Humanitarian assistance in a conflict environment depends not only on the availability of food, medicine and other relief supplies, but also on the institutional relationship between humanitarian organisations and the state in which they operate. In northern Ethiopia, where renewed fighting is generating new humanitarian pressures, effective assistance will depend significantly on whether humanitarian organisations and the federal government can maintain a relationship grounded in respect for Ethiopian law, clear institutional responsibilities and regular coordination. The conflict that began in 2020 demonstrated how disagreements over access, procedures and responsibilities can complicate humanitarian operations. The current crisis therefore presents an opportunity to establish a more disciplined framework in which humanitarian action and state authority reinforce rather than undermine one another.

The federal government is responsible for national administration, security and the regulatory environment within which humanitarian operations take place. Humanitarian organisations, for their part, are responsible for delivering assistance to vulnerable populations in accordance with humanitarian principles. These mandates do not inherently conflict. Constructive engagement with government institutions is therefore not a departure from humanitarian action; it is part of the practical conditions required to deliver assistance safely and sustainably in a conflict-affected environment.

The northern conflict illustrated the importance of this relationship. Humanitarian organisations faced extensive needs resulting from displacement, disrupted livelihoods and damage to essential services, while the federal government was simultaneously managing an armed conflict and broader security concerns surrounding the movement of people, vehicles and relief supplies. The challenge is consequently not simply how to deliver assistance, but how to ensure that humanitarian channels remain clearly separated from military and political activity.

This became particularly contentious during 2021. In July, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that some humanitarian operators were attempting to arm the TPLF under the guise of humanitarian operations. In September and October, the Ethiopian government also raised allegations involving the diversion of humanitarian assistance to the TPLF, violations of agreed security arrangements, the transfer of communications equipment allegedly intended for TPLF use, misinformation and the politicisation of humanitarian assistance. Regardless of the competing accounts, the episode underscored the importance of keeping humanitarian resources and operational networks exclusively dedicated to humanitarian purposes and maintaining clear boundaries between humanitarian activities and political or military interests.

That lesson remains relevant today. Food, medicine, fuel, vehicles, communications equipment and other resources intended for civilians should not be diverted to combatants or used to facilitate military activity. Humanitarian organisations therefore need effective internal controls to verify the use of their resources and prevent personnel, contractors and operational networks from being exploited for prohibited purposes.

Respect for Ethiopian law should form another foundation of this relationship. Humanitarian principles establish the character and purpose of humanitarian action, but they do not place humanitarian organisations outside the legal and administrative framework of the country in which they operate. Requirements concerning registration, visas, movement, customs, communications equipment, security notifications and other operational matters remain relevant to organisations working inside Ethiopia. Compliance with such procedures can provide the predictability needed to plan movements, protect personnel and sustain operations in insecure areas. Clear and timely administration of these requirements is therefore important to humanitarian access: the solution to operational difficulties is not to bypass the legal framework but to ensure that its application is transparent, predictable and responsive to legitimate humanitarian needs.

The experience of December 2020 demonstrates how institutional coordination can reconcile these responsibilities. The Ethiopian Government and the United Nations signed an agreement establishing an enhanced coordination mechanism for humanitarian access to areas under federal government control in Tigray and bordering areas of Amhara and Afar. The agreement sought to facilitate unimpeded, sustained and secure humanitarian access while establishing coordination arrangements between government institutions and humanitarian actors. Its broader significance was that humanitarian operations in a conflict environment require an institutional framework for coordination with the authorities responsible for security and administration.

The renewed crisis makes such coordination particularly important. On 30 September 2026, the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator reported serious operational disruptions in northern Ethiopia, including the seizure of at least ten humanitarian vehicles by armed groups between 2025 and 2026, of which only two had been recovered. The statement also reported kidnapping, extortion and harassment of aid workers. The UN urged the protection of humanitarian personnel and assets and called on aid organisations to ensure that vehicles and equipment are clearly identified, comply with humanitarian codes of conduct and follow notification procedures when operating in high-risk areas.

This requires practical coordination rather than recurring institutional disputes. Government institutions and humanitarian organisations should maintain regular mechanisms covering movement authorisations, visas, customs, fuel, communications equipment, humanitarian convoys and access to affected populations. Agencies should ensure that their personnel, vehicles, supplies and communications systems are properly documented and used strictly for humanitarian purposes. Where disagreements or concerns about misconduct arise, they should be addressed through established institutional procedures and evidence-based investigation rather than escalating disputes.

Humanitarian communication also deserves careful attention. Reporting humanitarian needs is an essential function of aid organisations, particularly during conflict. At the same time, communications that move beyond humanitarian reporting into political advocacy or direct engagement in disputes involving the government and armed actors can complicate the operating environment. Evidence-based reporting, professional engagement and direct communication with relevant authorities can help organisations maintain a clear distinction between documenting humanitarian needs and becoming participants in political or security disputes.

As a comparative case, Sudan offers a relevant regional example of how humanitarian operations can be sustained through practical engagement with authorities and actors controlling access, even amid severe conflict. Since the outbreak of war in April 2023, humanitarian organisations have operated amid fragmented authority, insecurity and shifting front lines, with access often dependent on permits, administrative coordination and negotiations with those controlling particular areas. In August 2026, the UNFPA Country Representative reported that access to Tawila had become easier from a permit perspective, with several UN organisations already operating there and UNFPA receiving the facilitation required to expand its activities. The Tawila experience illustrates that humanitarian principles need to be complemented by practical negotiation and administrative coordination with those responsible for access and security. For Ethiopia, the comparison reinforces the value of working within the country’s institutional and legal framework while maintaining operational discipline. Predictable administrative engagement can help sustain humanitarian access even in conflict environments where authority and security conditions are contested.

For northern Ethiopia, the immediate priority should therefore be to institutionalise practical coordination between humanitarian organisations and relevant government institutions. This should include regular government-humanitarian technical coordination, clear procedures for convoy notification, customs clearance, visas, fuel and communications equipment, and designated focal points capable of resolving operational issues promptly. A confidential, evidence-based mechanism for addressing allegations of aid diversion or other misconduct would also help prevent operational disagreements from escalating into public disputes. Such arrangements would clarify responsibilities, reduce uncertainty and address problems before they develop into operational disruptions.

Humanitarian organisations should strengthen internal safeguards, comply with Ethiopian laws and procedures, maintain a clear separation between humanitarian and military activities, and communicate transparently with government authorities. Government institutions can, in turn, provide predictable procedures through which legitimate humanitarian organisations obtain the permissions and operational arrangements required to reach affected populations. Regular institutional coordination, combined with clear safeguards and evidence-based mechanisms for resolving disputes, can create a more predictable operating environment while protecting the humanitarian purpose of assistance.

The renewed humanitarian pressures in northern Ethiopia should therefore be treated as an opportunity to apply the institutional lessons of the previous conflict. Effective humanitarian response requires more than the delivery of relief supplies; it also depends on a functioning relationship between humanitarian organisations and the institutions responsible for the environment in which assistance is delivered. Cooperation, lawful coordination, transparency and strong safeguards can reduce avoidable friction while protecting the humanitarian purpose of aid. For communities affected by renewed conflict, structured cooperation between humanitarian organisations and the Ethiopian government can help ensure that assistance reaches civilians safely, efficiently and sustainably.

By Abraham Abebe, Researcher, Horn Review