Author(s) Knox Clarke, P.
As humanitarians we spend a lot of time debating what needs to change in our sector and why. But do we look enough at how that change happens?
Humanitarians, willingly or not, usually find themselves surrounded by change in some shape or form. It can come as an unexpected shift that escapes any plans or structure, or it can happen as a planned programme such as Humanitarian Reform, The Transformative Agenda (TA), and now the Grand Bargain.
Alexandra T. Warner
1 / Introduction
Monitoring has long been acknowledged as being an area that is in need of further attention. In 2003, ALNAP’s Annual Review, ‘Humanitarian action: Improving monitoring to enhance accountability and learning’, identified a number of issues with the practice of monitoring, first and foremost a general lack of clarity on the meaning of the term. Since then, despite consistent recognition of the need for improvement, little significant progress has been achieved (ALNAP, 2010, 2012).
The growing trend of more complex and protracted humanitarian crises places new demands on the cost effectiveness of humanitarian financing. Donor governments have always aimed to achieve as much as possible with their funding, but must now do so in conditions of increasing change and complexity, and often under greater scrutiny.
By John Mitchell on 16 August 2017.
We humanitarians are a self-critical bunch. Independent evaluations, research studies, conferences and popular books on humanitarianism tend to focus on a bewildering array of failures, problems, challenges and frustrations. On the one hand this is a good thing as it shows we are open to changing and improving but, on the other hand, it can create a pervasive feeling of gloom and doom.
How do humanitarian actors decide what they will spend their money on? What helps them make these decisions?