The global humanitarian system is expanding, but lacks leadership and isn't as effective or principled as it should be
LONDON (AlertNet) - The global humanitarian system is getting bigger and more complex, with some aid agencies compromising their neutrality and impartiality to operate in disaster and conflict zones, a new report says.
Covering 2010-2012, the second State of the Humanitarian System report assesses the sector’s performance and its response to disasters including the Haiti earthquake, the Pakistan floods and hunger in the Horn of Africa.
It found that, despite fears budgets would be cut because of the global financial crisis, funding has continued to grow and the number of humanitarian workers has risen to more than 270,000. Yet a third of people receiving aid said they were not satisfied with the amount of help they were given.
More needs to be done to improve the system, said Valerie Amos, U.N. under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, in a preface to the report published by humanitarian learning network ALNAP.
"There is a lack of inclusion of non-traditional actors such as National Disaster Management Authorities and southern NGOs, weak accountability to beneficiaries and lack of strong leadership which undermines the effectiveness of many operations," Amos wrote.
Researchers note the increasing capacity and assertiveness of host countries and regional bodies, such as Southeast Asia's ASEAN and West Africa's ECOWAS, in dealing with disasters.
"SUCKED INTO POLITICS"
Aid being used to score political points is a growing concern, the report says.
Given the domestic pressure governments are under to respond to disasters - and in some cases, acknowledge them at all - their response may not sit squarely with the belief that aid should be given according to need rather than creed, colour, political or religious affiliations, the report says.
It notes that the response to the drought in Kenya in 2011 was marked by political interference, affecting everything from recruitment of aid workers and contractors to aid distribution.
And some aid agencies themselves are failing to abide by the humanitarian principles of giving impartial, neutral and independent aid.
"...while continuing to call for respect for humanitarian principles, many humanitarian organisations have themselves also willingly compromised a principled approach in their own conduct through close alignment with political and military activities and actors," the report says.
"There's a lot of concern amongst agencies particularly in the stabilisation agenda - Afghanistan for example, Iraq – (that) humanitarian agencies with multi-mandated policies are being sucked into political situations and so are unable to operate according the Red Cross fundamental principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence," ALNAP director John Mitchell told AlertNet.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
