AN AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE
SAVE THE CHILDREN POLICY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITMENTS
FOR THE WORLD HUMANITARIAN SUMMIT
April 2016
The growing number and scale of crises in the world today have put the international humanitarian
system under unprecedented strain. Crises are becoming more protracted, conflicts are becoming more
brutal, and the number of people forcibly displaced, at 60 million, is at a record high.1 Natural disasters
affect an average of 175 million people each year, and the frequency and intensity of climate-related
disasters is growing.2 Altogether an estimated 125 million people require humanitarian assistance this
year – 12 times higher than 15 years ago.3 And while international humanitarian assistance is at an alltime high, so is the gap between humanitarian needs and available resources, and the funding gap is
expected to grow.
Children are bearing the brunt of this global challenge. Nearly 250 million children live in regions
affected by conflict,4 over 100 million children and young people are affected by disasters each year, 5
and children account for more than half the world’s refugee population.6 With the average duration of
displacement now estimated at 17 years, many children are living their entire childhoods as refugees,
asylum seekers or internally displaced persons. 7
Children in humanitarian crises and situations of protracted displacement are denied many of their basic
rights, including the right to survive, the right to protection from violence, exploitation and abuse, the
right to healthcare and education, and the right to be heard. The immediate and long-term
consequences, for children as well as their communities, can be devastating.
The World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle these
challenges and offer a vision for a future in which the rights and needs of all humanity, including children,
UN OCHA, ‘Global Humanitarian Overview’ (2016) 3.
Centre for the Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, ‘the Human Cost of Natural Disasters: A Global Perspective’
(2015) 10, 13.
3
UN OCHA, ‘Global Humanitarian Overview’ (2016) 3; High Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing, ‘Too Important to Fail –
Addressing the Humanitarian Financing Gap’ (January 2016) v.
4
UNICEF, ‘Humanitarian Action for Children 2016: Overview’ (2016) 3.
5
UNISDR, ‘UNISDR says the young are the largest group affected by disasters’ (Press Release, 13 October 2011, Geneva,
available at: <http://www.unisdr.org/archive/22742>).
6
UNHCR, ‘World at War: Global Trends 2014’ (2015) 3
7
One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, UN Doc A/70/709
(2016) 20.
1
2
1
are respected, protected, and upheld. Commitments made at the WHS will be critical to make good on
the promise to Leave No One Behind, as envisaged by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
This brief describes eight humanitarian policy challenges that Save the Children hopes to see
addressed at the WHS:

First, and as our top priority, we see the WHS as an opportunity to secure a better situation for
forcibly displaced children. Specifically, we hope to see strong commitments towards: upholding
existing rules and standards; guaranteeing an education for every displaced child; ensuring
protection for forcibly displaced children; and responding to protracted displacement, including by
providing social protection.

Second, we describe seven other humanitarian policy challenges we believe to be critical to secure
a better situation for all children in all types of humanitarian crises: child protection; education; child
participation; social inclusion; localisation; cash transfers and social protection; and humanitarian
financing.
For each of these policy challenges, we outline the commitments that we will make at the WHS (with
the exception of our commitments on forced displacement and humanitarian financing, which are still
being finalised) followed by recommendations for stakeholders attending the Summit. This brief is
supplementary to Save the Children’s A New Deal for Every Displaced Child, which describes in more
detail our policy and recommendations on forcibly displaced children.
2
1.
A NEW DEAL FOR EVERY DISPLACED CHILD
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls upon stakeholders to leave no one behind,
including by sharing responsibility for addressing large-scale movements of refugees and ensuring
adequate support to host countries and communities.8 The High-Level Leaders’ Roundtable on Forced
Displacement will seek concrete commitments in these areas, and specifically, will seek commitments
that: meet the immediate humanitarian needs of displaced populations; and reduce the long-term
vulnerability of refugees, internally displaced persons, and host communities and strengthen their selfreliance.9
Addressing forced displacement will be a central theme at the WHS and in subsequent high-level events
throughout the year.10 The prospectus paper for the high-level leaders roundtable on displacement
recognises that ‘forced displacement is neither a short-term challenge nor primarily a humanitarian one’,
but a ‘persistent and complex political and development challenge.’11 But it is also a resolvable
challenge, and its persistence represents a systemic failure. The WHS provides a critical opportunity to
end this failure and inspire bold commitments towards realising the rights of every forcibly displaced
child.
The challenge of displacement is more visible than at any time in most of our lives, but it is not new.
While the crisis in Europe is grabbing headlines, the stories of most of the world’s displaced children,
including in Myanmar, Nigeria, South Sudan, Chad and Yemen, are not being told. Many countries
have hosted large populations for years, long before Europe and the US were significantly impacted by
refugee flows. Today just four countries host more than half the world’s internally displaced people, and
seven countries host most of the world’s refugees.12 The ‘burden’ of hosting displaced populations is
unevenly spread and most countries are doing far too little to share the responsibility.
Save the Children’s policy and recommendations on forcibly displaced children are contained in our
brief A New Deal for Every Displaced Child. Although we recognise that displacement takes many forms
– being driven by conflict, persecution, disaster, environmental degradation, poverty or any combination
thereof – we focus primarily on measures that can be taken on behalf of children who have been forcibly
displaced by violence. A summary of our recommendations is provided below.
8
Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, viii.
WHS Secretariat, ‘Leaving no one Behind: A Commitment to Address Forced Displacement. High-Level Leaders’ Roundtable’
(March 2016) 3.
10
Including the High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly in September 2016 on large-scale refugee and migratory
movements.
11
WHS Secretariat, ‘Leaving no one Behind’, above n 9, 2.
12
N Crawford, J Cosgrave, S Haysom, and N Walicki, ‘Protracted Displacement: Uncertain Paths to Self-Reliance in Exile’
(Humanitarian Policy Group, September 2015) iii. Syria, Colombia, Iraq, and Sudan host more than half the world’s internally
displaced people, while Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Palestine and Jordan host most of the world’s refugees.
9
3
4
2.
