Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 1 Briefing paper two Good Humanitarian Action MEETS the PRIORITIES and respects the dignity of crisis- affected people Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 3

Contents

1. What is this success criterion about? 5

2. Why does it matter? 5

3. How well does humanitarian action perform 5 against this success criterion?

4. Key obstacles 10

5. Key obstacles and synthesised recommendations 12

6. Endnotes 16

This paper was written by Paul Knox Clarke and Alice Obrecht. The authors drew significantly on the Acknowledgements text of the SOHS 2015, the authors of which are: Abby Stoddard, Adele Harmer, Katherine Haver, Glyn Taylor, and Paul Harvey.

Suggested citation Many thanks to Dayna Brown, Francesca Bonino, Knox Clarke, P. and Obrecht, A. (2015) Good humanitarian Richard Garfield, Alex Jacobs, David Loquercio, Luz meets the priorities and respects the dignity of crisis-affected Saavedra, Abby Stoddard, and the WHS Secretariat for people. Global Forum Briefing Papers. London: ALNAP/ comments on earlier drafts of this paper. ODI.

© ALNAP/ODI 2014. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence (CC BY-NC 3.0).

ISBN 978-1-910454-20-6 Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 5

The Global Forum Briefing Good humanitarian action Papers: What are they for meets the and what do they tell us? priorities and respects the dignity of crisis- The aim of the Global Forum is to identify (SOHS) report, and it should be assumed that this is the recommendations that will help the international key reference unless cited otherwise. This section also system become more adaptable to different crisis introduces the key obstacles to improvement, which are affected people contexts, thereby making overall humanitarian action bolded in the text. These key obstacles are also derived more effective. To support these discussions, these from the 2015 SOHS, as well as from other research and Background Papers: evaluation on humanitarian action. • Outline how the international system is performing against various criteria of effective humanitarian key obstacles 1. What is this SUCCESS CRITERION More broadly, international assistance should recognise action about? the dignity and agency of people caught up in crises, • Identify the key obstacles to improvement on each This section is a summary list of the key obstacles recognise their own coping strategies and provide criterion of effective action described in each paper as inhibiting better • Tailoring assistance to address needs and assistance in a way that does no harm. To do this, it must • Present the recommendations that have been put performance against the criterion. vulnerabilities for specific populations and involve vulnerable and affected people in decisions forward around the World Humanitarian Summit contexts. about the nature of the support they receive. Where this (WHS) process to address these obstacles key obstacles and • Understanding the needs of different types of is not possible, a minimum expectation should be that recommendations people, understanding how affected people they are able to hold humanitarian actors to account for Each paper’s title describes a success criterion for prioritise these needs and adapting to meet these decisions made on their behalf. humanitarian action. These are different ideas of what This section provides a list of the recommendations priorities as they evolve. effective humanitarian action looks like. The seven which seek to address the key obstacles and so to • Ensuring affected people are able to participate 3. how well does humanitarian success criteria were identified through a two-stage improve humanitarian action with respect to each in decisions related to assistance and hold action perform against this review of the evaluative research on humanitarian success criterion. These recommendations have been humanitarian actors accountable for decisions success criterion? performance and the recommendations put forward synthesised from over 700 recommendations across made on their behalf. for the World Humanitarian Summit process (for more 39 position papers, WHS consultation reports and the • While proximity and access are important for Overall, 27% of participants in the State of the detail, please see the accompanying paper: ‘The Global work of the WHS Thematic Teams (see ‘The Global meeting the priorities of affected people, these Humanitarian System (SOHS) survey of crisis-affected Forum Briefing Papers: What are they for and what do Forum Briefing Papers: What are they for and what do issues are addressed in Paper 1: ‘Reaching everyone people said they felt the they had received was they tell us?’). they tell us?’ for more detail). They reflect the different in need’. relevant, in that it addressed their priority needs at the recommendation areas external organisations have time. A greater proportion, 46%, said it was partially what is this success criterion put forward and have been clustered according to the relevant and 25% said it was not relevant. When asked about? why does it matter? obstacles they seek to address. The aim of the synthesis 2. Why does it matter? where the humanitarian system needed to improve, is to accurately reflect the range of views and ideas for more survey respondents chose ‘Provide the type of aid These sections give a brief description of the success reform, and to connect these ideas to an evidence base In a large-scale crisis, people may need food, safe water, that is most needed’ than any other area. Perceptions criterion and the different views on why this is on how the humanitarian system is performing. This health care, protection services, information or any of relevance among aid recipients has declined from important for good humanitarian action. means some synthesised recommendations may conflict combination of different types of support. The needs the prior survey (2012), in which 33% reported that with one another, or may not be mutually achievable, as of different groups within a population also vary: girls aid was fully relevant to their priority needs. Surveys how well does humanitarian there remains a lack of consensus among humanitarian and boys, the elderly and women and men, for example, conducted for the World Humanitarian Summit action perform agains this actors on how best to improve humanitarian action. may have unique needs. Under these circumstances, it is (WHS) consultation in the Middle East and North success criterion? important that the needs and priorities of crisis-affected Africa suggested that, on a 10-point scale, recipients of annexes people be understood as they evolve and change over humanitarian assistance felt this assistance generally This section provides an overview of what is going well time, that any assistance they receive meets their needs did not meet their priority needs (2.3/10 Yemen to and what is not with respect to each success criterion. It The annex to each paper (provided in a single-bound and priorities and that it does so in such a way as to 4.6/10 Palestinian Territories).i The WHS stakeholder draws on evidence to identify the degree to which the document to Global Forum participants) provides the respect their dignity and humanity. consultation for Eastern and Southern Africa reported criterion is being met in current humanitarian action. full set of raw recommendations used in the synthesis, that only 27% of recipients of humanitarian assistance The primary source of evidence for this section in each showing where these recommendations were clustered. felt the aid they received was useful and appropriate.ii paper is the 2015 State of the Humanitarian System Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 6 Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 7

