In this feature, Rob Jenkins, Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson Center, speaks with Nimo Hassan, Executive Director of the Somali NGO Consortium and Board Chair of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), and Jamie McGoldrick, the former Deputy Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, United Nations Resident Coordinator, and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Jamie also hosts Fordham University’s Humanitarian Fault Lines Podcast. Together, they explored an increased focus on resilience and recovery, appreciation for psychosocial and other protection interventions—especially for women and girls—and the great promise of people-centered localization and cash-based assistance. 

Hello from the Wilson Center. I'm Rob Jenkins. Before starting my fellowship here, I enjoyed a 26-year career at the United States Agency for International Development, where I most recently served as assistant to the administrator for the Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization. As part of the 

's Fall 2024 issue, focusing on the future of humanitarian assistance, I am pleased to moderate a discussion between two experts on the topic: Jamie McGoldrick, who recently served as the UN's Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Coordination, and Nimo Hassan, currently serving as Executive Director of the Somali NGO Consortium and Board Chair of ICVA, a group of more than 160 NGOs working to improve collective humanitarian action. Jamie is an old friend, and Nimo is a new friend. I’m thrilled to have them here today for this discussion.

Jamie, we met almost 30 years ago in Sierra Leone when that beautiful country and its people were being ravaged by a horrendous civil war. I don’t want to downplay the war or its effects at all, but regarding humanitarian assistance, I think it was almost a simpler time. Things weren't as complicated or technical. Sometimes it felt like a bunch of young people just running around trying to do the right thing. Over the course of your career, what has changed the most, and what are the biggest differences now compared to back then?

Thanks for that reflection. Looking back, things were indeed simpler. There is obviously a lot more professionalism in the system. However, with that came much more bureaucracy. The positive aspect was improved predictability in response through the various iterations of humanitarian reform. But I think world politics have gotten a lot more toxic during this time. We see tragic conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine.

The increasing presence of non-state actors and the very complex environments we work in make it difficult to gain humanitarian access. In Gaza and elsewhere, the process has become much more tiresome and tragic for humanitarian workers. -Jamie McGoldrick

These modern conflicts impact the protection of civilians much more, as well as the safety of humanitarian workers. We've witnessed attacks on healthcare workers and facilities. There’s also a blatant disregard for international humanitarian law and the refugee law that used to guide our work. There’s a lack of accountability. From my perspective, we are seeing a creeping normalization of violations of international humanitarian law, especially in Gaza, where more people are getting killed and injured, and facilities are being destroyed. Global institutions that were meant to guide political and diplomatic peacemaking, like the UN Security Council, the International Crisis Group, and the ICC (International Criminal Court), are losing credibility. This is part of a new world disorder. Our ability to navigate, perform, and respond to growing needs has been negatively affected, as has the adherence to the humanitarian principles we should uphold in modern warfare. 

The increasing presence of non-state actors and the very complex environments we work in make it difficult to gain humanitarian access. In Gaza and elsewhere, the process has become much more tiresome and tragic for humanitarian workers. Some people see this as an undermining of humanitarian principles. For instance, neutrality is questioned in conflicts like Ukraine, where some may side with one party rather than remaining neutral to all humanitarian needs. There are really negative issues out there right now. As humanitarians, we have to be much more politically minded and savvy about the politicization and conditionality affecting our work. There are widespread double standards in how different crises are treated. That’s my perspective on the current world.

Thanks, Jamie. That’s a lot to deal with, and it definitely highlights a much more complicated environment. In fact, 2024 is now on pace to be the deadliest year ever for humanitarian workers, and we’re just in October. Nimo, you have a different perspective because not only have things changed in the sector, but things have changed in Somalia a lot over the last few decades. What would you add regarding the differences and changes over the last two or three decades?

Thank you very much for having me. I agree with a lot of what Jamie has said. Regarding the Somali situation, humanitarian assistance has undergone significant changes and adaptations over the years due to the evolving crisis, shifting priorities, and lessons learned over this prolonged crisis lasting more than 30 years.

Humanitarian actors in Somalia have adopted innovative delivery mechanisms to provide aid, including increased resilience, cash-based assistance, and remote programming to reach affected populations, especially those in hard-to-reach areas where instability and insecurity are present. -Nimo Hassan

There is now a greater emphasis on rebuilding resilience and recovery rather than just focusing on emergency response. The country is experiencing a bit more stabilization, thanks to the federal government system, though it still faces weaknesses and problems. This stability enables us to design programs that are more conducive to community recovery. It’s important to note that we cannot paint Somalia with one brush, as the regions exhibit different instabilities that affect humanitarian access and aid delivery. We also have increased recognition of the importance of local knowledge, leading to more partnerships with national organizations, contributing to the normalization agenda, and subsequently leading to timely and effective humanitarian assistance.