CHILD PROTECTION IN EMERGENCIES
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders attending the WHS to respect
and protect civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of hostilities, including by upholding the ‘cardinal
rules’ of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack and refraining from using explosive
weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas. It calls upon stakeholders to ensure full access to
and protection of the humanitarian and medical mission, speak out on violations, take concrete steps
to improve compliance and accountability, and launch a global campaign affirming the norms that
safeguard humanity.13
Humanitarian emergencies exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities and risks. In crisis situations, children
are vulnerable to being separated from their families, neglected, physically or sexually abused, killed or
injured, trafficked or economically exploited. Children who are on the move are particularly vulnerable,
including to the risk of being abused, exploited, denied access to education or sent into hazardous
labour. Children in conflict situations suffer grave violations, including attacks on schools and hospitals,
recruitment or use by armed forces and groups, killing and maiming, rape and other forms of sexual
violence, abduction, and denial of access to humanitarian assistance. Hundreds of thousands of
children are associated with armed forces or armed groups, others are used as suicide bombers and
human shields, and rape and sexual violence – including against children – is used as a weapon of war.
One of the greatest killers of children in armed conflict is the use of explosive weapons in populated
areas.14 More than 90 percent of those killed by this practice are civilians – in Yemen alone, in 2015
more than 6,000 civilians were killed or injured by explosive weapons.15 In areas where the age of
casualties has been reported, children have accounted for 15 percent of casualties. 16 The practice not
only kills children, but results in their being denied access to healthcare, education and life-saving
humanitarian aid, or displaced from their homes, and often causes serious psychological harm. Save
the Children welcomes the Secretary General’s call for an end to the use of explosive weapons in
populated areas, and calls upon all stakeholders to work towards the development of a political
declaration on this issue.
In all types of emergencies, children consistently prioritize their safety, security and protection. In Save
the Children’s consultations with children around the world, children have expressed a fear of violence,
abuse, and being displaced or becoming refugees. Children have described insecurity inside the home
(including sexual violence and abuse from parents and relatives), outside the home (including
abduction, recruitment and use by fighting forces, arrest and detention and sexual violence) and in
shelters (including night raids, cramped living conditions and lack of privacy, and sexual harassment
and violence). Children who are orphaned or separated from their caregivers have spoken of their
heightened vulnerability due to having no adult to rely on. 17
States are responsible for protecting and upholding children’s rights, including the right to be protected
from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect; but in many situations States are either unable or
unwilling to do so. The laws that have been developed over years to protect civilians in times of war are
flouted with devastating consequences, and efforts by the international community to demand
compliance and accountability have been grossly inadequate. The WHS presents a timely opportunity
for States to reaffirm their commitment to upholding the ‘norms that safeguard humanity,’ including in
particular the rules aimed at ensuring that civilians, including children, are protected and can access
humanitarian assistance.18
13
See Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, iv-vii.
The devastating impact of this practice has been detailed in successive reports of the UN Secretary General: see Report of
the Secretary General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 2/2009/277 (2009) 8; Report of the Secretary General on
the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, S/2015/453 (2015) 11.
15
Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, 13; Iain Overton, ‘At least 6,100 civilians
reported harmed by explosive weapons in Yemen in 2015’ (Action on Armed Violence, online, 25 February 2015,
<https://aoav.org.uk/2016/14618/>).
16
Action on Armed Violence, ‘An Explosive Situation: Monitoring Explosive Violence in 2012’ (2013) 3.
17
See I Risso-Gill and L Finnegan, ‘Children’s Ebola Recovery Assessment: Sierra Leone’ (Save the Children et al, 2015), 1820, 27; Plan International et al, ‘After the Earthquake: Nepal’s Children Speak out: Nepal Children’s Earthquake Recovery
Consultation’ (2015) 29-31, 39-40; Save the Children, ‘Childhood Under Siege: Living and Dying in Besieged Areas of Syria’
(March 2016); N Martlew, ‘Childhood Under Fire: The Impact of Two Years of Conflict in Syria’ (Save the Children, 2013).
18
As described in the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and the Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (1977).
14
5
Where States are unable or unwilling to protect children, the international community has a critical role
to play in ensuring that humanitarian action plays a protective role. As described in the Minimum
Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, this means ensuring that humanitarian action
does not expose children to danger or abuse, promotes children’s access to assistance, protects
children from violence, assists children to claim their rights, and strengthens existing child protection
systems and children’s resilience.19
All of this requires funding. Yet while interventions to prevent and respond to violence against children
are identified by children, parents and caregivers as top priorities in humanitarian crises, they attract
low levels of funding from national governments and international donors. The scarcity of funding
available for child protection is partly attributable to the fact that such interventions are often accorded
low priority both by humanitarian responders and local actors. Data on funding for child protection is
hard to obtain due to the fact that such funding is not separately accounted for, however research in
2009 found that child protection received less than one percent of global humanitarian assistance –
making it one of the least funded sectors in humanitarian response. 20
The above discussion focuses on children in situations of conflict, disaster and displacement, but in fact
violence against children is not so limited. Every five minutes, somewhere in the world, a child is killed
by violence.21 While children in fragile and conflict-affected states are particularly at risk, levels of
violence against children are too high everywhere, and no country provides children with the protection
they need.22 To galvanize support for tackling violence against children both inside and outside
crisis situations, Save the Children calls upon stakeholders attending the WHS to join and
pledge support for the Global Partnership and Associated Fund to End Violence against
Children. This initiative aims to support governments, international organisations, civil society, the
private sector and other stakeholders to accelerate the implementation of SDG 16.2: to end abuse,
exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. It will also support the
attainment of other related SDG targets, including the elimination of early marriage and the worst forms
of child labour, and the establishment of non-violent learning environments.23
The Global Partnership will support efforts to protect childhood and make societies safer for children
wherever they are, whether in situations of conflict or disaster or in high-income countries. It will be
accompanied by a funding mechanism focused specifically on preventing violence against children in
fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Save the Children believes that with appropriate support, the
Partnership will be a transformational tool in strengthening the efforts of national and international actors
to better protect children in crisis situations from the myriad forms of violence they face, and in ensuring
that humanitarian action plays a stronger role in upholding children’s rights to protection from violence,
exploitation, abuse and neglect.
