An unsuitable humanitarian strategy

Earlier this autumn, International Development Minister Tvinnereim wrote on humanitarian aid in Panorama. “As a donor, we want to alleviate as much distress as possible and save as many lives as possible.”

We fully support this goal. However, in Norway's new humanitarian strategy this seems to be forgotten. Indeed, the strategy lacks real guidance for its perhaps most important purpose: allocating scarce resources between humanitarian crises. That's a problem.

According to a supervisor from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the selection of recipients for Norwegian humanitarian aid shall be made with one goal: to help where the need is greatest. Furthermore, impartiality, risk and vulnerability should be taken into account.

Intuitively, it seems both fair and effective that Norwegian aid funds should be directed where the need is the greatest. But noble intentions notwithstanding, this simple approach stands up poorly in the face of reality; a world of scarcity of resources and many places of great need.

When hard choices have to be made, how do you prioritize?

What about the cost-benefit?

The goal of helping “where the need is greatest” is stripped of any kind of cost-benefit thinking, that is, the desire to get the most impact per penny, which otherwise dominates in matters of resource allocation. It does not allow for any other objectives, nor does it say anything about how they should possibly be weighted against each other.

If the crisis in which the need is greatest affects very few people, or it is impossible or extremely expensive to help, then we should still use everyone our resources there?

Few people think so. In principle, it may seem correct, but in practice it would be ineffective and inexpedient. In such a situation, should we not either help where the need is marginally less, but where one can help more, or more easily provide good help? We can do more for more people and do more good overall.

Take South Sudan as an example: Seven out of ten in the country is in need of humanitarian assistance, but in 2023 they received only half the help they needed, according to the United Nations. Scarce resources are forcing donors to make difficult choices about who to get help. Let us assume that it is much cheaper to help in western areas, but that the distress in the east is by far the greatest.

Here, most people will think that a cost-benefit approach is necessary, i.e. prioritizing so that the help does the biggest difference overall. That could potentially mean prioritising only those suffering in western areas, although as mentioned, the distress is greatest in the east.

Such an approach may seem cold and inhumane, depriving all hope for those suffering in the East. It's atrocious. But no matter what you do, not everyone can get help. This is due to the lack of resources, not the principle of distribution.

‍

Read more about the new humanitarian strategy: Continued strong commitment to aid in conflict, but who takes the risk?

What is fair?

In a debate with us on humanitarian aid in Morgenbladet this summer, the Red Cross has argued that we should contribute to the most difficult conflicts even when the aid is ineffective, in the interests of humanity.

It is a fine principle, just as Norway's humanitarian strategy includes the fine and globally recognised humanitarian principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. But neither does the Red Cross believe that one crisis should get everything. So how should we allocate resources, if not by efficiency?

In Morgenbladet Lars Christie suggests another principle for the distribution of humanitarian aid, namely justice. This he believes should be weighed against the principle of cost-effectiveness, which he recognises as obviously relevant. From the principle of fairness, it may be right to allocate some resources to everyone with some degree of need, so that arbitrary factors such as where one lives do not rob someone of all hope -- even when it reduces how many people get help overall.

This is an interesting proposition, and one of several possible additions to a pure cost-benefit assessment. The proposal also confirms our point: Norwegian aid cannot be governed by one slogan alone. “Where the need is greatest” does not provide real guidance for action and is not sufficient to allocate resources to more than one crisis.

In practice, however, Norwegian humanitarian aid is currently distributed to several different projects. But how is it decided? As Norad writes in another post in Morgenbladet, there is currently no coincidence between where the humanitarian needs in the world are greatest and where we provide the most humanitarian assistance.

Two crises, Ukraine and Palestine, receive a far greater share of aid than their share of the world's humanitarian needs would suggest. The principles the State Department has used for this distribution do not seem to be enshrined anywhere. This is a democratic problem. Perhaps they are not even explicitly defined. Thus, the distribution of billions of public dollars cannot be delayed, and we voters cannot know what the objectives are based on.

New organization, new strategy?

Although the humanitarian strategy of Norway is new, the guide for how the strategy will be practiced should be rewritten — and the timing is now good.

This summer, the Norad Directorate took over the management of Norwegian humanitarian aid from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Norad has gained a new department, including many new employees. These will regularly be faced with issues of allocation of resources, and deserve an explicit and real guiding strategy with associated objectives. How else are they going to prioritize and make the right choices?

A new supervisor should balance several goals for selecting recipients. Emphasizing principles of need, justice, humanity, or political goals does not stand in the way of also emphasizing effectiveness.

Even if we want to prioritize the most inaccessible in war and conflict, no matter the cost, efficiency principles dictate that one should not allocate disproportionate amounts to them—as we do today. Consideration of the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality, which the State Department emphasizes in its strategy, implies the same.

Climate change and refugee spending in own countries are making real aid budgets smaller, and budget priorities tougher. Norway is nowhere near being able to help anyone suffering distress. As Norad writes in his post, it makes it “more important than ever to have sound knowledge of what are the most effective measures and opportunity costs of our decisions”.

Humanitarian priorities are not a matter of efficiency versus humanity, because it doesn't have to be either-or. But real priorities require a more concrete and actionable strategy than the one we have today. Here the State Department needs to make another attempt.