On Aid Part 1: The WHS and Donor Priorities
The
World Humanitarian Summit was held last week, the culmination of over two years
of work by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),
and based on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, there was a lot to say about it.
Now,
I’m not always a fan of ‘summits’; I feel they are often talking shops or
rubber stamp exercises that mostly result in lots of photos of smiling people,
a suitcase full of reports and briefing papers, and an inbox full of emails
that you have to catch up on when the event is finished. I’m not cynical, I’m
pragmatic. A lot of money is spent for an outcome that runs along the lines of
‘the next steps.’ However, as I know quite a few of the people who worked
tirelessly to make the WHS happen, credit is due to them for actually making it
happen.
I
hadn’t planned on commenting on the process or the outcome (‘The Grand
Bargain’), however, I was struck by a comment in my Twitter feed that has me
overcoming my initial reluctance, despite the fact that I am not an
humanitarian worker (post-conflict transition to ‘normal’ development is my
preferred area). Sometimes you just have to speak up.
Thus,
my inspiration:
“An
unfortunate consequence of pressures on the industry to be more risk averse,
meet deadlines and not run over budget means we are no longer reaching the most
vulnerable people. Even a policy as sensible as ‘value for money’ pushes aid
away from the people most in need, because reaching the most vulnerable people
is always the most expensive. With major donors prioritizing their national
interests, we’ve been leaving entire crises behind for years… [We need] a lot
more analysis of what went wrong in the first place, rather than
well-intentioned declarations to do better in the future.” (Marc DuBois)
Everything
he says is spot on. It’s as true for development work as it is humanitarian
response, and if we do a little soul searching, perhaps one lead to the other.
‘Value for money’ has become so mainstream that we’ve stopped pushing
boundaries and taking risks and trying untested methods in poverty reduction
and have ended up in something of a holding pattern, just circling around
pretending we’re making progress when in fact we leave more and more people
behind, slipping into crisis, and the resulting crises are spiraling almost
beyond our control. Here’s an excellent example of just what Dubois is
referring to, in an article on UK Aid.
“We have to
ensure value for money. The new aid strategy… entails a focus on fragile
states, economic prosperity and defense and security, with an emphasis on
ensuring aid spending is aligned with UK national interests. What I don’t want
to see is a loss of focus on tackling the most extreme forms of poverty… a
balance will have to be struck between the Syria strategy… and making sure we
will protect the really important work in some of the poorest countries.”
The
thing is, working in the poorest, most vulnerable countries, in fragile states
- that work is practically by definition inefficient. You may be asking ‘why?’
Because it is almost without exception a process of one step forward, two steps
back. And then sometimes a few steps forward. Value for money in these
instances isn’t about absolute efficiency, it’s about simply not giving up, of
pushing boundaries and trying to make things happen so that the most vulnerable
are not left behind. To donors: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You
can’t reach the poorest on the cheap and hope to have something that we in
development like to call ‘sustainable impact.’ Sigh.
Increasing
inequality has left large segments of the most ‘fragile’ states vulnerable to
crises that have emerged or reemerged as issues surrounding political change
and ideology (governance, authoritarianism and corruption) that have come to
dictate the relationship between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in many countries,
such as South Sudan, Central African Republic, Libya, Yemen and so many others.
This is a major factor behind the effective explosion of conflict in the past
five years. And the explosion of conflict was the impetus behind the WHS,
rather than why there was an explosion of conflict.
The
WHS aimed to address structural and funding challenges. The essence, as neatly summed up by Patricia Erb, CEO of Save
the Children: “Competition and fragmentation is perhaps the greatest inhibitor
to achieving the new partnership agenda. Funding restraints in the face of
growing need has led to a replication of similar but branded approaches that
don't necessarily translate to scale and sustainability. A lack of flexibility
in donor funding, particularly for development efforts in countries impacted by
crisis, continues to mean delayed responses in the short term and challenges to
building long-term resilience.”
Although
this is not deep analysis, we can get a sense of what went wrong - promises of
funding are tied to guarantees of value for money, which in turn means leaving
increasing numbers of the most vulnerable people behind not only in terms of
development, but vulnerable to exploitation and those seeking conflict for
self-interested reasons.
Major
donors, and in particular the UN Security Council, G7 and OECD countries have,
while not failing outright to recognize this, have determinedly underwhelmed on
the political will front to prioritize commitment to reaching the most
vulnerable over value for money and quick results to share with their voter
base.
So,
in light of the absence of political will to actually do something, the WHS was
forced into a small box in which, in the words of Fred Abrahams of Human Rights
Watch, ‘we ask governments to make commitments on principles they’re already
obliged to uphold.’ These commitments (51 of them) are detailed in the ‘Grand
Bargain,’ the outcome document of the WHS and the basis for ‘what next?’
Evidently,
‘what’s next’ is this:
-
Greater (humanitarian aid) transparency
-
More support and funding tools for local and national responders
-
Increasing the use and coordination of cash-based programming
-
Reducing duplication and management costs with periodic functional
reviews
-
Improving joint and impartial needs assessments
-
A ‘participation’ revolution: include people receiving aid in
making the decisions which affect their lives
-
Increasing collaborative humanitarian multi-year planning and
funding
-
Reducing the earmarking of donor contributions
-
Harmonizing and simplifying reporting requirements
-
Enhancing engagement between humanitarian and development actors
Whew.
Sounds like a lot. It is. Except, does it matter?
If
we’re looking at more efficient and streamlined humanitarian response (separate
from value for money), then yes. Donors and development organizations and NGOs
are increasingly publishing what they fund. There is a real push for
humanitarian response to be undertaken (and lead by) national and
community-based groups. This helpfully addresses the ‘participation’
revolution. When is comes to coordination and planning? That’s been in the
works for years, under the Cluster system that we all love to hate and
simultaneously swear by. Specifically: “In the capitals of crisis-affected countries,
attending coordination meetings can be a full-time job. Out in the field the
schedule is also often full, where at times, 15-20 organizations are expected
to meet weekly in eight or 10 different groups.”
True
story. But it continues: “At the same time, all of this effort only has only a
limited effect on what aid organizations actually do. Donors fund single organizations not the common response plans.
Most aid organizations therefore use coordination meetings to share
information, but take decisions elsewhere.” (emphasis added, read the full
article here). This is very telling. And likely puts
paid to the ideas of functional reviews, joint needs assessments and
collaborative planning and funding. Donors will continue to earmark funding in
line with national interests, which means funding organizations that can commit
to those interests and don’t implement projects counter to them. Ahh…. donors.
I’ve
written previously that the humanitarian system isn’t broken (although
it could do with some maintenance and upgrading). I’ll reiterate my argument
here: unless donors (and the Security Council) and development organizations
really reach the most vulnerable, worry less about value for money, and throw
everything at conflict resolution, we’ll continue to be overwhelmed by crises.
So,
five days after the closure of the World Humanitarian Summit, where are we?
Well, in the words of Christina Bennett of ODI,
“we’re no closer to ending the world’s most devastating conflicts than before
the Summit began.” It would have been naïve to think that the WHS could achieve
that, but it was disappointing that too much focus was on structure and more
funding when what we really needed was to understand where it all went wrong,
the point where we started to lose control and where political will drifted to
the sidelines. This is where we need to begin fixing problems. Hopefully, one
day, someone will try.
Comments
Post a Comment