Child Protection Working Group, Global Protection Cluster, ‘Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action’
(2015).
20
Child Protection Working Group, Global Protection Cluster, ‘Too Little, Too Late: Child Protection Funding in Emergencies’
(2011) 17.
21
UNICEF UK, ‘Children in Danger: Act to End Violence Against Children’ (2015) 4.
22
Ibid 10.
23
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/Res/70/1 (2015).
19
6
7
3.
EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders to eliminate gaps in education
for children, adolescents and youth, including by: committing to ensure safe, quality and inclusive
access to primary and secondary education and vocational opportunities in and after crises; and
providing sufficient domestic and international funding to enable all children and adolescents to receive
education and vocational training opportunities, including in crisis settings. It also calls upon
stakeholders to stop the military use and targeting of schools.
Children have a right to education, wherever they are. 24 Yet in humanitarian crises, children’s access
to education, as well as the quality and safety of their education, invariably suffers. In both conflict and
disasters, millions of children suffer disrupted education when their schools are damaged or destroyed,
they are forced to flee their homes, their schools are used as accommodation for the displaced, their
teachers are killed or injured, or roads are blocked. Even where children do have access to education
in humanitarian contexts, they often face serious barriers to their learning due to low capacity and poorly
resourced national education systems. Classrooms are often overcrowded and under-resourced, the
curriculum and language of instruction may be unfamiliar – particularly for displaced children, and
teachers are often inexperienced, under-qualified and stressed. Around the world, in 2015 a staggering
80 million children had their education directly affected by emergencies and protracted crises. 25
Children in conflict-affected countries suffer particular challenges. They are more than twice as likely to
be out of school as children in countries not affected by conflict; and if they are in school, are almost a
quarter less likely to complete primary school. 26 Girls in conflict-affected countries are almost two and
a half times more likely to be out of school and 90 percent more likely to be out of secondary school
than girls living in countries not affected by conflict. 27 Many children in conflict-affected countries are
prevented from accessing education because they are afraid to go to school, because students or
teachers are attacked, or because their schools are used by armed forces or armed groups – a practice
that can deprive schools of their protected status under international law, rendering them vulnerable to
attack.
Temporary disruptions to education can have long-term impacts on school attendance. Many children
who are displaced, or whose schools are damaged or destroyed during a crisis, or who are pulled out
of school to support their families, never return. In the Philippines, in an assessment conducted one
year after Typhoon Washi in 2011, five percent of families in one affected city said their children had
permanently dropped out of school.28 Similarly in Sierra Leone following the 2014-2015 Ebola crisis,
many children said they were unlikely ever to return to school. One girl said ‘many girls think that schools
will no longer re-open and Ebola will never end so that is why they have started building their own
families.’29
In both conflict and disaster, including education as a key component of humanitarian response
mitigates risks to children’s safety and wellbeing, supports children’s recovery and minimises long-term
negative impacts on children’s development. When children have safe spaces to learn and play they
are less vulnerable to the protection risks that go hand-in-hand with instability, including violence, sexual
exploitation, early marriage, recruitment into armed groups and child labour. Schools can also provide
children with the space they need to access psychological support, regain a sense of normalcy and
heal from trauma. Supporting education in emergencies can also promote the effectiveness of other
humanitarian interventions, because schools can be used to coordinate and deliver other essential
services such as child protection, healthcare, food, water and sanitation.
The link between children’s education and their development is definitively established, particularly for
girls. A girl who completes primary school will typically be older when she has her first child, have fewer
children, be less likely to contract HIV and more likely to survive childbirth than her peers who drop
24
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), art 28.
Overseas Development Institute, ‘Education Crisis Platform Proposal’ (March 2016) 3.
26
UNESCO, Education for All Global Monitoring Report, ‘Humanitarian Aid for Education: Why it Matters’ (Policy Paper 21,
June 2015) 2.
27
Ibid 3.
28
J Ginnetti et al, ‘Disaster-Induced Displacement in the Philippines: The Case of Tropical Storm Washi/Sendong’ (Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre, January 2013) 15.
29
Risso-Gill and Finnegan, above n 16, 11.
25
8
out.30 Her children will be more likely to survive, and she will likely earn more: a single year of primary
school increases women’s wages by 10-20 percent.31
Ensuring that children have continued access to education during crises is an investment in national
prosperity and stability. The longer children receive a high-quality education, the less likely they are to
live in poverty and the more likely they are to contribute positively to their countries’ economies.32
Countries with higher levels of education also have a lower risk of armed conflict.33
Children prioritise education in times of crisis. A compilation of 16 studies, capturing the views of almost
9,000 children across 17 different emergencies, found that when children were asked what they
prioritized in times of crisis, 99 percent included education amongst their top five needs.34 Children tell
us education is the key to their futures, their protection, their happiness and their health, and that it
cannot be delayed.
The Millennium Development Goals set a target of having all primary-school aged children in school by
2015. The international community failed to meet this target. A decade on, in a first-of-its-kind resolution
on the right to education in emergencies, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed that everyone should
enjoy the right to education, and urged Member States to ensure access to education in emergency
situations for all affected populations. 35 Almost six years later, despite a wealth of evidence on the
importance of education in emergencies, education remains among the most underfunded sectors in
humanitarian response. As a proportion of total humanitarian aid, funding for education decreased by
28 percent between 2010 and 2014, and now comprises – on average – just two percent of humanitarian
aid.36 Development aid does not make up the shortfall, as countries in protracted crisis receive
significantly less development aid for education than countries not in protracted crisis.37 The funding
shortfall is exacerbated by the persistent distinction between humanitarian and development
assistance, which impedes long-term planning for education in humanitarian crises.
SDG 4 aspires to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all’.38 This will not be achieved without more and better funding, and – in line with the
Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies39 – a greater focus on learning and equity in the
provision of education. It is time that the UN members walk the talk by drastically increasing funding for
education in emergencies and ensure that the funding reaches the children who need it the most. We
must not fail again.
