Another chaotic humanitarian response won’t help Ukraine – we need reform

Donors would get much better bang for their buck by supporting grassroots charities

Governmental donors must commit to unrestricted funding that doesn’t force organisations to spend money immediately on a crisis not as severe as another, or on a project that no one needs (Getty)

The war in Ukraine has prompted the British public to donate millions to the humanitarian response. Though a lifeline for many, the humanitarian sector’s efficacy has often been called into question, especially in light of high-profile and well-funded interventions.

The influx of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake was described as an “over-resourced circus”. Ten years on from the Central Sulawesi earthquake, almost half of the Indonesians affected identified shelter as having been their priority need, with only a fraction of beneficiaries receiving it. Meanwhile, widespread reports have emerged of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh selling aid to buy items they actually want and need.

Indeed, there are signs of history repeating itself when it comes to the Ukraine crisis. Reports have emerged that the Polish government has tried to regain control of the response from NGOs, whilst the Romanian government has expressed concern regarding the UN’s coordination. It has also been suggested to me that some international non-governmental organisations (iNGOs) are unable to spend the large amounts that have been donated.

There is a fundamental reason why little has changed despite widespread awareness of past failings: the sector remains accountable to those who fund it, and not to those who use its services.

Think about government services. If you don’t like them, you can sign a petition, write to your local MP, stand for election or vote – and so, theoretically, influence what you receive. Meanwhile, services that conflict-affected communities receive are dictated by governmental donors in the global north. These donors are in turn answerable to their voting base, and not to those receiving the service. As the average length of wars increases, humanitarian organisations assume the role of quasi-state, but without the democratic representation of a government.

Frequently, governmental donors, keen to show their voters swift action, set tight timelines for projects that result in intrinsically short-term aid. The Ukraine response will need large-scale reconstruction, long-term education and mental health support, and integration services. These things will take years – but judging by past humanitarian interventions, funding will dry up before people’s needs have been met.

Linking funding to what is referred to as the “CNN effect” – when the deciding factor in humanitarian intervention is the coverage given by global media players – has also brought about vast inequities in the distribution of humanitarian aid. Whilst the Ukraine response has raised billions, money donated to avert famine in the Horn of Africa only amounts to 3 per cent of what is needed. When one in every 28 people needs humanitarian assistance, extreme poverty is on the rise after two decades in decline, and climate displacement looms large, we cannot afford to prioritise funding based on the media cycle.

Furthermore, the distance between governmental donors and those receiving services has meant that donors are wary of supporting smaller players, and elect to fund the behemoth iNGOs and UN agencies with large donor-relations departments – as seen in the UK government’s exhortations to donate to “established” charities.

However, it isn’t sustainable to allot the lion’s share of funding to such organisations, like the £260m raised for 15 leading charities responding to the war in Ukraine. For such organisations, £260m is a drop in the ocean because of massive overheads and bureaucracy. Many projects are contracted out to implementing partners, resulting in funding leakage as each organisation covers their programme management, finances and communications out of the original budget.

Donors would get much better bang for their buck by supporting grassroots charities – think of the difference between donating to the World Food Programme vs your local soup kitchen. An added boon of supporting local charities is helping them build experience in leading a humanitarian response; they will be there long after the internationals have closed shop.

There is still a role for the UN and iNGOs; examples include negotiations with the Syrian government to help refugees return to their land, or building irrigation networks to mitigate the effects of climate change in Somalia. As for Ukraine, major organisations should focus on evacuations, negotiating humanitarian corridors, coordinating response, and providing training. Running reception centres and providing food and services can – and should – be done by grassroots responders.

Reliance on massive organisations also lowers quality, as internationals can be unaware of the cultural context. Richard Davies in Extreme Economies describes Syrian refugees in Jordan receiving food vouchers for items that were culturally unfamiliar to them, which they sold at a discount to use the cash on food they actually wanted, thereby losing some of the value of the voucher. A lack of cultural competence resulted in tens of millions of dollars being wasted.

I’m not suggesting that the response is in vain. The humanitarian ecosystem does save lives – just not as many as it should. There are some brilliant organisations, but it’s hard for the public to work out which they are.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

To start, the public should prioritise donating to grassroots organisations or iNGOs that partner with local actors, setting up direct debits to fund the response long after media attention has died down, and donating only to organisations that use respectful imagery pertaining to crisis-affected communities.

In the meantime, governmental donors must commit to unrestricted funding that doesn’t force organisations to spend money immediately on a crisis not as severe as another, or on a project that no one needs. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ proposal for an independent commission is a first step, but it doesn’t include plans for such a commission to be staffed by those who are themselves affected by the crisis. Long term, I’d be in favour of affected communities being allowed to vote in humanitarian leadership and to form advisory panels within governmental donors.

In the past, poorly managed humanitarian response, as in the Rwandan genocide, prompted reform. This time, let’s pre-empt the conversation and start managing the response better from the get-go.

Tiara Ataii works in humanitarian response for the UN and major iNGOs in 11 countries. She founded the largest student-led charity worldwide, SolidariTee, which fights for long-term change in the refugee crisis