There is a dearth of literature on the concept of humanitarian capability. References often use capability and capacity interchangeably. Discussions of humanitarian performance show parallels with those on capability. There are almost no holistic, systematic or comparative reviews of the notion of humanitarian capability. References tend to focus on one level of analysis or one sector.
Key findings
There is no agreement about how to conceptualise humanitarian capability. For example, different authors view the same element as constituting a component, an indicator, a factor, a process or an effect. Authors’ conceptualisations always reveal underlying prescriptions of what humanitarianism and capability should be. These concepts reflect existing power and interests, including in North-South relations. Yet very few references address power and inequality such as class, gender or ethnicity in relation to humanitarian capability.
Frequently mentioned elements of humanitarian capability are:
Definition: the individual and collective ability of humanitarian actors (local, national, regional and international) to perform effective humanitarian action that meets the needs of affected populations.
Components:
- The way work is carried out: organisation, procedures, policies, roles, institutionalised practices, exchanges, decisions, responsibilities and accountability.
- How work is sustained: resources (money, materials, qualified people, skills, knowledge).
- What aid is provided, materially (e.g. supplies) and immaterially (e.g. information).
- By which actors and partnerships action is carried out (from persons to systems).
The report offers an annotated bibliography, first about specific levels (international, regional, national and local capabilities), second about the health sector.
