In recent years, drones have evolved from niche (military) tools into one of the defining features of modern conflict. From Ukraine to the Middle East, unmanned aerial systems are now being used at a scale and pace few would have imagined a decade ago. Thousands of drones are being launched daily in some conflict zones, fundamentally reshaping the way wars are fought.
For humanitarian organizations operating in these environments, this shift is more than a military development. It represents a significant change in the risk landscape that must be understood, monitored, and integrated into security risk management processes. Furthermore, it creates a discussion about the humanitarian principles: will you remain neutral or impartial if you are going to use anti-drone detection, jamming or even defenses? Is this necessary? Or, will other options need to be considered?
A New Threat Environment
Traditionally, humanitarian security management focused on threats such as armed checkpoints, criminality, indirect fire, kidnapping, civil unrest, or conventional military operations. Drones introduce a new dimension. They can provide persistent surveillance, gather intelligence, disrupt operations, and, increasingly, deliver lethal effects at relatively low cost. The barrier to entry has dropped dramatically, making drone capabilities accessible not only to states, the best example being the Ukraine-Russia war, but also to a growing range of non-state actors, such a terrorist organizations in the Sahel.
What makes drones particularly challenging is their ability to operate beyond traditional security assumptions. A humanitarian compound that is physically secure from ground incursions may still be vulnerable to aerial observation. Travel routes that were previously considered acceptable may be exposed to surveillance or attack from above. Vehicles, offices, warehouses, and accommodation sites can all become more visible and potentially more vulnerable in a drone-enabled conflict environment.
At the same time, the technology continues to evolve. Continuous developments in electronic warfare and jamming have become critical countermeasures, yet drone developers are already adapting through alternative navigation methods that reduce dependence on GPS signals. As with many security challenges, the contest between threat and mitigation is becoming increasingly dynamic.
The Importance of Risk Analysis
For humanitarian organizations, the answer is not necessarily to stop operating. Rather, it is to improve understanding of risk.
A thorough risk analysis should examine not only the presence of drones but also who controls them, what capabilities they possess, how they are being used, and what implications this has for staff, assets, and programs. Not every drone represents the same level of threat. A commercially available surveillance drone presents very different risks from a military-grade system capable of precision strikes.
Security managers must therefore move beyond generic threat assessments and develop a nuanced understanding of the specific operating environment. This includes monitoring technological developments, analyzing local conflict dynamics, and understanding how drone usage may influence humanitarian acceptance, access, and operational continuity.
Organizations that fail to update their security frameworks, risk making decisions based on assumptions that no longer reflect reality.
Defining Organizational Risk Thresholds
One of the most important conversations humanitarian leaders should be having today concerns organizational risk thresholds.
Every organization has a responsibility to provide assistance while simultaneously protecting its staff. The increasing use of drones requires a clear understanding of what level of risk is acceptable and under which conditions activities should continue, adapt, or be suspended.
These decisions cannot be made during a crisis. They require advance planning, informed discussion, and organizational alignment. Leadership, program teams, and security professionals must agree on the indicators that trigger operational changes and understand how emerging technologies affect their risk tolerance.
Travelling through Ukraine last July, visiting frontline aid workers, it showed once again that a military development, such as the development of drones carrying other drones, extended the danger zone to such an extent that they had to relocate. Working for years in one location and within several weeks they had to abandon their projects. That has an incredible impact on organizations, their staff and their beneficiaries.
Importantly, risk thresholds should not be viewed as barriers to humanitarian action. Instead, they provide the framework that allows organizations to operate responsibly in high-risk environments.
Adapting Rather Than Retreating
The humanitarian community has a long history of adapting to changing threats. The rise of drone warfare is no exception.
Organizations may need to reconsider movement patterns, visibility measures, site selection processes, and information management practices. They may need to invest more heavily in security analysis, technology monitoring, and staff awareness training. They may also need to explore new ways of delivering assistance when direct access becomes increasingly hazardous.
At Global Risk Advice, we believe that the objective is not simply to avoid risk. Humanitarian work will always involve difficult operating environments. The objective is to understand risk well enough to make informed decisions.
The growing role of drones in conflict demonstrates that security environments are becoming more technologically complex and less predictable. Yet humanitarian needs remain as urgent as ever. The challenge for organizations is therefore clear: rethink or at least discuss their application of the humanitarian principles within the new context, adapt security practices, strengthen risk analysis, define realistic risk thresholds, and develop innovative approaches that enable assistance to continue.
Because ultimately, humanitarian organizations cannot help people if they lose the people they depend on to deliver that help. The future belongs to those organizations that can successfully balance operational impact with the duty of care owed to their staff and partners.
Image source: AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka