The paths to aid quality

The 2022 edition of Groupe URD’s Autumn School provided an opportunity to discuss aid quality, defined as “the totality of features and characteristics of humanitarian assistance that support its ability to, in time, satisfy stated or implied needs and expectations, and respect the dignity of the people it aims to assist”¹. For some years now, humanitarian actors have been looking for the best way to achieve these objectives. We have discussed our experiences in work groups, and we have taken part in international conferences on this issue. It is time to ask the question: have we improved?

Professionalisation that has been positive… but not only

Many humanitarians who began working in the sector in the 1990s and 2000s, when the major summits on aid quality and effectiveness were held, went from being social actors in the field to project managers, or even data administrators. Was this really the path to take to improve assistance to people affected by crises and hazards, and to promote greater solidarity between peoples?

Our intentions were good. It was important to establish indicators and standards in order to guarantee a minimal level of service that people in difficulty should receive in all contexts. It was necessary to provide a framework for relations with ‘partner’ organisations in order to anticipate risks and limit conflicts. We had to be as transparent as possible in order to remove the risk of conflicts of interest or corruption via calls for proposals and more and more due diligence procedures. The main issue was to prove to donors and funding agencies that we, the aid operators, were worthy of trust, that generosity was compatible with professionalism, and that our organisations were credible.

Spontaneous outpourings of generosity therefore gave way to strategic plans to optimise resources and better serve the targeted people. Following in the footsteps of emergency relief and co-funding departments, who were often pioneers in this area, organisations began to produce more and more procedures, standards and norms. More and more software appeared (to manage funds, human resources, projects, etc.) to rationalise and interconnect our data, supposedly to help us save time, measure the impact of our projects and limit our errors.

The idea had been that, by gaining competencies and recognition, we would have more resources and freedom. But it seems that, in doing so, we have in fact built our own prison.

Quality that is meaningful

Is this trend unavoidable? It is certainly neither cast in stone, nor universal. Our operational methods should be defined by a number of major principles rather than by a handbook of procedures. This is what we have done at Fondation de France, for example.

First, there needs to be a strong desire to promote proximity, with a strong focus on localisation, both in France and internationally. In Lebanon, and more recently in Ukraine, more than 80% of funding has gone directly to local associations – those that are based in neighbourhoods, villages, and territories. Rather than asking for time-consuming administrative dossiers and complex logical frameworks, dialogue, comparing recommendations and carrying out field visits help to create relations of trust before and during projects. This does not mean that those who want to cannot put in place learning and continuous improvement mechanisms (pedagogical audits, peer support systems, collective and iterative knowledge transfer, etc.).

Another key word that partner organisations often mention is flexibility. We all agree that today’s world is increasingly unstable and uncertain, so when there is trust and reciprocity between partners, we need to prioritise agility and intelligence rather than processes that slow action down.

And what exactly are we afraid of? If abuses and embezzlement are going to happen, won’t the perpetrators be able to get round or manipulate the procedures anyway? Do we really stand to lose more by promoting trust and flexibility than we have already lost by dehumanising our work?

The ‘real’ questions we need to ask given current developments

The fact that the scale of humanitarian needs around the world is continuing to grow means that we need to radically rethink our way of working. We will need to make sure we get the focus right in a world riddled with contradictory, and even schizophrenic demands. It is not easy to remain neutral and help the most vulnerable people when fiscal policies, and diplomatic and security demands make whole territories inaccessible. Maintaining human relations while managing our environmental footprint, and being able to measure and offset it, is a real challenge.

It is also seen as a luxury to invest in anthropological and cultural analyses, even though our actions have an effect on the dynamics between actors and socio-economic developments. What is more, targeting the most vulnerable people is more complex when crises are increasingly global: the COVID-19 health crisis and the war in Ukraine have affected everyone around the world. The scale of crises requires assistance on a massive scale which leaves little room for specific or hard-to-reach cases, while, at the same time, our societies are increasingly fragmented.

These  changes have led to increased efforts to reach the highest number of beneficiaries. But, in order to do so, field staff have not been properly paid, despite their crucial role regarding the quality of projects, in terms of selecting and gaining access to those who require assistance most. When running costs are increased, it is to carry out more controls, not to improve the working conditions or wellbeing of staff who are just as professional, but have had to undergo more changes than staff in other sectors.

To help us deal with these difficult choices and find the right trade-offs, there is nevertheless a reliable starting point: the human dimension, which is supposed to be at the heart of humanitarian action, and which is the most precious aspect of our work. It allows us to learn about so many cultures, meet researchers, farmers and ministers, experience the complementarities and complexities of each situation, and look for solutions that bring together the maximum number of actors.

We urgently need to resist the growing temptation of standardised and secure quality, and de-intellectualise our actions. The humanitarian sector has everything to gain by embarking on a path based on dialogue and trust, fully embracing the complexity of human relations, and accepting the risk of not being able to measure and control everything.

1. According to the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, 2015.