This report presents a system-level mapping and analysis of the performance of international humanitarian assistance in contexts affected by disasters and conflict. It builds on the pilot report published in 2010. This 2012 edition finds: slowed but continued growth in human and financial resources; continued insufficiency of funding and gaps in coverage; modest improvements in relevance/appropriateness; a mixed picture of effectiveness; some advances in connectedness; no marked progress in efficiency and innovation; and increasing strain on the principles of aid.
The report reviews the considerable amount of work undertaken by the humanitarian system since the pilot, against a backdrop of heightened stress caused by rising fuel and food prices, the growing challenges of urbanisation and climate change and a charged geopolitical environment. The report defines the ‘international humanitarian system’ as the network of national and international provider agencies, donors and host-government authorities that are functionally connected to each other in the humanitarian endeavour and that share common overarching goals, norms and principles. The system also includes actors that do not have humanitarian assistance as their central mission but play important humanitarian roles, such as military and private-sector entities.
On many measures used for this evaluation, progress is mixed, with examples of innovation and improvement coexisting with examples of inertia and longstanding deficits. The progress and performance of the system is assessed by the report in the following six areas:
- Coverage/sufficiency: The ability of the system to mobilise resources sufficient to meet the needs and cover all affected populations showed no measurable improvement. Majority of actors surveyed perceived funding in their settings to be ‘insufficient’, especially in the sectors of protection and early recovery although humanitarian funding continues on a 10-year rising trend.
- Relevance/appropriateness: The system improved on addressing the appropriate needs per the host country priorities. Evaluations mostly indicated that community or local government priorities had been met, and most survey respondents from the international system saw moderate improvement in the quality of needs assessments in the past two years.
- Effectiveness: Most interventions were found to be effective or partially effective in terms of achievement against projected goals or international standards, the avoidance of negative outcomes and/or the receipt of positive feedback from aid recipients. Where overall effectiveness has been questioned, the key reasons were time delays and poorly defined goals.
- Connectedness: The system has shown some modest improvement in this area. A significant rise in the capacity of National Disaster Management Authorities (NDMAs) has reinforced the system’s engagement with governments of affected states and heightened recognition of the need to support their priorities more effectively in natural disasters. However, much practical work remains to be done to help strengthen host-country coordination structures and response capacities.
- Efficiency and innovation: The system made no marked progress as the relative efficiency and innovativeness of the system since the pilot have remained largely unchanged.
- Coherence: The system has weakened with respect to actors converge around shared principles and goals. The broader coherence between the humanitarian and other parts of the aid system indicated that, in cyclical and slow-onset disasters, the long-acknowledged disconnect between development and humanitarian programming has failed populations at risk.
