The increased involvement of non-traditional actors and donors in humanitarian affairs had its relevance on humanitarian action

While the emergence and growth of non-traditional donors and humanitarian actors has brought in much needed funding and choices, it has had other impacts on humanitarian action. Humanitarian reform was aimed at ensuring improved coordination between humanitarian actors and it thus can be argued that the proliferation of new non-traditional actors led to further fragmentation of the sector. While this is a reality, the new actors brought more benefits than harms. The core issue is not whether or not the humanitarian landscape needed additional humanitarian actors, but how traditional and non-traditional actors can work, play out and collaborate to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance. The two actors have distinctive yet complementary approaches and models. They are both driven by factors beyond purely humanitarian motives. In recent years, it appears that the two actors are slowly beginning to genuinely engage, share knowledge and expertise as well as collaborate in shaping and delivering humanitarian assistance during emergencies. The traditional actors who once were overly sceptical of the new neighbours, are slowly building trusting relationships and alliances with non-DAC actors. The non-traditional actors tend to provide their assistance bilaterally and this approach has had the immediate effect of financially side-lining the UN and its humanitarian agencies. Initially, OCHA, as an example approached the non-traditional actors with a begging basket but these new but innovative actors saw no comparative advantage in OCHA or UN agencies humanitarian work or coordination expertise. The result was that most of the UN Consolidation Appeals could not raise the needed funding particularly from non-DAC players. It was only when the UN changed its strategy to an approach informed by partnership working that the new actors began to open their collaboration and funding petals. However, there is still a long way to go. The new actors also tended to provide assistance to neighbouring countries for a plethora of reasons. The greatest advantage of this approach was the speed with which aid could be delivered in the case of a humanitarian crisis or emergence. One key development was the greater recognition of the role non-traditional actors were playing not only in delivering much needed aid, but in their role as contributors in shaping humanitarian policy and action at global level. Today, forums have been created both in the UN systems, EUs HAC and DAC to ensure that the views and policy positions of these new players are heard and taken on board. Particularly critical to this development has been the concerted call by most non-traditional actors for earmarking resources to neglected crisis, disaster preparedness interventions and mitigation and management systems. Another major implication of bilateral aid delivery preference by non-traditional actors was the increase in the role of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as a mechanism to coordinate and deliver humanitarian assistance. Most of the new actors preferred to channel their resources through national organisations like the Red Cross. Overall, the new actors have infused an enhanced understanding of the diversity of aid actors, traditions and approaches to delivering humanitarian aid. These new actors incidentally enabled the humanitarian community and States to shed light into some of the darkest corners of humanitarian assistance and the imperative to save lives. The non-traditional actors have a lot to learn from the DAC donor as well.