The Humanitarian Horizons report discusses a range of issues, including demographics, climate change and globalization, and – more importantly – doesn’t suck. There’s a serious lack of vision in most writing on humanitarian issues, and we need more reports like this. (Although it’s not looking as far forward as it hopes – we’re already in the middle of most of the trends it correctly identifies.) One of the key findings from John Borton’s section of the report is that “Humanitarian and development activities will become increasingly conflated”:
In addition to a rapid growth in expenditure levels, the humanitarian system has also seen a remarkable expansion in the range of activities undertaken as part of its operations. Whilst health services, water/sanitation and hygiene promotion, food security, nutrition and food aid, shelter, settlement, and non-food items remain at the core of humanitarian responses, many humanitarian operations now include a wide range of other activities… arguably comprising the traditional development sector… it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between humanitarian activities and expenditures and development activities and expenditures, given that organizations of all kinds will be active during overlapping phases of the disaster cycle, as priorities shift and resources must be reallocated according to need.
This seems like as good a time as any to lay out my own stall, which is a bit further out than John. My feeling is that the distinction between humanitarian and development activities was never meaningful; and (in particular) that the concept of the relief-development continuum was not just a conceptual exercise but a political project that harmed more people than it helped. The division of UN and NGO activities based on the way in which donors structured funding streams along those lines was a pointless distraction from the reality on the ground.
The worst results of this project can be seen in the aid architecture that we currently have, with examples such as the futile notion of an “Early Recovery” cluster, the perpetuation of parallel funding streams, and self-imposed constraints on M&E in emergencies. Yet it also makes itself felt in the way in which it sanctions political solutions which would be unacceptable in other contexts, such as the maintenance of large-scale IDP/refugee camps which don’t do anybody any favours.
Beneficiaries don’t make a distinction between relief and development – it’s all just getting on with the messy business of living. In the immediate aftermath of a major earthquake or conflict-related displacement, people will certainly see that phase in their lives as an emergency, a temporary state that they are happy to get out of as soon as possible – but beyond that we see that people work hard to stabilise their situation, and not necessarily in ways which fit with our top-down management.
Categories such as “humanitarian” and “development” are socially constructed, and constructed primarily by well-meaning outsiders rather than the people affected by conflict and disaster. If we were really serious about being accountable to beneficiaries, we’d make more effort to look at the world through their eyes. Once we stop using the terms “humanitarian” and “development”, we can begin to understand what life looks like on the other side of the system and maybe think of some new ways to solve old problems.
Related posts: