Rarely has there been a more testing time for humanitarian aid organisations.
Already beleaguered by relentless UK government attacks on Britain’s foreign aid provision, along comes a scandal that rocks it to the core.
In the furore over the revelations of sexual misconduct by Oxfam staff, the entire aid sector now seriously has to examine its shortcomings and failures. If any good is to come from this sordid saga then it must be solutions based.
It was on this note yesterday that Oxfam’s executive director Winnie Byanyima, laid out the measures the agency will now take to right wrongs and ensure they are not repeated.
Among the measures Ms Byanyima outlined is a doubling of the budget of its safeguarding team, setting up a global database of accredited referees to ensure sex offenders cannot reoffend at other charities, and improving the organisation’s “whistleblowing mechanism”.
All of this is welcome if somewhat overdue, but still only relates to Oxfam alone and not the wider humanitarian sector which today consists of myriad agencies employing many personnel across the globe.
Earlier this week some of the UK’s leading charities under the auspices of BOND the umbrella organisation for organisations working in the international aid sector, committed themselves to principles of zero tolerance of sexual exploitation. One of the measures BOND members committed to was that of exploring a system of passporting, registration or accreditation of humanitarian and development practitioners.
Under the leadership of UK agencies BOND aims to accelerate a reform process “in the hope” that “it may influence” the practice and standards of the wider global aid community. Again this is welcome news, but still remains limited to “exploring” a set of principles that may or may not be taken up or adhered to by the full international humanitarian community.
As the Oxfam scandal has revealed the time for simply kicking such ideas around has long since past and the need now must be to have them quickly drawn up and universally implemented. The aid sector has dragged its feet for far too long in doing this despite repeated appeals for such a structural overhaul from many within its own ranks.
While any solutions based approach must see these structural reforms as a priority, agencies must now also re-examine their core values. Providing assurances that good practice mechanisms are in place is one thing but repairing damage done to public perception of humanitarians’ role is something else.
This goes beyond just zero tolerance towards sexual exploitation, but involves a wider soul searching that enables aid agencies to reconnect with the public. This, the same public who time and again has shown its support and willingness to put its hands in its pockets whenever appeals for donations arise following famines, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.
Agencies need to more readily recognise this generosity and also make clear where money goes by explaining away the distinction between emergency relief and development efforts.
The sector must move away too from the distant, monolithic, corporate, self-serving identity it has fostered, to a position where it is once again truly in touch with those whose generosity it needs to operate.
UK government sniping over Britain’s foreign aid commitment has understandably led many humanitarians to feel besieged. But long before this onslaught there was a prevailing sense that the aid community had circled the wagons in defence against outside prying.
Morale draining as it is for many aid workers, if any good has come from the Oxfam scandal it is the opportunity to move the industry onto a better level of transparency. It’s a chance to improve engagement both with those who provide support and those that the agencies in turn assist across the world. To do this though the humanitarian community must show it is doing more than just ticking boxes when it comes to righting existing wrongs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here