There’s also a stronger focus on the specific needs of women, children, and other marginalized groups, ensuring that protection measures are integrated into the humanitarian response. The approach has evolved beyond mere emergency relief. For instance, there are now consortiums of NGOs combining humanitarian response with recovery and resilience-building initiatives. Programs target specific issues. For example, health centers often include safe spaces for women and girls, where they can access GBV-related counseling and legal services. Healthcare workers are trained to identify and respond to cases of sexual and gender-based violence, ensuring survivors receive the necessary medical, psychosocial, and legal support. So, it's a lot more integrated. However, it’s not the same in all regions of Somalia. Some areas are more stable and peaceful, allowing for longer-term programs in education and efforts to ensure quality education as well.

Humanitarian actors in Somalia have adopted innovative delivery mechanisms to provide aid, including increased resilience, cash-based assistance, and remote programming to reach affected populations, especially those in hard-to-reach areas where instability and insecurity are present. There is now diversity in how we deliver humanitarian responses.

Back in the 90s, we used to joke and dream about cash-based assistance. If only we could just hand out cash and not have to worry about all those extra mechanisms. I don’t think “protection” meant what it means today. There are many positive changes, including the integration you mentioned, as well as locally led actors. Localization is now a hot topic.

Everyone is talking about it. USAID recently released a locally led humanitarian assistance policy. I’m somewhat skeptical, frankly, about much of what is touted as success in this area. I think there’s more talk than action. Many agencies claim they are implementing people-centered assistance and utilizing local organizations and knowledge, but the reality may differ.

You have a great perspective on this, Nimo. Should I be skeptical, or are good things happening? Is it a mixed bag?

I would say you're right to be skeptical, but I also think it's a mix of good and areas that need improvement in advancing the localization agenda. It depends on where you look. Over the last eight years, there has been improvement in the inclusion of local actors in the response. This approach, focusing on harnessing the capacity of local organizations and communities, is becoming increasingly important in humanitarian assistance, particularly in Somalia. However, there are challenges. One challenge is the siloed approach to funding allocation, which complicates the design of programs. You have your development envelope, humanitarian envelope, and resilience and peacebuilding envelopes, which makes it difficult to ensure better integration. There are consortiums of national NGOs working together to complement each other’s efforts, which helps build donor confidence to support them directly. However, the appetite for risk among donors varies. While progress is slow, it is moving in the right direction.

We need to change our mindsets about traditional approaches in the UN to be more adaptive. The system must move faster to support communities in lifting themselves out of poverty rather than relying on top-down designs. -Nimo Hassan

To summarize, there is better inclusion of national NGOs in the design and implementation of programs, as well as sharing funding with international NGOs. Some large Somali-led NGOs are at the forefront of delivering multi-sectoral programming. However, it’s not uniform; challenges remain in risk-sharing and local partners accessing direct funding from donors. Smaller donors may be more willing to take risks compared to larger ones.

We need to change our mindsets about traditional approaches in the UN to be more adaptive. The system must move faster to support communities in lifting themselves out of poverty rather than relying on top-down designs. There are good programs emerging, but they need to be scaled and sustained with more flexible funding to adapt to the complex landscape.

I heard “sustained,” “scale,” and “flexibility”—all crucial concepts that are difficult to achieve. Jamie, from your position as UN coordinator, overseeing operations in various locations, how do you think the sector is doing in putting affected populations in the driver's seat?

I think they talked a good game, that’s for sure. You mentioned USAID as a champion of localization, but I’d like to see the percentage of money they’ve actually directed to national NGOs, instead of through international implementing partners. I sense that the international community hesitates to localize when it comes to more critical parts of operations, particularly in places like Somalia, where the international community is stepping back. We’re seeing similar dynamics in Sudan. 

The international power structures in humanitarian efforts remain unchanged, with no significant attempt to decolonize. Decision-making about funding still rests with the same cluster heads and large organizations that often overlook accountability and the needs of affected populations, despite the rhetoric of putting people at the center. -Jamie McGoldrick

For me, localization has become somewhat of a rallying cry among humanitarians in recent years. You called it a buzzword, but I see it as a focus on putting power and funding in the hands of local responders. However, it feels like a feel-good term and a bit of a cop-out. It’s not just about scale and speed; it’s also about commitment. The international power structures in humanitarian efforts remain unchanged, with no significant attempt to decolonize. Decision-making about funding still rests with the same cluster heads and large organizations that often overlook accountability and the needs of affected populations, despite the rhetoric of putting people at the center. And that's been there since 2016 when we had the World Humanitarian Summit. For me, I think Nimo's points about locally developed, community-driven aid initiatives are essential, with small donors involved as well. I think that's what we need to look at for the future. We must consider Sudan. Right now, the international community is sitting in many places, away from the heart of the matter in Port Sudan and elsewhere.

