Meta-level humanitarianism
A critical examination of how the humanitarian sector governs itself, and of what that governance means for the people who deliver assistance.
Download the paper (PDF, English)The argument
The paper examines a shift in how the sector organises itself. Alongside the agencies that deliver assistance, a second layer has grown: coordinating bodies, standards initiatives, clusters, consortiums, donor consortia and sector-wide working groups. This layer sets norms, allocates roles, produces guidance and defines what counts as good practice. The paper calls this the meta-level, and its subject is the effect of that layer on the agencies underneath it.
The claim is not that coordination is unnecessary. It is that the meta-level has acquired authority over how agencies work without acquiring responsibility for what happens to them. Standards are set by bodies that do not deploy anyone. Guidance is issued by groups that do not carry the consequences of following it. And the incentives created at the meta-level, which reward visibility, reporting and adherence to the current framework, are not always the incentives that make staff safer.
The effects the paper identifies
- Compliance substitutes for judgement. An agency that has followed the current standard can point to it, which reduces the pressure to assess its own situation properly. The standard becomes the answer rather than the floor.
- The framework churns. Each new initiative requires reporting and participation, and the reporting is done by the same small number of people who are also supposed to be managing risk in the field.
- Legitimacy is conferred upward. A body that convenes the sector acquires standing that is not matched by any accountability for outcomes in a specific country.
- The field is represented but not present. Country offices are consulted, and the decisions are taken where the donors and the secretariats are.
Why this matters for security management
Security management is unusually exposed to the effects above, for three reasons.
It is a field where standards are genuinely useful, because the consequences of getting it wrong are severe, which makes compliance a comfortable substitute for local assessment.
It is a field where the incentives at the meta-level are weakly aligned with the outcome. A sector initiative is visible and countable. A decision not to deploy, or to withdraw a team, is invisible, and the agency that takes it looks less effective than the agency that stays.
And it is a field where the people who carry the consequences have the least influence over the norms. National staff, who are the most exposed and the least able to leave, are the least represented in the bodies that set the standards.
The practical reading
The paper does not propose dismantling the meta-level, and its value here is as a caution rather than a programme. For a country office, the useful conclusions are modest. Use the standards, and treat them as a floor rather than a certificate. Keep the local assessment, because the standard does not know the road you are deciding whether to use. Record decisions locally, with names and reasoning, because the framework will not be the document that is read afterwards. And make sure that the staff who are most exposed are in the room when the arrangements affecting them are decided.
Related
Practical guidance and research on the security of humanitarian staff, for the organisations that send them.