Addressing specific needs and true needs) and North and South-East Asia (lack of a lack of tested programming options; or from certain vulnerabilities information on needs in conflict settings was identified priority needs, such as protection services, which may as the main constraint to an effective response). not be adequately placed at the heart of humanitarian In both the 2012 and the 2015 SOHS surveys, aid iii Coordination of assessments is still weak in many action because it is considered easier to deliver on more recipients in natural disasters (e.g. Haiti, Philippines) contexts, and, despite years of work on the Multi- perceivably tangible outputs. were on average more positive about the relevance of aid Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) tool, it than they were in protracted emergencies (Democratic has not been consistently used or is not reliably timely This may in turn reflect the structure of international Republic of Congo (DRC), Pakistan, Uganda). This may and useful. As a result, agencies conduct overlapping : certain areas that fall within the reflect the impact of the duration of unmet needs on assessments that cannot easily be synthesised and mandates of large agencies tend to be well served; others overall wellbeing. It may also point to the more complex tend to focus on ‘one-off’ assessments rather than on that ‘fall through the cracks’ receive less attention. The and longer-term nature of needs among populations in the collection of information related to needs over the ‘supply side’ orientation of aid (giving people what protracted crises (e.g. housing solutions, livelihoods, course of the crisis.v Questions have also been raised agencies are able and structured to provide, rather protection, children’s education). Humanitarian actors around the independence and objectivity of assessments than supporting their own efforts to recover) may do not devote the same level of resources and capacities conducted by humanitarian agencies. therefore explain why priority needs are not being met. to such needs; in addition, their positioning at the divide There is a lack of between relief and development has more meaning for A further challenge, and one that goes beyond Meeting priorities through aid providers than it does for affected populations.iii assessments, lies in understanding and responding to participation and accountability sufficient data on the needs of specific population groups. While most In contrast to the views of aid recipients, aid actors humanitarian guidelines call for the collection and use In theory, agencies can ensure they understand and needs. were fairly positive about their ability to prioritise and of data on the specific needs of different groups (and meet the priority needs of crisis-affected people through ‘address the most urgent needs’. In 2015, respondents to particularly of women, men, children and the elderly), two related mechanisms: their direct participation in the survey of aid actors rated performance in this area these data are seldom collected. Even when they are, decision-making around humanitarian programmes as poor in 11% of cases, fair in 38% of cases, good in 41% most agencies and clusters are not clear on how to use or accountability mechanisms through which they of cases and excellent in 9% of cases. This is a similar them in the design of programmes.vi A recent review of can hold agencies to account for decisions made on finding to the 2012 survey (poor – 13%, fair – 39%, good humanitarian funding according to the Inter-Agency their behalf. These two mechanisms – often thought Humanitarian – 44%, excellent – 5%). Standing Committee’s (IASC’s) Gender Marker showed of under the single heading of ‘accountability’ – are around 60% was uncodedvii (so it is not possible to say held to improve the performance of humanitarian programmes are not Differences between the views of aid recipients and aid whether the funding considered and responded to programmes – although, surprisingly, evidence around practitioners may be a result of practitioners being more different gender needs and capacities equally). This may the causal relationship between participation and designed to address, aware of the financial limitations of assistance, and reflect challenges with the measurement approach, humanitarian performance is still fairly limited.x At least so having lower expectations of what can be supplied, which may not be sensitive enough to pick up on the as importantly, for many agencies, these mechanisms and do not report on, than do the people affected by crisis. However, this points that matter to key groups, as well as attitudes enhance the dignity and humanity of people caught discrepancy may itself be an illustration of the lack of practitioners regarding the importance of such an up in crises, and so should be a core element of any the specific needs of of understanding of the real needs of crisis-affected exercise. In the survey of humanitarian actors, 18% principled humanitarian response. In certain contexts, people: practitioners are more likely to think they have thought their agency did a ‘poor’ job in taking account however, participation may be challenging because particular groups. got it right if they are unaware of what are the real of the needs of gender, age and disability and 42% a ‘fair’ it requires a type of engagement over time that priorities and needs are. In either case, this argues for job; 39% thought their agency did a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ humanitarian actors are not used to doing. It can also improved communication between aid organisations job.viii take more time, present tensions with expert opinion and the people for whom they work (See below). and engage humanitarian agencies in local politics and In addition, humanitarian agencies seem to find cultural issues.xi Among the most important elements in ensuring difficulty inaddressing certain specific priority needs, Specific priority priority needs are met are the needs and capacity such as protection, education and shelter. Part of this The area of consultation/participation is one that has assessments conducted by humanitarian agencies at difficulty stems from a lack of funding: the SOHS survey seen a fair amount of attention over the three years needs, such as the onset of a crisis. The quality of assessments has and interviews show affected people see education as covered by the SOHS 2015, but survey responses improved significantly since 2007, butthere remain a priority (particularly in protracted emergencies) but suggest there is still much to achieve. A total of 44% protection and insufficient data overall on needs and capacities. only 40% of appeal requirements were met in 2013. of respondents in the survey of affected people said Shortcomings in assessments were identified as a Similarly, in 2013, at a time when protection crises they had not been consulted on their needs prior education are not key obstacle to meeting the needs and priorities of dominated the humanitarian caseload, protection was to distribution; 33% said they had been consulted.ii affected people by the SOHS 2015 as well as the WHS the least funded activity, with just 30% of requirements The WHS Eastern and Southern Africa stakeholder being met. stakeholder consultations for Eastern and Southern in appeals funded. However, in some cases, the failure of consultation reported that only 12% of affected people Africa (in which 26% surveyed said the main constraint responses to meet these needs may stem from a lack of thought their feedback had been taken into account to meeting needs was lack of knowledge around technical capacity and skills in humanitarian agencies, at least to some extent; the West and Central Africa Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 8 Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 9

