GPPi discusses non-Western humanitarian donors in online event

GPPi Director Julia Steets took part in an online panel discussion on November 15 organized by the Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action. The event was titled ​“Follow the Money: How Has Aid Measured Up in 2012?” View a video presentation of the webcast.

As the Global Humanitarian Assistance 2012 Report notes, humanitarian needs in 2011 decreased from those of the previous year. Financing requests dropped by 21% and the overall funding response decreased by 9% from 2010 to 2011. However, despite this shift, the gap in unmet funding for consolidated appeals widened. Further complicating the ability of international agencies to meet humanitarian needs, the year 2012 has seen crises emerge in environments that have been highly politicized and increasingly dangerous for international workers. Meanwhile, the profile of donors is evolving.

In this context, the online panel examined the three questions. First, what is the capacity of the current funding system to meet humanitarian needs? Second, what is the potential of new donor groups to address the challenges to the current funding system? Third, what are the potential difficulties with encouraging funding from outside the OECD DAC group?

Joining Steets on the panel was Tasneem Mowjee of Policy2Practice and Robert Smith of OCHA’s Consolidated Appeals Section. Hosting the discussion were Christina Blunt and Rob Grace, both from Harvard’s Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research. Humanitarian practitioners from all over the world participated in the debate through an online forum.

Steets focused her remarks on non-Western donors. In recent years, an increasing number of governments from outside the OECD DAC group have contributed to humanitarian assistance. While the overall volume of these contributions remains low and difficult to track, non-Western donors have made significant contributions to individual crises in, for instance, Haiti, Pakistan and Somalia. Some observers therefore place strong hopes on the ability of non-Western donors to fill the financing gap in humanitarian assistance. Others, by contrast, are concerned that the different approaches of these donors might challenge the basic principles of the current humanitarian system.

Against this background, Steets argued that it was necessary to unpack the notion of ​“non-Western donors” and better understand why individual governments engage in humanitarian assistance and how they do it. This analysis reveals that the dividing lines among donors do not mostly run between Western and non-Western donors, but within both groups. For the future, Steets does not expect a confrontation between Western and non-Western donors over humanitarian principles. Rather, future trends are very likely to see a continuing fragmentation of the humanitarian system as more donors and implementing organizations join; the continuing relevance of multilateral channels for humanitarian assistance; and a normative debate regarding the role of governments in responding to emergencies.