The humanitarian response in north-east Nigeria is an important opportunity to examine some of the barriers to more inclusive humanitarian action in large-scale, complex and protracted displacement crises. Acknowledging the immense operational challenges facing humanitarian actors, this study found that the response is not systematically inclusive, which has led to the exclusion of entire communities, therefore undermining its relevance, effectiveness and impartiality. The response’s lack of adequate engagement with diverse communities and consideration of longer-term and structural processes of exclusion, as well as the specific exclusionary effect of the conflict, means that the humanitarian response further exacerbated and contributed to the exclusion of already marginalised populations.

This working paper examines issues of inclusion and exclusion in humanitarian action and interrogates what the drivers of exclusion are for people affected by conflict, including those pertaining to humanitarian action. It examines how far the humanitarian response is inclusive and which factors undermine and support more inclusive humanitarian action.

Long-term social exclusion within Nigeria society intersects with the impact of conflict to create heightened vulnerabilities for certain groups of individuals. The conflict has profoundly exacerbated socio-economic inequalities that existed in the region prior to the crisis (World Bank, 2018). Such longterm risks of social exclusion also intersect with the humanitarian response, yet humanitarian actors have failed to adequately take them into account. While efforts have been made to consider exclusions linked to gender norms, language marginalisation and disability, the response has failed to fully understand and mitigate the wider dynamics of exclusion, which further contributed to leaving whole sections of the population behind.

The conflict and displacement has created specific drivers of exclusion for men and boys of fighting age. Because they face greater risks of recruitment by non-state armed groups, death and detention by the military, they are under-represented in internally displaced person (IDP) camps and in humanitarian data. This absence is too often wrongly interpreted as them not being in need of assistance, but it should be seen as a symptom of the differentiated impact of the conflict. Any perceived association with non-state armed groups, whether true or not, is also a key driver of exclusion. People from certain ethno-linguistic groups and those newly displaced from certain locations or recently released from detention are also seen to be suspicious and are at risk of exclusion as a result. However, humanitarian actors failed to adequately consider these dynamics, meaning that groups of individuals are marginalised even further in the response.

Community leaders also play a significant role in driving exclusion in north-east Nigeria as they can support exclusionary community dynamics between IDP and host communities as well as within IDP communities. While this impacts the ability of individuals to access livelihood opportunities or participate in community life, it also has negative implications for accessing humanitarian assistance. People affected by the conflict systematically reported the role community leaders played as gatekeepers of humanitarian assistance and participation in the response, arguing that the main factor affecting inclusion in assistance was how close an individual was to community leadership. This was rarely highlighted by aid actors who commonly felt that community engagement was effective and inclusive.