stakeholder consultation identified accountability to the items they feel they need most, or by rebuilding communities as one of the most important factors to key local infrastructure that supports agency, such as Affected people ensure effective humanitarian action in the region. information and communication technologies (ICTs) xii The importance of engagement and participation and banking services. The WHS Thematic Teams have often do not have practices to aid recipients was expressed in the developed the concept of subsidiarity to frame several SOHS surveys in other ways. In terms of where the of their recommendations on these issues. Subsidiarity the information humanitarian system most needs to improve, after reflects the idea that international humanitarian actors ‘Provide the aid that is most needed’ the second and ought to focus on filling gaps in pre-existing capacities, to make informed third highest ranked responses from recipients were not just at a state-wide level (as addressed in Paper 4), ‘Be more respectful of our customs’ and ‘Listen to us but also at a more fundamental level in their work with choices or to more’. In the survey conducted as part of the Middle East crisis-affected individuals.X[endnote citation here, and North Africa consultation, ratings for consultation see below] The concept of subsidiarity turns the issue hold agencies to were between 1.7 out of 10 (Lebanon) and 3.7 out of 10 of participation around to become a question of how (Palestinian Territories).xiv In the same survey, women international humanitarian actors can participate in account. The structure in Lebanon gave scores of 2.0 out of 10 for the degree to the process of relief and recovery led by crisis-affected which they and their communities were treated with people, who have their own abilities and coping and processes respect and dignity. Men in the Palestinian Territories strategies.xix gave scores of 5.6 out of 10. of the system do With respect to accountability, 19% of respondents in There appear to be a number of obstacles to improved the SOHS poll said they had been able to give opinions not support the participation of crisis-affected people in decision- and make complaints to aid agencies; 44% had not. making, including, at the operational level, skills and Although aid agencies have put significant resources participation of attitudes of humanitarian workers; costs (particularly into feedback and complaints mechanisms in recent in time) of consultation and participation; local social years, these results suggest more work is required in affected people and cultural norms related to the role and capacities of this area. Part of this work relates to clarifying the certain groups; and the requirement to create context- relative accountability of international actors and the in humanitarian and site-specific mechanisms for participation.xv These state in responding to emergencies. It is also important commonly cited obstacles point to the overall structure to ensure affected people have information about the decision-making and processes of the system as an overarching obstacle situation and programmes so they know what agencies to the participation of affected people in humanitarian should be accountable for. Even where feedback and decision-making and priority setting. At a higher level, complaints mechanisms are in place, agencies do not and priority- this obstacle stems from a general tradition of relative pay the price for poor programming, due to a lack of inflexibility in humanitarian funding, which prevents effective sanctions for individuals or organisations that setting. changes being made on the basis of local priorities and do not meet the legitimate expectations of populations. decisions once a programme has commenced,xvi as well The lack of effective sanction mechanisms may be as programming approaches that minimise the choices a contributing factor to the slowness of agencies in and agency of affected people and limit input from incorporating the views of affected people into changes affected people to project, rather than strategy, level.xvii in strategy. This may also be partially a result of the Current approaches This is supported by the Listening Project, which focus towards responding to individual complaints interviewed over 6,000 aid recipients and found that rather than tackling higher-level changes to project and delivery the way agencies interacted with them diminished their design and implementation.xx agency and self-confidence.xviii mechanisms of Proposed solutions to these obstacles tend to concentrate humanitarian aid on ensuring humanitarian agencies include crisis- affected people in decision-making on humanitarian programmes (through improved training of staff, decrease the agency policy initiatives or techniques and standards, such as the Core Humanitarian Standard). Solutions also of affected people. focus on using programming approaches that increase the choice and agency of people in crises, by – for example – providing cash with which people can buy Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 11

