The report provides a system-level mapping and assessment of the operational performance of the international humanitarian system. It represents a pilot effort to broadly assess the ‘state of the system’. Focusing on emergencies for which an appeal for international assistance was made and in which international aid agencies were involved, the review examined three main categories of humanitarian actor: the major providers (NGOs and the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement); the programme conveners/coordinators (UN humanitarian agencies and offices); and the donors.
The findings indicate overall progress in areas having to do with the internal workings of the humanitarian system – such as coordination mechanisms, funding vehicles and assessment tools. However, some fundamental issues, such as leadership and the system’s engagement with and accountability to beneficiaries, remained weak.
Key Findings
- Coverage/sufficiency: The system falls short in this area despite quantitative evidence of significant increases in both humanitarian funding and the global aid worker population. This is due to the rise in the needs of affected populations. In a few contexts, humanitarian access is seen to be declining, owing to insecurity and/or host government restrictions. In the most contested environments, insecurity for aid workers has increased markedly.
- Relevance/appropriateness: On the question of whether humanitarian needs were adequately assessed and resources appropriately allocated, the quality of needs assessments was seen to have improved. Interagency needs assessments were also taking place in their contexts and were adequate. In spite of these improvements however, the needs assessment remained a weakness in the system due to multiple assessments without sufficient follow ups, and inadequate consultation and involvement of beneficiaries in assessments and programme design.
- Effectiveness: Improvements were identified in the timeliness of response and coordination, although overarching leadership for coordination was a noted weakness. Monitoring continues to be consistently identified as a weakness within the system, although survey respondents did feel the quality of monitoring was improving. Also, many agencies have made real efforts to increase investment in operational capacity and quality of human resources.
- Connectedness: The paucity of investment in local and national capacities was a repeated concern, as were the top-down orientation of the system and the risk of undermining local capacities. Nonetheless, there are signs of improvement in how international agencies work with local humanitarian actors, and a clear momentum around the need for greater downward accountability and participation.
- Efficiency: This criterion seems to be neglected in terms of analysis. It focuses on driving down administrative costs, which is resulting in chronic underinvestment in key capacities that could serve to improve performance.
- Coherence: This area was examined on the basis of: 1) whether core humanitarian principles, international humanitarian law (IHL) and refugee law were being respected in humanitarian programming; and 2) whether there was consistency in objectives and actions for protection and for advancing the crosscutting issues of illness, age, gender and disability. Humanitarian aid agencies identify a lack of respect for these principles on the part of warring parties, but also on the part of donor governments and their militaries. Aid agencies also noted that they themselves were not doing enough to maintain principled approaches or to advocate effectively for respect for humanitarian principles and IHL.
