At its core, the humanitarian imperative is clear: when people suffer, action must follow. But as Mannan says, “moral obligation alone does not guarantee access, safety, or delivery.” Aid operations must navigate checkpoints, armed actors, political constraints, and community gatekeepers. In such environments, negotiation is not optional, it is “one of the principal means through which humanitarian intent is translated into operational reality.”

Mannan is Deputy Director-Programmes at Society for Health Extension and Development (SHED)

He reframes humanitarian negotiation as a professional discipline rather than an improvised skill. It requires preparation, strategy, and clarity about what can, and cannot, be compromised. The challenge, he explains, is not whether to negotiate, but how to do so “in ways that expand the room for agreement without diluting humanitarian commitments.”

Central to this approach is the concept of the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)—the space where two sides’ interests overlap. In many humanitarian settings, that space is unclear or even nonexistent at the outset. Negotiators must actively work to discover or expand it.

Too often, Mannan explains, negotiations begin in a “distributive” mode—a win-lose dynamic where access is either granted or denied, and each concession feels like a loss. This is driven by mistrust, insecurity, and unequal power. But such an approach rarely leads to sustainable outcomes.

Instead, Mannan advocates for “integrative negotiation,” which seeks to create value rather than divide it. This involves shifting focus from rigid positions to underlying interests and needs. “Positions are what parties say they want. Interests explain why they want it. Needs reveal what matters most,” he says.

This distinction can unlock stalled negotiations. A local authority refusing access, for example, may be motivated not by hostility to aid, but by fears of losing control, political backlash, or reputational risk. By identifying these concerns, negotiators can propose alternative arrangements—such as phased access or adjusted routes—without abandoning humanitarian objectives. As Mannan puts it, “the negotiator does not abandon the humanitarian objective… [but] re-engineers the path toward it.”

A key obstacle, however, is the tendency to rush into bargaining. Under pressure, humanitarian actors often push for quick deals, but this can narrow options and entrench deadlock. Mannan stresses the importance of exploration—asking open questions and listening actively to uncover hidden concerns.

“The purpose of exploration is not politeness,” he noted. “It is to discover what variables can be moved without compromising core principles.”

Preparation is equally critical. Negotiators must understand their alternatives—what happens if no agreement is reached—as well as the motivations and constraints of their counterparts. Without this groundwork, calls for cooperation risk becoming vague or ineffective.

Yet Mannan is clear about the limits of negotiation. Not every situation allows for compromise, and not every actor acts in good faith. “Humanitarian principles are not bargaining chips. They are boundaries,” he notes. While operational details—such as timing, logistics, and communication—can be adjusted, core commitments to neutrality, impartiality, and independence must remain intact.

Power dynamics also play a decisive role. Negotiations are often shaped not just by those at the table, but by external pressures and constituencies. Ignoring these factors can lead to fragile agreements that collapse during implementation.

And reaching a deal is only part of the process. “The real test of negotiation is not whether a verbal agreement is reached,” Mannan notes, “it is whether the agreement is understood, accepted, and carried out.” Implementation requires ongoing engagement, internal buy-in, and often further rounds of negotiation.

Ultimately, Mannan’s message is both pragmatic and urgent. Humanitarian action cannot rely on principles alone. “Do not confuse moral clarity with operational sufficiency,” he cautions. “Principles tell you what must be protected. Negotiation determines how that protection becomes possible.”

In an era of increasingly complex conflicts and constrained access, the ability to negotiate—strategically, ethically, and effectively—may be what determines whether humanitarian aid reaches those who need it most.