Lessons in Multilateral Effectiveness
Feedback from the case study organisations Interviewees from the case study organisations shared a number of observations about the challenges of implementing AAP.
Ensuring meaningful participation: Meaningful consultations have to be designed with care, particularly in conflict settings. There are many groups that may need to be represented, to avoid bias, and checks are needed on their legitimacy. The loudest voices are not necessarily the most representative, and poorly managed consultation risks entrenching local gatekeepers. Building community structures therefore requires detailed local knowledge, time and resources. This is difficult in rapidly evolving humanitarian contexts and given short project time frames. Lack of local language skills and detailed local knowledge is a constraint. In insecure contexts, remote management makes the task even harder.
Sector co-ordination: The cluster co-ordination system has greatly increased the efficiency of humanitarian operations. However, dividing co-ordination along sector lines (e.g., health, food security, shelter) runs contrary to the holistic way in which affected populations perceive and articulate their own needs, and make it hard for their inputs to influence resource allocation. This was affirmed in our conversations with case study representatives in Chad, who noted that, when consulted, crisis-affected communities often talk about the measures that would be required to avoid future crises, rather than their immediate humanitarian needs.t
Proliferation of consultation mechanisms: AAP is usually implemented on an agency level, and in an ad hoc way. This results in a proliferation of parallel feedback mechanisms, which is confusing to aid recipients and results in fragmented feedback. There has been little progress on shifting to area-based feedback mechanisms covering the full scope of humanitarian operations. HOs are incentivised to focus on needs that correspond with the institutional mandates and priorities, rather than take a holistic perspective.
Financing constraints: The case study organisations spoke of a lack of dedicated resources for AAP. One interviewee noted: “I think there is a misconception that... accountability in projects is totally free. It is not free, it requires resources”. Short project cycles and a tight focus on tangible outputs also work against AAP. In practice, HOs often have no choice about what forms of support to offer, as this is dictated by funders, and therefore cannot offer communities a meaningful voice in decision making. They also noted that cost-effective humanitarian action often depends upon the provision of standardised items, procured in bulk. There is therefore limited scope to tailor support according to community preferences. Interviewees noted that donors profess an interest in AAP, but in practice treat it as less important than financial accountability, efficiency, technical quality and performance against predefined variables. Shortfall in the latter objectives would lead to remedial action by donors; shortfalls in AAP would not. HO staff recognise this and behave accordingly.
34