In the meantime, national organizations working in these emergency response forums are struggling for funding. It's mostly crowd-sourced funding. They rely on international funding, but there is reticence among donors to provide it due to worries about fraud and mismanagement. At the same time, counterterrorism legislation complicates the situation.

I think it’s crucial that we grasp this properly. It has been going on for more than ten years, and we haven't made any significant changes. The participation of the so-called actors in the Global South has not been followed up in a decisive way. I hope that with the cuts happening now—United Kingdom, Germany, and others have announced cuts in humanitarian aid—we can move toward localization.

At some point, when 80% of humanitarian assistance needs are caused by manmade conflicts and wars, we have to acknowledge that these issues won’t be resolved through airdrops but through negotiations. -Robert Jenkins

I think now is the time to start looking at it. Big NGOs, such as the Jordan Fund and the International Rescue Committee, along with Norwegian People’s Aid, should manage this handover in a structured way to national actors, empowering and resourcing them to take the lead. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is happening systemically enough. It’s not happening quickly enough, and it often only occurs when there are fears of fraud or harm to international NGOs. I’m not entirely optimistic about localization; it often seems to emerge from policy meetings and doesn’t necessarily help operations.

You both touched on the appetite for risk and how many people we are willing to let die for the sake of compliance. What is necessary is a true paradigm shift. We're seeing this now in Sudan, as you pointed out, and we saw it in the early days of Ukraine. If the humanitarian architecture isn't there or lacks access, international donors stand on the sidelines, struggling to find new ways to implement solutions when there are willing partners on the ground.

They just don’t have the same technical language and compliance measures in place. You mentioned the World Humanitarian Summit, and yes, it's been eight years now.

Eight years of discussing humanitarian development and peacebuilding, the nexus. Not much has changed in that time. People often say there are no humanitarian solutions to humanitarian problems.

At some point, when 80% of humanitarian assistance needs are caused by manmade conflicts and wars, we have to acknowledge that these issues won’t be resolved through airdrops but through negotiations. Diplomats and politicians need to get involved, and that's inherently political. If we want to combine humanitarian development and peacebuilding, how can we do that while maintaining humanitarian principles?

Yeah, great question. There's a lot of skepticism about the so-called nexus. I personally think it's possible.

It is possible to integrate humanitarian efforts into development and peacebuilding while maintaining humanitarian principles, but it requires a delicate balance and a strong commitment to safeguard humanitarian values. If that balance isn’t clear and adhered to, access will be difficult. Humanitarian action is grounded in principles like impartiality, neutrality, and independence.

These principles are essential for gaining access to those in need and providing assistance without political interference. However, the root causes of many crises—conflict, instability, and poverty—are inherently political and require long-term solutions, often involving diplomacy, development, and peacebuilding efforts.

This is where the challenge lies. We must be intentional about how we approach this and ensure a clear and delicate balance. In countries like Somalia, persistent insecurity and violence from militia groups hamper access to vulnerable populations and complicate the implementation of integrated programs. Political fragmentation due to the federal system and ineffective governance also hinders efforts to align humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding initiatives.

It's a challenge not only at the global level but also at the specific country and community level. Despite these challenges, there are opportunities for better-integrated responses, particularly in Somalia. Organizations with a mixed mandate—delivering assistance, governance, peacebuilding, and development programs—can facilitate this integration. It’s vital to ensure these programs communicate with each other, aligning efforts to support particular communities. NGOs, especially local entities, are better positioned to deliver this Nexus because they are on the front lines with the community.

Instead of humanitarians going in to assess and respond, we should engage with communities and ensure a dignified and responsive handover. This is a development approach to humanitarian response. -Jamie McGoldrick

They need to be empowered to articulate the various programs they are implementing. However, as I mentioned earlier, donors seem to be more siloed, with separate envelopes for development and humanitarian aid, sometimes located in different buildings that don’t communicate. One opportunity lies in empowering local partners who understand the context and have been present before and after crises to support them technically and financially. This would help integrate the nexus approach and enhance the community's ability to withstand challenges.

I completely agree with you, Nimo. It all comes together with local organizations. Often, we impose our silos on them. They’re not trying to decide whether to focus on peacebuilding today, development tomorrow, and humanitarian assistance next week. They’re just getting the job done.

Jamie, I’m sure you have views on this.

