Edgar Wabyona on Getting Targeting and Prioritization Right

This interview is part of a larger conversation series with leading humanitarian thinkers on how to reshape and reform the aid system in turbulent times. This month, we’re talking to Edgar Wabyona who is Head of Targeting at the World Food Programme.

If you could rebuild the aid system, what is the one main thing you would change?

I would rebuild the system around a more consolidated and people‑centred approach – one that addresses the full spectrum of needs of vulnerable households, rather than breaking assistance into disconnected pieces delivered by different actors. From the outside, the aid system often appears as a single, coherent whole. In reality, however, it is highly fragmented. Individual organizations are typically structured to address a specific need: food, shelter, health, or livelihoods. Each organization targets assistance through its own, particular lens, using different criteria and processes. 

But human vulnerability is rarely isolated. The same households are often simultaneously food‑insecure, economically fragile, exposed to shocks, and lacking access to basic services. Addressing only one of these dimensions at a time may provide temporary or partial relief, but rarely puts people on a path toward self‑reliance.

The one change I would make is to shift the system toward holistic, integrated support at the household or community level, guided first and foremost by people’s needs rather than by institutional mandates. This does not necessarily mean fewer actors, as diversity of expertise is a strength, but it does mean organizing ourselves differently. What we do should be dictated less by what each organization is set up to deliver, and more by how we can actually help people transition away from vulnerability.

What are the consequences of a fragmented, sector-based approach to assistance?

To keep it short, I would point to three main consequences of fragmentation:

1. A fragmented approach is ineffective; it rarely delivers meaningful change for the people we serve. This means we fall short of meeting the core humanitarian principle of saving lives and improving well-being.
2. A fragmented approach is inefficient and costly. Reaching the same household through multiple disconnected channels costs more than delivering support in an integrated, coordinated way.
3. This level of ineffectiveness and inefficiency leads to protracted aid responses and fatigued donors. As humanitarian needs are only ever partially met, crises drag on. High costs and slow progress then feed donor fatigue – something we see clearly today. This only serves to further constrain the system’s ability to adapt and deliver.

This ineffective, fragmented approach also touches on an ethical question of how best to use limited humanitarian funds. Should organizations aim to reach as many people as possible, even if that means spreading their resources thinly? Or should they try to focus their support on a smaller group of people?

It is an ethical dilemma, yet you’ll find that most targeting and prioritization approaches in use today are justified and grounded in context‑specific trade‑offs. So, in my view, the issue is not about what approach is ​‘right’ or ​‘wrong.’ It is about clarity of purpose and transparent decision‑making in a resource‑constrained system.

From an operational perspective, if resources are limited, our approaches must adapt to the context and be developed with communities, consistent with a people‑centred model. Communities often opt for the ​“less (food or money) for more (people)” principle, prioritizing breadth over depth – and many end up sharing what they receive equally, regardless of official policy. Their choices should inform how we prioritize our humanitarian aid. However, this is only half the story. Humanitarians operate within the priorities set by the global system and its member states. 

So, the deeper question is, are we getting our global priorities right? When a highly food-insecure village (classified high on the ​“Integrated Food Security Phase Classification” scale) is forced to share insufficient rations among all households, it reflects upstream decisions made far from that village. The ethical dilemma on the ground level is deeply affected by wider political choices.

The issue is not only whether humanitarians are prioritizing correctly. It is whether the global prioritization of humanitarian need is adequate to avoid impossible trade-offs in the first place.

The discussion on prioritization also relates to the question of whether humanitarians should focus their limited resources exclusively on life-saving assistance. How does that square with your idea of integrated assistance?

Saving lives must remain the absolute priority – this is non‑negotiable. But ​‘life‑saving’ is a broad concept. When we ask what actually saves lives in the contexts we work in, the answer rarely involves just one sector. It is ​‘food’ plus ​‘health’ plus ​‘shelter’ plus ​‘protection’ – a set of interlocking needs. Starvation, untreated illness, exposure to harsh weather, and insecurity do not exist in isolation. Neither should humanitarian assistance.

So, rather than being at odds with life‑saving priorities, integrated assistance is the most effective way to save lives, because it acknowledges the reality that people face multiple, simultaneous risks. 

The elephant in the room is the high level of fragmentation amongst organizations providing similar assistance. Should humanitarians overcome this fragmentation and how could this be achieved?

Yes, overcoming fragmentation is essential if we are to respond to rising needs with limited resources. But it would be a mistake to see this as a challenge for humanitarians alone. Fragmentation reflects the broader multilateral system, which is itself undergoing recalibration.

Technical solutions do exist: joint analysis, joint planning, joint delivery, shared monitoring, and harmonized targeting and prioritization. Initiatives like the clusters, the ​“One UN” reforms and UN80 are valuable steps. However, these efforts can only succeed if they are enabled by the political and institutional environment created by member states. Without alignment at that level, even the best technical harmonization will not deliver much.

In other words, the answer is systemic. Integration must happen at every level, from New York, Geneva and Rome, all the way to the communities in the Sahel or frontline areas affected by conflict in Sudan. Humanitarians must collaborate better, but the multilateral system must also empower and resource that collaboration. Only then can we move from fragmented assistance towards coherent, impactful support.

For those who would like to engage more deeply with your ​“one thing,” what reading would you recommend? 

I recommend reading GPPi’s evaluation of WFP’s targeting and prioritization. It offers valuable insights on the complex realities humanitarian organizations are currently navigating. Moreover, the WFP’s guidance on targeting is available at the VAM Resource Centre.