Few people inspire such affection and respect in the humanitarian and development world as Hans Rosling. The sadness that met his death earlier this month is testament to the way he challenged and shaped the way we think about global public health and much else. With his bubble charts and narrative flourish
“What gets measured, gets managed”, as the saying goes. But what to measure? Most organisations tend to focus on measuring outputs: things like the numbers of aid workers deployed,
The lights are dimming across the humanitarian space as more and more governments choose to ignore or disavow the humanitarian rules promulgated in more enlightened times.
There’s a lot of interest in scaling up quality and accountability across the humanitarian space. The double promise of better programming and greater accountability are powerful drivers.
The world is obsessed with tools. Bad workmen blame them and fools worship them. We are constantly revising old ones and looking for new ones to tackle the challenges we face.
A dialing down of the ‘participation revolution’ may be in the offing amid persistent concerns about the perceived dangers of being accountable to people hit by humanitarian crises in places that are politically and socially fragile.
More than 50,000 people remain stranded in refugee camps in Greece. Most are waiting to continue their journey further into Europe in search of better lives for their families.
When it comes to putting affected communities at the centre of humanitarian action, a challenge to any normative framework is ensuring compliance.
The International Rescue Committee is making a thorough job of looking at feedback and accountability mechanisms through its CVC program.
After Haiti’s earthquake in 2010, a story about IOM’s then novel idea of putting suggestion boxes in camps for displaced people made the front page of the New York Times,