I think nexus emphasizes the importance of integrating different strands of international response as a way forward. It might seem naive in some contexts.

In aid politics, humanitarians are aware of political interference, and it’s not an equal partnership. Humanitarians negotiate access and develop responses, but they often lack a seat at the political table. However, if you recall, Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths was dispatched by the Secretary General to address worldwide crises over the last three years, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Sudan. Wherever the political actors are, humanitarians are there to negotiate access and develop responses. World Food Program head David Beasley has often called out diplomats for their criticisms and challenged them to prevent conflicts from escalating. We need a conversation about this. We might be lost in translation, as Nimo mentioned. Engaging with affected communities is crucial. Instead of humanitarians going in to assess and respond, we should engage with communities and ensure a dignified and responsive handover. This is a development approach to humanitarian response. Development and humanitarian actors need to collaborate better; otherwise, we end up saving the same lives repeatedly with fewer resources. A cohesive approach is necessary to integrate relief with long-term development.

Many donors pledge to support communities and place people at the center of responses, yet we often fail to deliver. Who holds these donors accountable? -Nimo Hassan

From a funding perspective, donors have two separate funding streams, which creates challenges around the executive boards of NGOs and UN agencies. They echo this division when engaging with those parties.

It's vital to get this conversation right. The nexus represents a way forward, but we shouldn't stake our future on a fragile foundation.

As we wrap up, perhaps you've already touched on this, Jamie, but what one, two, or three things would you focus on moving forward? What should the sector prioritize in the next five years?

There are many things that need to be done, and many changes are possible. We have a bunker mentality due to political pressures, geopolitical polarization, and the instrumentalization by political actors. We’re seeing increased levels of conflict and displacement, and there’s a lack of political will to address core issues. Plus, we face a massive funding crisis in the sector, with international NGOs downsizing. Humanitarianism and development need to be much more coherent and better repurposed. A radical reform conversation is essential. For instance, while we're discussing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), only 15% of the targets are on track. Developing countries are caught in a debt trap, facing higher interest rates than European nations. This fiscal crisis leads to a lack of services. We can’t just focus on the humanitarian sector if we want to improve the system and save lives. We need a more coherent approach to changing the humanitarian model. It feels as if we’re adrift without a clear direction, and we require a stronger drive for localization and empowerment. There must be a bigger commitment from the international system—beyond just policy papers and pilot schemes. We also need to pay more attention to the humanitarian impact of climate disasters. Development and humanitarianism can work together. Additionally, we need to think more strategically as humanitarians—building relationships, negotiating access, and influencing actors who are obstructing it, all while raising protection issues. The protection of civilians often gets sidelined. We need to find solutions to prevent and reduce humanitarian needs because funding is dwindling.

Nimo, you get the last word. What are the two or three key points you’d focus on moving forward?

I completely agree with Jamie on many of these issues. We must do things differently; it can’t be business as usual. We need to challenge ourselves and the systems we’ve built. The layers of the system keep growing, but it's not fit for purpose. It doesn’t effectively support the communities it’s supposed to help. We need to streamline our efforts and ensure we deliver on our commitments. It’s not just about making commitments. Many donors pledge to support communities and place people at the center of responses, yet we often fail to deliver. Who holds these donors accountable? We discuss accountability to the affected communities, but is there a system for those communities to hold donors accountable for their commitments? It’s a two-way street; trust is essential. If we want communities to trust us, we need to deliver on our promises. Bottom line, that’s what I would emphasize.

Trust and embracing risk sound like a fitting way to conclude. I wish the two of you were in charge moving forward. Thank you both for your time. This has been great. Everyone, you can find the rest of the issue at 

is a public policy fellow at the Wilson Center. 

 recently served as UN Assistant Secretary-General Humanitarian Coordinator and currently hosts Fordham University’s Humanitarian Fault Lines 

, which discusses the major changes in humanitarian assistance over the last three decades, the most important challenges today, and improvements and innovations coming to the sector. 

 currently serves as Executive Director of the Somali NGO Consortium and Board Chair of ICVA, a group of more than 160 NGOs working to improve collective humanitarian action.

Cover photo: Children standing in line to fill water and yellow drums in Baidoa, Somalia, 2019. Shutterstock.

In this video feature, Robert Jenkins moderates a discussion between Jamie McGoldrick, fmr. UN resident coordinator for humanitarian affairs, and Nimo Hassan, Chair of the Somali NGO Consortium and board chair of ICVA, a group of more than 160 NGOs who are working to improve humanitarian assistance. They discuss the changing humanitarian assistance landscape, explore what works well and what’s doesn’t, and offer solutions to help meet the growing needs.  

Perspectives on changes, challenges, and opportunities in the new world disorder.