A system under scrutiny

The pages of this necessary but contentious book burn with a righteous moral anger about the contradictions and tensions of delivering humanitarian aid in conflict zones. Linda Polman's polemic is a timely reminder that noble intentions and humanitarian motives are often stretched to, and beyond, breaking point in the febrile world of modern-day war. She implores us to look beyond the clichés of humanitarian aid — red crosses, heart-rending dispatches from refugee camps, fundraising appeals — and examine in detail the difficulties involved in giving aid effectively in such circumstances.

Polman's book deserves to be taken seriously. The life-and-death nature of humanitarian aid makes the harsh lens of scrutiny more necessary, not less. We need to face up to difficult issues that Polman raises, not ignore them.

However, she sometimes misses her target or overstates her case. She appears surprised and outraged that people in refugee camps should have shops and blacksmiths — but aren't such things evidence of the entrepreneurship and spirit of people in even the direst situation?

No human system is perfect and the aid industry — with its blurred lines of accountability, lack of independent scrutiny and frequently opaque spending channels — is in particular need of reform. Yet for all its weaknesses, this is a system that has saved and improved the lives of millions.

A mix of good and bad

For every vivid vignette of wasted aid and unintended consequences, it is easy to list counter-vignettes showing the great work of humanitarian aid: from Oxfam's water supplies preventing cholera outbreaks in Darfur, to Save the Children's work in Afghanistan to help educate children.

Polman's portrayal of international NGOs as supine, apolitical relief agencies, who choose to "hear no evil, see no evil", simply doesn't ring true. To pick just one example, leading British NGOs such as Christian Aid have played a key role in asking uncomfortable questions about the UN's role in military operations in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo in recent months.

Polman, as she admits, is stronger on diagnosing problems than proposing cures. She instead demands — rightly — that "we must stop avoiding the questions and start discussing how to do better what I am advocating is that we no longer exempt the system from criticism".

What does a solution look like? I believe that the key principles are transparency, genuine accountability and a proper focus on results.

Accountability is the key. Yes, organisations that receive our money — whether through taxes or through donations — should be accountable to the people who provided that money. But, just as importantly, the aid system needs to be made more accountable to the wishes and preferences of the people we are trying to help.

If we want to give our aid to places where it will be spent without any worries about unintended consequences or the risk of corruption, we might as well give it to Sweden or Switzerland. But the point, and the paradox, is that the people most in need of our aid are, by definition, the people who are hardest to help. Of course there are problems with the aid industry. But greater by far is the scale of human need, which cries out to our generation's moral conscience and to our national self-interest.

We should be generous and open hearted — but match this compassion with a laser-like focus on outcomes and an unsentimental willingness to pull the plug on organisations which fail to deliver the goods for poor people.