4. Key obstacles

1 5

There is a lack of sufficient data on needs. The structures and processes of the system do not support the participation of affected people in humanitarian decision-making and priority-setting.

2 6 Humanitarian programmes are not designed to address, and do not report on, the specific needs of particular Current approaches and delivery mechanisms of groups. humanitarian aid decrease the agency of affected people.

3 7

Specific priority needs, such as protection and education Affected people often do not have the information to make are not being met. informed choices or to hold agencies to account.

4 8

Humanitarian organisation and programmes are better Humanitarian actors do not ‘pay the price’ for poor adapted to provide ‘supply-side’ solutions than to meet programming: they should be more effectively held to demands from affected people. account. Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 13 5. Key obstacles and synthesised recommendations

The WHS Thematic Teams’ Bonn recommendations reflect the most recent thinking of the WHS Secretariat and Thematic Teams on the key areas for reform to be addressed by the Summit. These recommendations are italicised below.

1 3 KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS

There is a lack of sufficient data on needs. a. Streamline needs assessments – create more joint Specific priority needs, such as protection and a. Humanitarian actors should increase funding for assessments or common formats. education, are not being met. protection, and ensure protection activities take place b. Create stronger assessments that consider the context throughout the programme cycle and existing capacities, as well as needs. b. Protection in the context of humanitarian aid should c. Ensure, as standard, that assessments collect and match the needs and priorities of affected communities, analyse data disaggregated by gender, age and other and be contextualised. aspects of vulnerability. c. Regional entities should currently play a more significant d. Develop more systematic, responsible use of big data for role in monitoring and promoting protection and better understanding needs of affected populations. assistance, in particular through the creation of regional frameworks. e. Ensure data collected in assessments are stored and managed in a secure manner. d. Build on the upcoming UN General Assembly resolution 2 to bolster protective accompaniment/presence. KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS e. Humanitarian actors should address protection in non- conflict situations (such as migration and asylum-seekers Humanitarian programmes are not designed a. Include gender markers or similar demographic travelling by sea, urban and communal violence and to address, and do not report on, the specific measures in programme design and reporting. during pandemics). needs of particular groups. b. Commission regular independent monitoring and f. Humanitarian actors should invest in creating publishing of sex and age disaggregated community greater funding and capacity for delivering education feedback to generate real time performance data, programming. including rankings of agency performance, to improve the g. Humanitarian actors should strengthen the skills and response. capacities needed to carry out effective programming for c. Require the official Humanitarian Programming Cycle older men and women. system and National Action Plans for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management to include sex and age disaggregated data, gender analysis in the activities 4 of each sector and objectives regarding meaningful KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS engagement of local communities including women. d. Make funding conditional on the application of a gender Humanitarian organisation and programmes a. Pilot market-based approaches in which agencies pitch equality lens across the program cycle, which could be are better adapted to provide ‘supply-side’ their services to local people. enabled through the use of a gender marker. solutions than to meet demands from affected b. Reconsider organisational mandates to move e. Ensure reproductive and sexual health needs are people. humanitarian agencies away from sector- or population- addressed in all responses. driven responses. f. Ensure psychosocial needs of particularly vulnerable c. Reform funding to move humanitarian agencies away groups (women, children, the elderly) are addressed in all from sector- or population-driven responses. responses. d. Pay particular attention to