The aid business has changed tremendously over the past ten years. International organizations like the Federation and the big international NGOs now have high public profiles. They process ten times as much funding as they did a decade ago and they are increasingly expected to be accountable. The pressure is on to improve the standards and consistency of our work.
Professional standards are being developed – witness the Sphere Project and the Code of Conduct. As agencies have grown in size and complexity, they have looked to the business community for assistance. Senior managers have been hired from the corporate sector. Management advisory services have been co-opted to help develop strategic plans and staffing structures.
But in striving for professionalism in what we do, have we lost sight of the real driving force of humanitarianism? Professionalism – doing a good job – has two faces to it: how one acts and why one acts. The how is dominated by concerns for efficiency, effectiveness, competence. The why is about motivation, practised values and commitment. And it is this motivation of individuals that makes the difference between a humanitarian movement and an aid delivery business.
Today, we in the humanitarian business may be in danger of losing this balance. Organizational imperatives seem to have taken over, with concern for organizational survival and donor relations being more important than doing the right thing. Humanitarian advocacy seems to be falling by the wayside – a fellow traveller too hot to handle.
Accountability has become largely an issue over accountability to donors, and line managers. Accountability to victims, beneficiaries and their representatives does not get a look in.
In short, many people are worried that the sense of commitment to humanitarianism has gradually seeped away leaving an international system that delivers relief, linking the donor-supplier with the lucky few chosen recipients. Increasingly, that choice is made so as to coincide with the political interests of the major donors. Evidence so far suggests, that post 11 September 2001, this trend will be reinforced dramatically. Coherence between aid and foreign policy, often bundled together and called human security, is now the accepted modus operandi for most major aid donors.
Ultimately, such a system is self defeating. We will never deliver enough assistance to make a real impact on global suffering and the diversity of human political and economic systems cannot be spooned into one free-market driven mould. This was always tacitly acknowledged in the early days of humanitarian work. Assistance delivery was a moral necessity but never sufficient. Without locally tailored action to address the cause of suffering – through advocacy, political change or other means – humanitarian assistance becomes a palliative.
The challenge for aid agencies today then, is to get a sense of commitment, of solidarity, of ideology and of sustainability back into the work and transform it from a delivery business into an independent empowerment endeavour.
Dr. Peter Walker is the former head of the Federation's regional delegation for Southeast Asia and the founding editor of the World Disasters Report.
Related Links:
World Disasters Report 2002