Save the Children thus welcomes the proposed establishment of the Education Crisis Platform, which
aims to create a global alliance on behalf of children and young people whose education is disrupted
during emergencies and protracted crises. The platform aims to: inspire political commitment, generate
and disburse new and faster funding, strengthen planning for and implementation of education in
humanitarian crises, increase national and international capacities in the education sector, and improve
accountability for the provision of education to crisis-affected populations.
Save the Children also welcomes the recent developments towards improving school safety. These
include, in particular, the Comprehensive School Safety Framework (2012), which provides a set of
policies and practices to assist education authorities, school communities and disaster management
authorities to protect schools from natural hazards,40 and the Worldwide Initiative for School Safety
(2015), a global campaign aimed at supporting governments in high-risk countries to create safer
schools in line with the Comprehensive School Safety Framework. In the area of armed conflict, key
developments include the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during
World Bank, ‘World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation’ (2007) 147 (age at first child);
UNESCO, ‘Education Transforms Lives’ (2013) (fertility and likelihood of surviving childbirth); UNESCO, ‘Education Counts’
(2010) (HIV).
31
UNESCO, ‘Education Transforms Lives’ (2013) (child survival); G Psacharopoulos and H Patrinos, ‘Returns to Investment in
Education: A Further Update,’ 12(2) Education Economics (2004) 111 (earning potential).
32
See UNESCO, ‘Education Transforms Lives’ (2013).
33
G Ostby and H Urdal, ‘Education and Conflict: What the Evidence Says’ (Centre for the Study of Civil War, 2011).
34
Save the Children, 'What do Children Want in Times of Crisis? They Want an Education' (2015) 1.
35
The Right to Education in Emergency Situations, UN Doc A/64/L.58 (2010).
36
Save the Children, ‘More and Better: Global Action to Improve Funding, Support and Collaboration for Education in
Emergencies’ (2015).
37
UNESCO, Education for All Global Monitoring Report, above n 26, 5.
38
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, above n 23.
39
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, ‘Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and
Early Reconstruction’ (2004).
40
UNISDR and the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GADRRES),
‘Comprehensive School Safety’ (2012).
30
9
Armed Conflict (2014) and the Safe Schools Declaration (2015) – the latter being an instrument through
which States can endorse and commit to the implementation of the Guidelines.41
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, ‘Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use
during Armed Conflict’ (2014) and Safe Schools Declaration (2015), available at: <http://www.protectingeducation.org/>.
41
10
4.
CHILD PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders attending the WHS to empower
and promote the participation and leadership of young people in humanitarian and development
programs and processes, specifically in conflict prevention and resolution, in the response to crises and
in the recovery of communities, and to enable people to be the central drivers in building their resilience
and be accountable to them, including through ensuring consistent community engagement and
involvement in decision-making.
The particular risks that children face in crisis situations – death, injury or illness, separation from
families, exploitation, abuse or neglect, disrupted education, child labour, trafficking and psychological
trauma, among others – are detailed in the preceding sections of this brief. If humanitarian action is
really to leave no one behind it must recognise and address these particular risks, and in any given
context, give a voice to children to determine how this should be done.
Children can and already do play an important role in their own protection and in their communities’
preparedness and response to crises. Moreover, experience shows that children who are empowered
to participate in humanitarian response and risk mitigation activities often also contribute to long-term
development in ongoing situations of fragility. A recent evaluation of child-led peacebuilding programs
in Nepal, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, for example, found that children and youth
who participated in peacebuilding initiatives became more ‘aware and active citizens for peace’, and
contributed to reduced discrimination and violence and increased support for vulnerable groups. 42
Children’s rights to be heard and to participate in decisions that affect them are enshrined in
international law and humanitarian standards,43 and practical ways for engaging children are described
in the Guidelines for Children’s Participation in Humanitarian Programming. 44 SDG 16 aims to ensure
‘responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.’45 But efforts to
consult with children in humanitarian contexts remain sporadic, and child participation is far from being
a standard component of the way in which either national or international actors understand and
respond to humanitarian crises. A 2014 review of lessons learned from emergency responses in conflict
situations found that children are still routinely seen as passive recipients of aid designed and provided
by others. This undermines the capacity of humanitarian action to effectively meet the needs and
strengthen the resilience of the most vulnerable and marginalized children.46
More positively, recent and developing practice regarding children’s engagement in humanitarian action
highlights the possibilities for consulting with children in both the midst of conflict, and the immediate
aftermath of rapid-onset disaster. In January 2016, Save the Children conducted focus group
discussions with more than 100 children and their parents living in besieged areas of Syria, so as to
better understand the impact of the sieges on children’s lives, and to enable a more informed response
to children’s needs. Save the Children has also coordinated with other child-focused organisations to
conduct children’s consultations following Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines (2012), the Ebola outbreak
in Sierra Leone (2014) and the Nepal earthquake (2015) – cumulatively consulting with more than 3000
children about their experiences of crisis, their priorities for recovery and aspirations for the future. The
consultations following Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines inspired the development of a ‘Children’s
Emergency Relief and Protection Bill’ – one of the first Children in Emergencies Laws in the world, and
a standout example of what can be achieved by government and non-government actors working
together, guided by input provided by children, to make humanitarian action more sensitive to the
vulnerabilities, needs and risks faced by children in humanitarian crises.
M McGill and C O’Kane, ‘Evaluation of Child and Youth Participation in Peacebuilding’ (Global Partnership for Children and
Youth in Peacebuilding, July 2015).
43
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) provides that children have the right to express their views freely in all
matters affecting them and that those views will be given due weight: art 12(1). The Core Humanitarian Standard provides that
‘communities and people affected by crisis know their rights and entitlements, have access to information and participate in
decisions that affected them’ (Groupe URD et al, ‘Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability’ (2014)), while the
IASC Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations commit to ‘enable affected populations to play an active role in
the decision-making processes that affect them through the establishment of clear guidelines and practices to engage them
appropriately and ensure that the most marginalised and affected are represented and have influence’ (IASC, ‘Accountability to
Affected Populations: IASC Commitments’ (2011)).