reaching vulnerable g. Improve funding to meet the needs of vulnerable groups populations rather than ‘easier-to-reach’ populations that – especially children and the elderly. meet mandates. h. Identify, programme for and report on the specific needs e. Change reporting systems to include more explicit focus of internally displaced persons (IDPs), to the degree that on the degree to which real needs have been addressed. these needs differ from those of other communities. f. Create clear standards and requirements for engaging i. Identify, programme for and report on the specific needs affected people and frame these within the aim of of pastoral populations, where these form a part of the creating a more demand-driven humanitarian system. caseload. Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 15

5 6 KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS

The structures and processes of the system do a. Prioritise accountability as a key humanitarian issue, Current approaches and delivery mechanisms of a. Prioritise rebuilding services that enable community- not support the participation of affected people possibly as a humanitarian principle. humanitarian aid decrease the agency of affected led response, e.g. financial services & communication in humanitarian decision-making and priority- b. Humanitarian action needs to be driven by the people. networks. setting. concept of subsidiarity. b. Scale up multi-sector, multi-purpose cash (e.g. c. Establish donor commitments on accountability increasing from 3.5% to x% by 2020). to affected populations , which build on Good c. Build responses around existing coping strategies. Humanitarian Donorship. Monitor these through a d. Provide individuals with clear options that support mechanism similar to the Humanitarian Response personal agency, such as Settle or return; Rebuild or Index. relocate; Cash or assistance in kind. d. Reform funding mechanisms to allow for changes to e. Expand social protection programmes. programming based on the views of and input from f. Advocate for refugees to have the right to work. affected people. e. Nominate a senior humanitarian official within every major emergency operation that is responsible for 7 ensuring affected people are included in shaping the KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS response. f. Establish a contact group from the affected Affected people often do not have the information a. Develop common information & complaints community for every major response to inform to make informed choices or to hold agencies to mechanisms, within each major response, using local decision making. account. languages. g. Invest in innovation to improve the engagement b. Use new and existing media to ensure better of affected people, particularly when access is communication with affected communities. constrained. h. Ensure participation of affected people in the identification of underlying risks and in programme design. i. Include clear systems of communication and feedback in all programmes. 8 j. Evidence reporting on community consultations and KEY OBSTACLES RECOMMENDATIONS their consequences for action in agency reports and share it with communities. Humanitarian actors do not ‘pay the price’ for poor a. Create effective accountability feedback systems k. Partner with local civil society in all cycles of programming: they should be more effectively that give people a strong voice in assessing the programming, including design, delivery and held to account. performance of humanitarian responses. monitoring. b. Invest in innovation to improve accountability of l. Adopt sector-wide standards/Core Humanitarian humanitarian response providers. Standards (CHSs) to improve quality and c. Use collective approaches and technology to accountability. improve accountability for humanitarian responses. m. Invest in greater leadership in accountability and d. Create stronger incentives to collect community community engagement, including among donors, at satisfaction data and engage with affected people. cluster and humanitarian country team (HCT) level, within humanitarian agencies and within specific e. Move the costs and risks of poor quality aid from the field teams. recipient populations to implementing agencies. f. Establish clear roles and responsibilities, and legal frameworks to ensure accountability. g. Invest in transparent, comprehensive and open data on financing flows of all actors. h. Provide data on financing flows to all actors. Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 16 Alnap Global forum BRIEFING PAPER 2 17

