Summary
The article in The New Humanitarian explores growing tensions within the humanitarian sector as UN relief chief Tom Fletcher rolls out “Phase Two” of a so-called reset—a scaled‑down version of existing aid systems promising more collaboration, inclusion, and local leadership. However, a disconnect is emerging: incremental reformers advocate retooling the system, while others push for deeper, systemic transformation that might go well beyond the reset's scope. The article then outlines eight recent opinion pieces that propose alternative pathways forward.
Here are short summaries and corrected links to the five articles covered by "If Not a Humanitarian Reset, Then What?"
-
Beyond the Reset: Five Priorities for Genuine Humanitarian Transformation (19 June 2025)
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/06/19/beyond-reset-five-priorities-genuine-humanitarian-transformation
Outlines five priorities: ecosystem collaboration over competition, deeper localisation, stronger accountability, more predictable funding, and meaningful participation of affected communities. Argues that real reform must be led by Global South actors. -
It’s Economics, Stupid: Why the UN Is Inefficient and What to Do About It (3 June 2025)
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/06/03/its-economics-stupid-why-un-inefficient-and-what-do-about-it
Critiques the UN’s inefficiencies and donor-driven incentives. Calls for structural changes to support leaner, more effective aid systems grounded in honest economics. -
Reset, Reform or Repeat? Humanitarianism’s Reboot Searches for the Right Script (16 June 2025)
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2025/06/16/reset-reform-or-repeat-humanitarianisms-reboot-searches-right-script
Examines whether current reform efforts offer genuine change or just repeat past failures. Stresses the need for inclusive, systemic transformation beyond slogans. -
What If We Stopped Aid Altogether? (16 April 2025)
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/04/16/what-if-we-stopped-aid-altogether-refugee-uganda
A thought-provoking piece by a Ugandan practitioner suggesting that ending aid might empower local communities to reclaim leadership and reduce dependency. -
The End of Aid: What the Global South Needs to Do (20 May 2025)
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2025/05/20/end-aid-what-global-south-needs-do
Argues for a Global South-led transition from aid dependence, advocating for domestic resource mobilization, stronger civil society, and regional self-reliance.
So, What Might a New Humanitarian System Look Like?
The five featured articles in The New Humanitarian roundup offer no clear roadmap for reform—but taken together, they sketch the outlines of a different kind of humanitarian system. Here are the recurring ideas of change:
-
From Competition to Collaboration
The current system rewards competition over cooperation. Several contributors call for a shift to an ecosystem approach, where agencies and local actors work together toward shared goals rather than compete for funding and visibility. -
Deep Localisation and Power Transfer
Reform can no longer mean minor adjustments at the top. Instead, it must mean transferring money, decision-making power, and leadership to local organizations and affected communities—especially in the Global South. -
Accountability to People, Not Donors
A future system should be judged by how well it serves those in need—not by how many reports are filed to donors. Proposals include community-led monitoring and new metrics rooted in lived experience. -
Financing Reform and the End of Dependency
Multi-year, flexible funding is a recurrent demand. Some authors go further, calling for domestic funding mechanisms and trade-based development to replace dependence on external aid altogether. -
UN Structural Reform
The UN system is criticized as slow, risk-averse, and bureaucratically bloated. Proposals include focusing on core mandates, restructuring incentives, and streamlining overlapping roles between agencies. -
Post-Aid Futures
Two articles ask whether the best way to build something better is to step away from aid entirely. They argue that local systems, if left less distorted by foreign aid logic, may become stronger, more autonomous, and more sustainable. -
No More Apolitical Humanitarianism
Reform will require confronting—not avoiding—the political and economic causes of crises. A reimagined system would engage more directly with power, inequality, and injustice. -
Do Less, Better
Over-ambition and under-delivery undermine credibility. A leaner, more focused humanitarian model would prioritize what can be done well over what looks impressive on paper.
Together, these ideas suggest that any real reset won’t be led from above—but will be pushed from the ground up by communities and national actors demanding more control, more equity, and more relevance from the humanitarian system.
Thanks Tom, for this collection. It shows how broad the agenda for reform can be.
ReplyDeleteI should think that we in UNICEF have a particular vantage point and experience (both in the humanitarian and development sphere), that some of the authors are missing. While the recommendation are widely diverging, I would still recommend that our readers have a look, if only to see that our current aid modalities are hopelessly outdated, in many aspects.
Yes, this is a whole gamut of ideas. Perhaps, from our perspective, we should concentrate on the one about the UN and its Agencies. Here again, many ideas are thrown out, many of which we all know and have lived with in our careers. Within this also, we could narrow down our concerns on the "humanitarian" aspect and leave out "development" for now. Let's face it, UNICEF started as a humanitarian organization and after 80 years is still heavily involved in such actions. Thankfully UNICEF resources are not coming from an assessed source, but this also means it is subject to much uncertainty. Could it be that it might narrow its spheres of activities and focus on a few that it can do well, or more efficiently than others? This could bring back the notion of mono-focality which it faced in the early days of GOBI. But with so many other actors in the field catering to so many other aspects, it may be the way for UNICEF to go. In its early days, the word "basic" was quite common in UNICEF jargon...Basic Agreement; Basic health, Basic Services policy, etc. Is a re-think in this direction worth discussing among our readers?
ReplyDeleteAlso Basic Assistance List, the precursor to all operational functions.
ReplyDelete