44
Save the Children, ‘Guidelines for Children’s Participation in Humanitarian Programming’ (2013).
45
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, above n 23, target 16.7.
46
WHS Advisory Group on Children, ‘Putting Children at the Heart of the World Humanitarian Summit’ (2015).
42
11
12
5.
SOCIAL INCLUSION
The Report of the Secretary General for the WHS notes that honouring our commitment to leave no
one behind – the central theme of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – requires reaching
everyone in situations of conflict, disaster, vulnerability and risk. It describes the WHS as the ‘first test
of the international’s community commitment to transforming the lives of those most at risk of being left
behind.’ The Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders to, among other things: collect, analyse,
aggregate and share sex- and age- disaggregated data; make data and analysis the basis and driver
for determining a common understanding of context, needs and capacities; and formulate collective
outcomes prioritised on the areas of greatest risk and vulnerability.
Globally, vulnerable groups – those who are marginalised due to gender, age, disability, religion,
ethnicity, caste, or other – are disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises. They have fewer and
more fragile livelihood options, less access to social and economic resources, less ability to influence
the relief effort, are more exposed to protection risks and face more barriers accessing assistance –
often without the political voice that would enable them to advocate for those barriers to be addressed.
Unless these groups are specifically targeted during humanitarian action, there is a risk that
vulnerabilities will be exacerbated and social disadvantage further entrenched, resulting in these groups
being left even further behind.
The WHS consultation process recognised that many vulnerable groups do not find humanitarian
assistance adequate or appropriate.47 Too often these groups are excluded from national and local
decision-making bodies and poorly represented in humanitarian clusters; humanitarian responders lack
contextual understanding and thus fail to take account of the diverse needs of different groups;
humanitarian action proceeds in the absence of needs assessments and vulnerability analyses; sexand age- disaggregated data is not collected; and mechanisms to promote community participation and
feedback, if they exist, are inaccessible to vulnerable and marginalised groups.
Recent years have seen a proliferation of humanitarian standards, guidelines and toolkits providing
importance guidance towards improving the impartiality and inclusivity of humanitarian action. These
include the Core Humanitarian Standard, the Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian
Action, the Minimum Inter-Agency Standards for Protection Mainstreaming, and numerous resources
produced by NGOs, donors and clusters. But the effort to promote more inclusive and impartial
humanitarian action is not yet system-wide; and moreover, experience shows that translating
international commitments into a more effective response to the needs of the most vulnerable groups
in crisis situations remains enormously challenging.
If the WHS is indeed to reach everyone in situations of conflict, disaster, vulnerability and risk, it must
involve commitments from all stakeholders aimed at ensuring that humanitarian action identifies and
targets the needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups. This does not mean we need a plethora of
different measures for different vulnerable groups – in fact, a segmented approach will likely result in
particular groups being overlooked. Rather, commitments must strive to create a humanitarian system
that is equipped to assess and respond to vulnerability in all its forms, and that redresses rather than
exacerbates existing inequalities.
47
WHS Secretariat, ‘Restoring Humanity: Synthesis of the Consultation Process for the WHS’ (October 2015) 6.
13
14
6.
LOCALIZATION
The Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders to reinforce national and local
systems. Specifically, it calls upon stakeholders to: build on local coping strategies and capacities in
preparedness, response and recovery, and reduce reliance on international assistance; support and
enable national and local leadership and their preparedness and response capacities; tailor
international support based on an assessment of complementarity with national and local efforts; and
shift leadership from international actors to local actors. It calls upon stakeholders to increase financing
to national and local actors, and to double the portion of humanitarian appeal funding channelled
through UN country-based pooled funds to local actors to 15 percent.
The WHS consultations included a clarion call for a re-orientation of the international humanitarian
system towards local and national leadership. The Summit preparatory documents recognised that ‘the
international humanitarian system has not sufficiently evolved to … reorient its work to supporting and
complementing national capacity,’48 and set out to explore ‘how the international community can better
support … national and local response efforts.’49 The Consultation Synthesis Report affirmed the call
for local and national responsibilities to be reinforced, with the international community ‘taking a support
role wherever possible.’50
Yet experience from recent crises shows that practice lies far behind the rhetoric. International actors
frequently deploy to crises with an inadequate understanding of the national context, including the legal
and institutional structures for disaster management. We are guided by international guidelines and
procedures that are based on an assumption that international systems will be used, with international
actors in the lead; and we bring in international humanitarian tools and services that are tried and tested
around the world but rarely described in national policies or rehearsed in national planning processes.
An NGO review of last year’s response to Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, for example, found that despite an
existing legislative and institutional framework for disaster management, ‘as an international community
we struggled to step back and not have things done our way.’ 51 A ‘Lessons Learned’ report issued by
the Government of Vanuatu noted similarly that ‘UN coordination and funding mechanisms need to be
adapted to Vanuatu’s operational context and should support Government-led coordination efforts.’52
Evaluations also repeatedly affirm that despite our commitment to support national and local actors,
they are under-represented in our humanitarian coordination structures. 53 Very often in humanitarian
contexts, there is an existing and active civil society that represents the interests of citizens,
understands local realities and has the potential to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian
interventions – yet these existing capacities are rarely assessed by incoming humanitarian responders.
This not only represents a lost opportunity to build the capacity of those who can strengthen resilience
over the long term, but is often a lost opportunity to access the hardest to reach communities. An
evaluation of the role played by local actors in the Syria response, for example, found that there were
600-700 local actors ‘playing a vital role in responding to needs that would [otherwise] only be met
inadequately or not at all,’54 yet that these actors had not been incorporated into humanitarian
coordination mechanisms, nor adequately targeted with capacity building – including, critically, training
on how to engage with the international humanitarian architecture. 55
If the WHS is to fulfil its objective of re-orienting the international humanitarian system towards a more
localised system led by national and local actors, it will need to lay out a plan for shifting away from
‘one-size-fits-all’ systems and procedures, towards systems and procedures that envisage a supportive,
advisory and subsidiary role for the international community. This will require international humanitarian
tools and services to be redesigned to fit within different national legal and institutional structures, and
it will require a re-thinking of how key components of humanitarian action – such as assessments,
coordination and financing – should be managed.