6. Endnotes i. WHS (2015) ‘Regional Consultation for Middle viii. Progress is also currently being assessed on the xiii. WHS (2014) ‘Regional Consultation for West and East and North Africa: Jordan 3-5 March 2015. participation of affected women and girls in the Central Africa. Stakeholders Consultation Report’. Preparatory Stakeholder Analysis’. World Global Review of Security Council Resolution 1325. World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) . Humanitarian Summit (WHS) . The most recent report of the Secretary General on Women, Peace and Security noted that, ‘Given xiv. WHS (2015) ‘Regional Consultation for Middle ii. WHS (2014) ‘Regional Consultation for Eastern the crucial linkages between the participation of East and North Africa: Jordan 3-5 March 2015. and Southern Africa. Preparatory Stakeholder women in decision making and their enjoyment Preparatory Stakeholder Analysis’. World Consultation’. World Humanitarian Summit of basic , improving participation Humanitarian Summit (WHS). (WHS). and leadership in refugee and internally displaced persons settings is essential’ (S/2014/693. Para 41. 23 xv. Again, see Brown and Donini (2014) for a more iii. Anderson, M., Brown, D. and Jean, I. (2012) September 2014). complete list. ‘Time to Listen: Hearing People on the Receiving End of International Aid’. Cambridge, MA: CDA xvi. Bonino, F. with Jean, I. and Knox Clarke, P. (2014) Collaborative Learning Project. ix. Obrecht, A., with Knox Clarke, P., El-Kouhene, ‘Humanitarian feedback mechanisms: Research, M. and Noyes, A. (2015) ‘Accountability and evidence and guidance’. ALNAP Study. London: iv. WHS (2014) ‘Regional Consultation for Eastern Participation’. WHS Thematic Teams Focal Paper. ALNAP/ODI; Jacobs, A. (2015) ‘Enhancing and Southern Africa. Final Report’, World Community Engagement during Humanitarian Humanitarian Summit (WHS); WHS (2014) Response’. Proposition Paper for the WHS. ‘Regional Consultation: North and South-East x. The most direct investigation of this relationship Asia July 2014. Final Report’, World Humanitarian is in Featherstone, A. (2013) ‘Improving Impact, Summit (WHS) Do Accountability Mechanisms Deliver Results?’ xvii. Darcy, J., Alexander, J., & Kiani, M. (2013). London: HAP, Save the Children and Christian Humanitarian Accountability Report, 2013. v. Knox Clarke, P. and Darcy, J. (2014) Insufficient Aid. The issue is also noted in some evaluations London: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership. evidence? The quality and use of evidence in – see, for example, Baker, J., Kahemu Chantal, D. humanitarian action. London: ALNAP/ODI. S., Kayungura, G., Posada, S., Tasikasereka, M., & xviii. Anderson, M., Brown, D. and Jean, I. (2012) Cano Vinas, M. (2013). External Evaluation of the ‘Time to Listen: Hearing People on the Receiving vi. Mazurana, D., Benelli, P., Gupta, H., and Rapid Response to Population Movements (RRMP) End of International Aid’. Cambridge, MA: CDA Walker, P. (2011) Sex and Age Matter: Improving Program in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Collaborative Learning Project. Humanitarian Response in Emergencies. Medford, DARA and UNICEF. MA: Feinstein International Centre, Tufts xix. Gibbons, P., et al. (2014). ‘Fundamental Principles University. xi. For a discussion on the various approaches to for the Humanitarian System.’ WHS Thematic participation and accountability, see Brown, D. Teams Focal Paper. vii. Development Initiatives (2014) ‘Funding Gender and Donini, A. (2014) ‘Rhetoric or Reality? Putting in Emergencies, What Are the Trends’. Bristol: Affected People at the Centre of Humanitarian xx. Darcy, J., Alexander, J., & Kiani, M. (2013). Development Initiatives. Action’. London: ALNAP, ODI. Humanitarian Accountability Report, 2013. London: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership. xii. The balance of responses was ‘I don’t know’.

BRIEFING PAPER 2 19 Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road London, SE1 8NJ www.alnap.org/global-forum #ALNAPForum