A third way to humanitarian reform
David Miliband reassesses aid
David Miliband is on to something important when he calls for a reassessment of the goals and working methods of the humanitarian system (The Guardian). After almost a year as head of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the UK’s former Foreign Secretary says that humanitarian aid needs a major rethink if it is to cope with an unprecedented number of new crises while also addressing old challenges like bridging the gap between humanitarian action and development.
But is getting the humanitarian community to agree on a comprehensive set of humanitarian goals (what he calls HuGos) and new ways of achieving them the best way to bring about a more efficient and relevant humanitarian system?
Yes and no – or rather, no and yes. The system is already awash with principles, standards, codes of contact, commitments, certification schemes and checklists of best practice. These have coaxed a sometimes reluctant humanitarian community in the right direction but the panoply of initiatives aimed at increasing aid quality and accountability have not had the kind of transformative impact that is needed if the system is to grapple effectively with the challenges Mr. Miliband lays out.
Part of the reason for the spotty record is that there are too few incentives for agencies to act on the initiatives designed to improve system performance that are already out there. Rather than crafting new goals or revisiting old ones, it would be better to focus on learning direct from aid’s end-users about how to do a better job – and then acting on what they say. Remember, it is as counterproductive to seek feedback and not act on it, as it is to have goals and not implement them.
The theme of accountability to affected populations has become ubiquitous in the humanitarian space, yet practical, systematic methods for capturing the beneficiary perspective and managing to it have been slow to emerge. What is still largely missing is the demand side counterpart to the kind of supply-side initiatives to which Mr. Miliband’s proposal would add yet another. Rather than following that well-trodden path, it is time to promote continuous improvement in program implementation by providing humanitarian managers with feedback on how their supposed beneficiaries view their efforts.
It is the people at the sharp end of humanitarianism who are best placed to signal whether aid providers are meeting the existing standards of accountability and honoring their commitments to uphold them. They also have insights about how to do things better.
Surfacing beneficiaries’ perceptions can be done regularly using light touch data collection methods that hone in on key perception indicators like the level of trust between affected populations and aid agencies. These same tools can drill down into peoples’ views about the quality and relevance of emergency services – from shelter and food to protection and WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene). They also help ascertain the willingness of affected people to engage in the search for solutions.
It is these softer issues related to relationship quality, program relevance, and beneficiary engagement that often determine outcomes in humanitarian programs where, typically, people have little choice and not much opportunity to make themselves heard. Until now these intangibles have been hard to grasp. But new methodologies and data collection technologies, including cell and smart phones, make it possible to collect beneficiary perceptions in real time.
Can any humanitarian system handle this? Yamouk, Syria.
Having the tools is one thing, using them is another. There are many enlightened aid agencies that are keen to find new ways of learning from their clients so they can serve them better. Others will require stronger incentives if they are to come into the fold. One way to spur them on is for donors to stipulate that collecting data and responding to the beneficiary perspective is no longer optional. The latest US appropriations bill is a good example of just this. It requires all humanitarian agencies that receive humanitarian funds from the US government to make provision for the independent and systematic collection of the beneficiary perspective – and, importantly, to demonstrate how they respond to the data. I understand DFID is now thinking about including accountability provisions in their core funding agreements with humanitarian agencies and in their country level agreements with the UN.
Making sure humanitarian programs take beneficiary perceptions into account – by collecting and analyzing feedback data, agreeing on actions for improvement, and then monitoring implementation through successive cycles of feedback-analysis-action – is more likely to make a difference on the ground than taking humanitarian action back to the drawing board.
If Mr. Miliband wants is to improve humanitarian outcomes for beneficiaries and encourage greater efficiency in the system, he should push ahead with a humanitarian ‘third way’ that places beneficiaries at center stage. Continuous, candid feedback from affected people will help aid agencies like IRC to determine whether they are on the right track and, if they’re not, to provide insights about how to get there. Most important, it drives new ways of working in which accountability to beneficiaries becomes the axiom of humanitarian action.