UN OCHA, ‘Initial Scoping Paper – WHS Theme 1: Humanitarian Effectiveness’ (2014) 2.
Ibid.
50
WHS Secretariat, Synthesis Report, above n 49, 90.
51
R Barber, ‘One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Tailoring the International Response to the National Need Following Vanuatu’s Cyclone
Pam’ (Save the Children, June 2015) 23.
52
Government of Vanuatu, National Disaster Management Office, ‘Tropical Cyclone Pam – Lessons Learned Workshop Report’
(2015) 6.
53
See V Humphries, ‘Humanitarian Coordination: Common Challenges and Lessons Learned from the Cluster Approach’,
Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 30 April 2013.
54
E Svoboda and S Pantuliano, ‘International and Local/Diaspora Actors in the Syria Response: A Diverging Set of Systems’
(Humanitarian Policy Group, March 2015) 3.
55
Ibid 16.
48
49
15
Such a shift will need to be accompanied by increased capacity building for national and local actors,
including through the continuation and expansion of initiatives such as the Humanitarian Leadership
Academy.56 Capacity building efforts must include support for national governments to prepare for and
manage international assistance, including support to ensure their national laws, plans and policies
describe the international tools and services that may be utilised in the event of a disaster. It should
also include support for existing national institutions and mechanisms essential for protecting children’s
rights in humanitarian crises, such as children’s ombudspersons or inter-ministerial coordination
mechanisms focusing on children’s rights. Responsibility for capacity building is one that must be
shared by both development and humanitarian actors.
Finally, such a shift must be accompanied by increased financial support for national and local actors.
This will require commitments from international donors and NGOs – both development and
humanitarian – regarding the proportion of funds directed to national and local actors, and an
examination of the barriers these actors face in accessing pooled financing mechanisms.
The above discussion focuses primarily on contexts in which national governments wish to provide
assistance to disaster-affected populations, but have limited capacity to do so. It does not discount the
existence of contexts in which governments restrict humanitarian assistance despite overwhelming
humanitarian need, or where a government is a party to the conflict that has given rise to the
humanitarian need in the first place. Nor does it discount the importance of the humanitarian imperative
to address human suffering wherever it is found; nor the importance of striving for an impartial
humanitarian response. In our commitment to localisation, and in our capacity building for national and
local actors, we will strive to reinforce local and national leadership while at the same time upholding
and promoting humanitarian principles and striving to ensure that the most vulnerable, particularly
children, are not left behind.
56
The Humanitarian Leadership Academy (http://www.humanitarianleadershipacademy.org/) is a global learning initiative
aimed at building people’s capacities to prepare for and respond to crises in their own countries. It aims to train humanitarian
leaders and responders, spread best practice and knowledge, and promote excellence in the humanitarian sector. It targets
‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ actors, including communities, national and sub-national governments, and the private sector.
16
17
7. CASH TRANSFERS AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders to reinforce national and local
systems, including by: using cash-based programming as the preferred and default method of support;
enhancing national social protection systems that ensure equitable access to social services, and safety
nets that are not vulnerable to market shocks; and putting in place national safety nets with a specific
focus on protecting and respecting the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. 57
The WHS consultations recognised the mutually reinforcing nature of poverty, vulnerability and crisis –
specifically, that poverty ‘makes people more vulnerable in the event of conflict or disaster caused by
natural hazards, while these shocks and sustained crises deepen their poverty, rendering them further
at risk.’58 In times of conflict and disaster, poor families often have minimal assets, savings or livelihood
options to fall back on. As such they are the first to resort to harmful coping strategies: reducing food
intake, selling productive assets, taking children out of school, going into debt, or accepting hazardous
working conditions. They are also at the greatest risk of family separation, leaving children particularly
vulnerable.
In humanitarian contexts, cash transfers can minimise the need for resort to harmful coping strategies
by supporting poor families to maintain livelihoods, incomes and assets. The recent report of the High
Level Panel on Cash Transfers noted that cash transfers were ‘among the most well-researched and
rigorously evaluated humanitarian tools of the last decade.’59 Research affirms that humanitarian cash
transfers: can be provided safely, efficiently and accountably; are usually spent sensibly; are preferred
by both men and women; support livelihoods; and enable limited resources to go further.60 The High
Level Panel recommended that humanitarian agencies should always ask ‘why not cash?’, and ‘if not
now, when?’61 Save the Children supports this analysis and urges stakeholders to seize the opportunity
of the WHS to commit to significantly scaling up the use of cash transfers in humanitarian contexts
whenever they are the most effective intervention.
Save the Children also sees the WHS as a critical opportunity to galvanise support for the scaling up of
social protection programs in humanitarian contexts. Social protection not only protects vulnerable
households from income loss in times of crisis, but in more profitable times, can build resilience by
empowering vulnerable households to invest in riskier but more profitable activity. If humanitarian cash
transfers are accompanied by appropriate capacity building for national and local actors, there is
significant but under-utilised potential for them to be integrated with or developed into national social
protection programs – thus building resilience over the long term. Where nnational social protection
programs already exist in humanitarian contexts, there is also under-utilised potential for them to be
used by humanitarian responders to increase the efficiency of humanitarian cash transfers.62
Social protection programs in humanitarian contexts can have enormous benefits for children, including
minimising immediate protection risks, and preventing families from resorting to harmful coping
strategies that have long-term, detrimental consequences for children’s development and well-being.
To fulfil their potential to protect children, however, social protection programs must be informed by an
analysis of children’s needs and vulnerabilities, must be equipped to respond early to the needs of
vulnerable children in both rapid- and slow-onset crises, and must be accompanied by a mechanism
for monitoring whether social protection payments are in fact meeting children’s needs.
