarian principles, while the latter argued for a broadening of the humanitarian mandate. As a consequence of this debate, the Sphere handbook was revised to include a suggestion that understanding the nature and source of conflict helps to ensure that aid is distributed in an impartial way and reduces or avoids negative impact. (see Box 7, and Chapter 2 on conflict analysis)

• politically informed neutrality: given widespread attempts to manipulate aid for political purposes, a recognition by agencies that neutrality requires an in-depth understanding of the global and local conflict environment
• conflict prevention perspective (Do Some Good): an understanding of underlying tensions and latent conflict to help agencies respond to these more effectively
• Do No Harm: an attempt by agencies to monitor the intended and unintended impact of their work to avoid contributing to instability and violence
• coherence and complementarity: development of structures that allow agencies with different mandates (humanitarian, development, peacebuilding) to complement each other’s work. This may involve joint assessments and planning. (conflict analysis, planning).