Abstract:
Under a systematic desk study, the paper reviews how community engagement has developed during
the recent past and identifies reasons for which communication with communities has become
indispensable in humanitarian action. Beyond the conceptual problem that NGOs hold almost all the
power, major practical obstacles have been identified during the desk study. These obstacles can be
summed up: too often, international humanitarian agencies act independently, with a focus on supplying
a limited range of goods and services that they have already prepared; On the ground, operating
practices are dominated by a ‘contract culture’ of winning and delivering grants. This limits the voice
of affected people in decision-making. Statistics on community consultations for the World
Humanitarian Summit states that 3/4 Syrians in Jordan report never being asked whether they have
received the help which they needed. 1/2 conflict-affected Ukrainians have not received the assistance
they needed because they were not aware of its availability. 9/10 of Syrians in Jordan have received
assistance, but only 3/10 have found that assistance was helpful. Engaging with and being accountable
to people affected by disaster and crisis is not a new proposition. According to the findings, it is rather
stemmed in the participatory methods that emerged in the 1980s, and that were formalized as
engagement and participation through system-wide initiatives such as Sphere, the Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership (HAP), People in Aid, the Active Learning Network for Accountability and
Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and, most recently, the Core Humanitarian Standard
(CHS) on Quality and Accountability. The main finding of this ongoing desk study is that beyond oneway
information provision and consultation, meaningful engagement is achieved when humanitarians
ensure that public concerns are consistently understood, considered and addressed through ongoing
dialogue or two-way communication