Recent years have seen a significant scaling up of social protection programs. But coverage in many
regions is still low, and systems that do exist are often ill-equipped to respond to crises. Many programs
are also inaccessible to the most vulnerable groups, due to the difficulties these groups face accessing
information, engaging with bureaucratic processes and producing required documentation – yet it is
these groups who need social protection the most. The WHS provides an opportunity for humanitarian
and development actors to commit to supporting the development of social protection programs that
57
Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, ix-x.
WHS Secretariat, WHS Synthesis Report, above n 49, 125, quoting Global Humanitarian Assistance, ‘Global Humanitarian
Assistance Report 2015’ (2015).
59
Overseas Development Institute and Centre for Global Development, ‘Doing Cash Differently: How Cash Transfers Can
Transform Humanitarian Aid’ (September 2015) 8.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid 6.
62
As recently demonstrated in Ethiopia, Kenya, the Philippines and Nepal: Ibid 15; R Barber, ‘Did the Humanitarian Response
to the Nepal Earthquake Ensure No One was Left Behind?’ (Save the Children, March 2016).
58
18
are informed by improved risk analysis, incorporate or are linked to early warning systems, are
sufficiently flexible to respond to the particular needs identified in the lead up to, during or in the
aftermath of crisis, and are accessible to the most vulnerable groups.
19
8.
HUMANITARIAN FINANCING
The UN Secretary General’s Agenda for Humanity calls on stakeholders attending the WHS to: invest
according to risk, including by dedicating at least one percent of overseas development assistance to
disaster risk reduction and preparedness by 2020, and disbursing resources based on risk and on a
‘no-regrets’ basis; invest in stability, including by tripling the World Bank’s International Development
Assistance Crisis Response Window; shift from funding to financing, including by providing flexible,
nimble and predictable financing over multiple years; and diversify the resource base and increase costefficiency, including by providing 0.7 percent of GDP as official development assistance, subscribing to
the ‘grand bargain’ put forward by the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing, developing and
implementing a more transparent process for costing aid programs and improving transparency in
reporting disbursement and expenditures.
Projected global humanitarian needs in 2016, at US$20.1 billion, are the highest they have ever been. 63
Humanitarian funding provided in 2015 was also at a record high, but still insufficient to meet needs,
and the funding gap is growing year on year. 64 With crises becoming more protracted, human
displacement at an all-time high and growing, current major conflicts showing no sign of abating and an
inevitable increase in extreme weather events, the funding gap is expected to grow. It was recently
projected that based on current trends, by 2030 humanitarian assistance will cost US$50 billion
annually.65
To address this critical challenge, the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing has called for donors
and aid organisations to use the opportunity of the WHS to ‘work towards a collective roadmap for
stretching available money to reach more people in need.’ 66 It calls for a ‘Grand Bargain of Efficiency’
whereby donors agree to be more flexible, aid organisations agree to be more cost-conscious and
transparent, and donors and humanitarian agencies agree to work together to minimise bureaucracy,
reduce the ‘links in the humanitarian funding chain’ and provide a ‘clearer view of what value each layer
is adding along the way.’67
Save the Children is wworking with the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response to develop
commitments within the 10 work streams expected to be part of the Grand Bargain.68 Specifically, we
envisage making commitments relating to: increased transparency regarding the full costs of
humanitarian action; the use of cash transfers wherever appropriate; harmonised and streamlined
reporting requirements for partners; and investment in quality assurance to objectively demonstrate
adherence to humanitarian standards and good practices. Save the Children is strongly committed to
working with others to ensure that the Grand Bargain fulfils its potential to make the humanitarian
system work more efficiently and effectively for the millions of people whose lives are torn apart by
humanitarian crises and who so desperately require our assistance.
Regardless of what is encompassed by the Grand Bargain, Save the Children believes that there are
some enduring flaws in the humanitarian system that, in the context of the burgeoning funding gap,
result in unacceptable inefficiencies and must be prioritised as part of the WHS. First, despite a wealth
of evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of investing in preparedness rather than response,
investment in disaster risk reduction is grossly inadequate. Second, despite a similar wealth of evidence
on the cost effectiveness of responding in a timely manner to early warnings of slow-onset crises, we
continue to invest most of our resources only once crises have reached their peaks. Third, we utilise
short-term humanitarian funding streams to support populations in protracted crises, undermining
efficiency and encouraging long-term dependence on humanitarian aid. And fourth, we fail to
adequately account for the way in which humanitarian funds are spent, hampering efforts to identify
further cost savings. These issues are discussed below.
UN OCHA, ‘Global Humanitarian Overview 2016’ (2016) 12.
In 2004, the gap between funding requested and funding provided was just $1.2 billion; in 2015, it was $10.2 billion: Ibid 13;
2015 figures from UN OCHA, Financial Tracking Service, <https://fts.unocha.org/>.
65
UN OCHA, ‘Global Humanitarian Overview 2016’ (2016).
66
High Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing, above n 3, 24.
67
Ibid 17.
68
The ten work streams pursued within this framework include: greater transparency; mores support for front-line responders;
greater use of cash-based assistance; more multi-year funding; less earmarking; reduced management costs; joint needs
assessments; a ‘participation revolution’; harmonised reporting; and addressing the ‘humanitarian-development divide’.
63
64
20
Financing Disaster Risk Reduction
Time and again, children suffer devastating consequences as a result of predictable and preventable
disasters. This is due in part to the fact that disaster risk reduction and preparedness measures are not
adequately prioritised either by development or humanitarian actors – whether in rapid-onset, slowonset or protracted crises, or in situations of long-term fragility. The recent earthquake in Nepal attests
to the impact that inadequate investment in disaster risk reduction can have on children: more than
35,000 classrooms were damaged, leaving more than a million children without a safe place to learn.69
Had the earthquake occurred when children were in school, the consequences would likely have been
catastrophic, yet easily avoidable through safer school construction.
The occurrence and recurrence of preventable crises is a scandal. Development actors must be held
accountable for mitigating the impact of rapid and slow-onset natural hazards, as well as for addressing
the drivers of conflict; and both development and humanitarian actors must be held accountable for
developing common approaches to understanding, analysing and mitigating the risks of crises –
recognising that these become much more costly once they escalate into large-scale emergencies.70
Responding to early warnings of slow-onset food crises
Recent years have starkly highlighted the inadequacy of the international humanitarian system to build
community resilience to climatic shocks, and to respond with timely, preventative action to early
warnings of slow-onset food crises.
