Conclusion

Prioritisation is unavoidable for humanitarian donors and agencies. The challenge lies in doing it more ethically and effectively. In this paper, we offer a process that is prescriptive, while leaving flexibility for decision-makers to select the choices that are right for them. This process involves:

Scope-setting:

  • Define what it means to be affected by crisis and in need.
  • Define what, if anything, sets the boundaries around what constitutes a ‘humanitarian’ service or solution.

Prioritising:

  • Define your objectives and use these to identify the different success factors that will be weighed against one another.
  • Identify the criteria or a method for determining high-, medium- and low-priority populations, as well as high-, medium- and low-priority services.
  • Use a set of ranked principles to clearly establish which objective you will prioritise first (eg reaching high- and medium-priority populations over providing medium-priority services).

In both scope setting and prioritisation, it is essential that humanitarian decision-makers are guided by certain standards.

  • Transparency around the methods and choices made in scope setting and prioritisation, including clear response objectives and publication of the ranked principles used for priority setting.
  • Clear, specific entry points for integrating community and local actor feedback into scope setting and prioritisation decisions, with concrete examples. Humanitarian agencies should move beyond blanket statements saying they have ‘engaged communities’.
  • Strong inputs from local actors and communities, robust and high-quality data on outcomes, and continuous monitoring of response implementation to enable ethical and principled resource allocation. These functions are all under threat in an era of constrained resources and need deliberate, intentional support.
  • Real effort to coordinate and complement the work of others, including development actors, rather than lip service. This will ensure maximum effectiveness and best use of comparative advantage.

Download Conclusion documents