ReliefWeb

Since its foundation in 1997 ALNAP (the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action) has consistently highlighted the relationship between humanitarian agencies and crisis-affected people as critical to improving both accountability and performance. In the early 2000s ALNAP produced reviews of the Spanish, French and English literature on the subject; six country monographs on consultations with and participation of affected people in humanitarian action; and a practitioners’ handbook, published in 2003 (ALNAP and URD, 2003). Since then many other studies and guidelines have been written by the Network and Member organisations. A selection of these is listed in the bibliography at the end of this report.

Despite this consistent concern with issues of engagement, participation, communication and accountability, ‘beneficiary participation often achieve[s] rhetorical rather than real results’ (SOHS, 2010: 29). The most recent The state of the humanitarian system report finds that, compared to other aspects of the humanitarian endeavour, ‘the weakest progress and performance [is] in the areas of recipient consultation and engagement of local actors, despite the rhetorical emphasis given to these issues’ (SOHS, 2012: 49). There is also a considerable discrepancy between donors’ and international aid providers’ perceptions of their motivations and performance on the ground, and the expectations and perceptions of affected people, local organisations, and governments (Hallam, 1998: 13;
Anderson et al., 2012).

Institutional commitments and rhetoric are limited in practice by a number of factors, including time constraints, bureaucratic impediments, lack of incentives and funding, security and political constraints, differences between the social and cultural values of outsiders and insiders, and lack of capacity. Engaging with crisis-affected people can be costly, complicated, time-consuming and, arguably, inappropriate for international actors in certain humanitarian situations. While progress has been made in recent years, some remain unconvinced that the participation of affected people in humanitarian response activities can be anything other than tokenistic or even manipulative. Hard data on levels, quality and outcomes of various approaches to engaging with crisis-affected people are scarce, as are data on the ways that crisis-affected people themselves respond to and engage with aid providers.

This paper summarises current understandings of methods of and approaches to engaging with crisis-affected people in humanitarian action. A draft version of this paper was prepared to provide a basis for discussion at the 29th ALNAP Meeting in Addis Ababa in March 2014 with the theme of ‘Engagement of crisis-affected people in humanitarian action’. It has now been revised to take account of the discussions in Addis, and includes additional comments received and subsequent interviews conducted by the authors.