The state of the humanitarian system 2015

How is the system performing?

State of the humanitarian system
Image: Eleonora Vio/IRIN

The humanitarian system has reached its limits

The 2015 State of the Humanitarian System report looks back at humanitarian assistance over the last three years and asks: How well is it performing?

SOHS 2012

Although the system falls short in key areas, we are also seeing incremental improvements.

SOHS 2015

The system has in many ways reached its limits. We need a combination of more resources, continued incremental improvements and radical thinking to make the system more flexible and adaptable.

What do we mean by humanitarian system?

Think of the humanitarian system as an organic construct, like a constellation: a complex whole formed of interacting core and related actors. The humanitarian system exists to fill gaps (e.g. It can supplement national capacity to respond to a disaster).

Affected communities
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
Donors
Host governments
Humanitarian arms of regional intergovernmental organisations
National NGOs
UN humanitarian agencies
International NGOs
Military
forces
Diaspora
groups
Religious institutions
Private
sector
entities

Organisational entities for which aid provision is their primary mandate

Groups that play a critical role in humanitarian response but humanitarian action is not their core function

The system is still applying a one‑size‑fits‑all response that currently doesn’t work

Despite humanitarian action taking place in an increasing variety of situations, the system is still applying a one-size-fits-all approach that currently doesn’t work. The system is not flexible enough to adapt to these contexts.

Capacity of state

One way to understand contexts is to look at them through the lens of the capacity of the affected state. Humanitarians responding in a country where the state is party to the conflict (Syria) should not have the same approach as in middle-income countries with a growing state capacity (Pakistan).

ALNAP’s Responding to changing needs report

Crisis type

Another way to look at contexts is by crisis type and how adaptable the system should be to these. It is different to respond to a conflict in South Sudan than to a Tsunami in Tuvalu.

At the Global Forum, ALNAP asked top humanitarians from over 200 organisations to come up with recommendations on how to make future humanitarian action more effective and adaptable to different crisis contexts.

Global Forum results and analysis paper

There have been fewer emergencies in recent years, but they are longer, deeper and needs are greater

The 2012–2014 period was less about natural disasters, and more about conflict and chronic crises. Needs tend to accumulate as these new complex emergencies come in more quickly than older ones drop off.

Humanitarian
caseload

Conflict
in Syria

Conflict in
South Sudan

Conflict in
CAR

Ebola epidemic
in West Africa

Drought
in
the
Sahel

Typhoon
Haiyan

Conflict in
Iraq

Humanitarian
caseload

Conflict in Syria

Conflict in South Sudan

Conflict in CAR

Ebola epidemic in West Africa

Drought in the Sahel

Typhoon Haiyan

Conflict in Iraq

The size of each crisis above is illustrative and does not directly correlate with the humanitarian caseload.

The price tag for responding to chronic crises is higher as they can go on for years and assist more people over time. This means that the overall amount each aid recipient is getting has dropped by over a quarter.

The areas of aid that are key to fulfilling longer term needs had the least funding in this period

Protection was funded at only around 30% of the stated requirement in 2013.

0%
Security
0%
Protection
0%
Agriculture
0%
Economic recovery
0%
Education
0%
Shelter
0%
WASH
0%
Health
0%
Coordination
0%
Food

Yet in 2014, the humanitarian system reached its highest funding level yet, peaking at over

$20 billion
4 out of 5

of the 4480 humanitarian organisations are national NGOs, but they are rarely the recipients of direct funding. Most of their funding is indirectly received by partnering with international NGOs.

How do we know the performance of the system is falling short?

The SOHS uses 4 performance categories to assess the performance of humanitarian action:

Coverage/
Sufficiency

Is humanitarian aid covering needs?

Effectiveness and relevance / Appropriateness

Was the response timely?

Do interventions address the priority needs of recipients?

Efficiency, coordination and connectedness

Do outputs reflect the most rational and economic use of inputs?

Coherence/
Principles

Does the intervention adhere to core humanitarian principles and align with broader peace and development goals?

The SOHS identifies 4 types of humanitarian action and looks at how well the system has performed since 2012

The map below shows where the 4 different functions have been active.

Below shows where the 4 different functions have been active.

Key functions

 

Auxiliary functions

 

Function

Respond to massive sudden onset disasters

Function

Support populations in chronic crisis

Function

Support
resilience

Function

Advocate for crisis-affected people

Function 1 – Response to massive sudden onset disasters

Philippines, Syria

Coverage/
sufficiency

Effectiveness and relevance/
appropriateness

Efficiency,
coordination and
connectedness

Coherence/
principles

Function 1

Function 1: Responding to sudden-onset disasters Function 1: summary Typhoon Haiyan case study

Function 2 – Support populations in chronic crisis

CAR, DRC, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Syria, South Sudan

Coverage/
sufficiency

Effectiveness and relevance/
appropriateness

Efficiency,
coordination and
connectedness

Coherence/
principles

Function 2

Function 2: Supporting populations in chronic crises Function 2: summary CAR case study

Function 3 – Support resilience

Mali, Philippines, Sahel, Somalia, South Sudan

Coverage/
sufficiency

Effectiveness and relevance/
appropriateness

Efficiency,
coordination and
connectedness

Coherence/
principles

Function 3

Function 3: Building resilience and independent capacity Function 3: summary Mali case study

Function 4 – Advocate for crisis-affected people

CAR, Somalia, Syria

Coverage/
sufficiency

Effectiveness and relevance/
appropriateness

Efficiency,
coordination and
connectedness

Coherence/
principles

Function 4

Function 4: Advocating for humanitarian action and access Function 4: summary Syria case study
Sahel
Mali
CAR
Syria
Iraq
South Sudan
Somalia
DRC
Philippines

The people affected by humanitarian crises feel they don’t play a big enough part in responses

44% of aid recipients surveyed were not consulted on their needs by aid agencies prior to the start of their programmes.

53%

of affected people were satisfied with the speed at which aid arrived.

33%

said they had been consulted on their needs.

20%

of those consulted said agency had acted on this feedback and made changes.

What can we do to improve the system?

Evidence from this report shows that the solution is not only more money, but rather for the system to reinvent itself.

The study outlines six potential approaches to make things better.

  1. 1

    Identify and fix humanitarian capacity gaps via mapping of collective capacities and resources.

  2. 2

    Enable greater coverage in conflict environments by increasing support to actors with best and most rapid access.

  3. 3

    Make humanitarian action more relevant and accountable to affected people by monitoring of humanitarian responses from their perspective.

  4. 4

    Rationalise UN humanitarian capacity from the existing 10 or so separate agencies dealing with it to a more unified emergency system with unified lines of accountability.

  5. 5

    Donors to make funding more predictable, appropriate and flexible (e.g. multi-year) to respond to chronic crises, which are on the rise.

  6. 6

    Humanitarians should work more closely together with political and development actors to build resilience and local capacity. Reducing risk is not just a humanitarian challenge.