No more Mr. Nice Guy: why the new ERC will need to be crystal clear who he’s working for to resuscitate a floundering humanitarian system

Photo: Mohammed Abed, Gaza 2024/ gettyimages

It isn't dramatic to say that the whole world is in crisis, in one way or another. This means Tom Fletcher is stepping into one of the biggest jobs on earth. And as crises collide, geopolitics toxify and the political pendulum swings dangerously to the right, even the most purist humanitarian knows there’s not enough money or political will for an endless loop of mop-up operations.  

Is this the right person for the job? While many rightly advocate to ensure this will be the last UK default appointment, the point now is to get on with it. In order to succeed in a near-impossible job, the new ERC will need to ruthlessly prioritise three things:  

1) People in crisis need to call the shots on how scarce money is spent – stop talking about it and start making bold changes. 

Despite decades of talking about putting people at the centre of response we’re making negligible progress. People tell us they feel unheard, poorly served and that they’re not getting the support they need. Fletcher needs to focus on flipping the script from supply- to demand-led aid, starting from the priorities of communities in overlapping crises. He needs to dispense with meaningless rhetoric about putting people at the centre and actually put them there. That will mean taking unpopular decisions:  

(i) A smaller cut for emergency response: People consistently say they want fewer band aids and more long term support – that means reconsidering the humanitarian slice of a very finite global pie. It means getting humanitarian organisations out of places they’re doing the same things again and again, and getting development, peace and climate adaptation actors in. This does not mean hand-washing, but reimagining and negotiating. Time to put those diplomacy stripes to good use.  

(ii) Doing many international aid actors out of a job: The Grand Bargain commitment to ramp up funding to local organisations has failed, no matter how much we like to dance around it with talk of strategies, policies and good will. This matters because an international-heavy aid system just won’t get the job done: it’s costing too much, targeting the wrong people, doing active harm and communities are already shouldering the majority of first-line response, whether they’re paid for it or not. This is not just a moral argument but an efficiency one.  

(iii) Customer satisfaction as the bottom line: For too long aid agencies have got away with deciding whether or not they’re doing a good job. And we all listen. If we’re serious about people-centred aid, the views of communities tackling crises need to dictate what gets funded, what gets scaled and what is done away with. As the new ERC himself has argued people aren‘t waiting to be asked  - with nearly 5 billion people using social media, accountability is happening whether we build it or not. There is not enough money, so do away with tokenistic accountability frameworks and demand funders and implementers involve communities in the tough decisions about prioritisation to come.    

2) "Humanitarian” isn’t a clear category anymore – use the funding crisis as an opportunity for the radical overhaul the system needs:  

Fletcher is inheriting a humanitarian system that can no longer justify the old model of supporting people through crisis until normality returns because there is no more normality. People’s baseline situation – everywhere around the world – is getting steadily worse as the climate crisis and less principled, more inward-looking geopolitics collide. That has profound implications for how scarce funding is spent and for where humanitarians can add value. 

The ‘system’ is not even close to being fit for the challenges it faces – it's a clunky factory of bureaucracy that is quite at odds with what most people in crisis need. Fletcher needs to come with a mindset of transformation, not putting out fires. Yes, the humanitarian funding crisis is unequivocally bad news. But being honest, and then radical, about how the dwindling pot of resources could be better used, might force long overdue reform to the ways people come together to support those in crisis.  

3) The geopolitical landscape is bleak – we need a bold voice for humanity, not the voice of consensus. 

All ERCs have faced a choice – stay on everyone’s good side and make sure humanitarians retain a seat at the table, or use their privileged position boldly, as a mouthpiece for those they serve. 

In an era of Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, Congo and whatever comes next, there’s no longer any real choice. The responsibility that comes with this job is to reflect what people on the frontlines of crisis are telling us, stand up to those who ignore international law and be a force for good in an increasingly grim global landscape. 

Stepping into office at a time of mass atrocities and a boiling planet, an ERC who doesn’t call out injustices and hold States to account won’t simply fail to put out fires; he may well fan the flames.   

Tom, we’d love to chat to you as you find your feet. We stand ready to ensure the views of crisis-affected communities drive your strategy, decisions and leadership.  

Do you have feedback or views on the above?

Email meg@groundtruthsolutions.org or sophie@groundtruthsolutions.org.