This was tragically highlighted by the 2011 food crisis in the Horn of Africa. It took a declaration of
famine in part of Somalia for the crisis to inspire significant funding commitments, almost a year after
early warnings first emerged and far too late for preventative action. In what was subsequently
acknowledged as a catastrophic failure of the humanitarian system, 71 some 258,000 people lost their
lives.72
The experience prompted a surge of new initiatives aimed at addressing global hunger crises, and
many donors amended their humanitarian policies to recognise the importance of a nimble response to
early warnings of slow-onset crises. With this behind us, the situation unfolding now in Ethiopia, where
more than 10 million people are reliant upon food aid in a crisis that has been slowly building with plenty
of warning since mid-last year, represents another devastating failure and highlights just how little
progress has really been made since the Horn of Africa crisis of 2011.
This critical flaw in the international humanitarian system is reflected in the Report of the Secretary
General. The report recognises that sophisticated early warning tools ‘have yet to translate into a
change in the way the international community operates’, and that ‘the failure to … act on risk and
analysis has led to numerous examples of governments and the international community moving too
slowly, resulting in devastating suffering and loss of life.’73
Early action saves money as well as lives. One study for the UK Department for International
Development estimated that early interventions to support pastoralist livelihoods over a 20-year period
of cyclical droughts in Kenya and Ethiopia could have saved more than $1,000 per beneficiary. 74
Modelling in the Somali National Regional State in Ethiopia suggests that the financial impact of
livestock mortality during a drought can be as much as $4.8m per day. 75 Research following the 2005
crisis in West Africa suggested that it would have cost a dollar a day per child to prevent malnutrition
prior to the crisis reaching its peak; but that instead it cost $80 per day per child to provide emergency
medical treatment. With the international humanitarian system under unprecedented financial strain, it
Nepal Education Cluster, ‘Nepal Earthquake Cluster Brief’ (June 2015).
Evidence suggests that $1 dollar invested in appropriate, evidence-based DRR can save between US$2 – US$80 in avoided
or reduced disaster response and recovery costs: see, for example C Venton, ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis for Community-Based
Climate and Disaster Risk Management’ (Tearfund and Oxfam America, 2010); I Kelman and CM Shreve (eds), ‘Disaster
Mitigation Saves’ (June 2013).
71
An evaluation by the UK’s Disasters Emergency Committee found that there was a ‘general failure of preventive action from
late 2010’, and a ‘collective failure to respond with adequate relief from the time it was needed in early to mid-2011’: Disasters
Evaluation Committee, 'DEC Real Time Evaluation - East Africa Crisis Appeal, Synthesis Report' (January 2012) 3.
72
F Checchi and W Robinson, ‘Mortality Among Populations of Southern and Central Somalia Affected by Severe Food
Insecurity and Famine during 2010-2012’ (FAO/FEWSNET, May 2013).
73
Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, 32-33.
74
R Bailey, ‘Famine Early Warning and Early Action: The Cost of Delay’ (Chatham House, July 2012) 6.
75
S Levine, A Crosskey and M Abdinoor, ‘System Failure? Revisiting the Problems of Timely Response in the Horn of Africa’
(Report No 71, Humanitarian Practice Network, November 2011).
69
70
21
is scandalous that we have not yet restructured the system so that development and humanitarian
actors work together to effectively build community resilience to predictable climatic shocks, and to
respond with timely, preventative action to early warnings of slow-onset food crises.
Financing protracted crises
The inappropriateness of relying on short-term humanitarian financing to support populations in
protracted crises has been well documented. Reliance on short-term humanitarian aid for these
populations undermines their resilience, denies them long-term development opportunities and
ultimately increases the likelihood of long-term dependence on humanitarian aid – at a time when the
international humanitarian system can least afford it. The WHS presents a critical and timely opportunity
for the international community to commit to addressing not just the immediate needs of populations
living in protracted crises, but the root causes of conflict and fragility, including by setting out new ways
of collaboration between development and humanitarian actors and ensuring an appropriate mix of
humanitarian and development funding streams.
Multi-year funding in protracted crises delivers a number of benefits: it increases predictability for
implementing agencies, allowing them to develop more strategic, holistic responses; it provides
partners with greater flexibility, allowing them to adapt to changes in context; it reduces the
administrative burden for donors and partners; it enables the development of more strategic
donor/partner relationships; and it allows partners to seek feedback from beneficiaries and adapt
programs based on feedback received. Save the Children welcomes the call by the Secretary General
for stakeholders to commit to providing financing that is ‘flexible, nimble and predictable over multiple
years’,76 and urges government representatives attending the Summit to make their own commitments
towards this objective.
Transparency and accountability
One of the key impediments to improving the humanitarian financing system is the lack of timely, reliable
data on where funds go. This is due to a number of factors: the fact that humanitarian financial tracking
systems often do not capture contributions by national governments, the private sector, individuals or
‘non-traditional’ donors; under-reporting by donors; the weak connections in reporting across different
funding streams (development, humanitarian, security and climate adaptation); and the fact that in the
case of funds channelled through multilateral institutions, there is little information available regarding
the distribution of funds beyond first-level recipient.
The availability of data is also critical to ensure accountability to affected populations. Without access
to information, affected populations are unable to scrutinise data, raise concerns, influence decisionmaking, and hold responsible actors to account. Thus, strengthened mechanisms to ensure that
information is readily available and accessible to crisis-affected populations – referred to by Global
Humanitarian Assistance in their WHS paper as a ‘revolutionary step-change’ in the availability of
information during an emergency77 – must be at the heart of any strategy designed to strengthen the
transparency and accountability of humanitarian response.
76
Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit, above n 7, xiv
C Lattimer, ‘The World Humanitarian Summit: Making Financing Work for Crisis-Affected People’ (Global Humanitarian
Assistance, July 2015) 3.
77
22
23