DevelopmentAid Dialogues

Reframing Dutch Aid:  Steven Collet on Mutual Interests and Smart Partnerships in 2026 

How does the international aid sector survive shrinking budgets? Hisham Allam asks Steven Collet, Deputy Director-General of International Cooperation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With a background ranging from the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) to diplomatic missions in Tanzania and Vietnam, Collet knows the terrain cold. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, he provides a straight-talking analysis of the European funding crisis, outlining the critical shifts in Dutch policy and what they mean for the future of global aid. 

Netherlands aid takes a 2.4 billion euro hit, sliding from 0.65% to 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI), due to austerity measures, defense spending jumping to 2.2% of GDP, and public fatigue with blank-check aid. "Whilst we do face budget cuts and we are going down from .65% of GNI to .5% we still also have a considerable budget of 3.5 billion euro," Collet says, pointing to carve-outs for humanitarian work, Ukraine rebuilding, and asylum costs capped at 10%. The October 2025 general elections in the Netherlands could nudge it up—coalition talks show parties warmer to ODA. "This is not the final verdict; it could be different," he adds. Defense pressures hit everywhere in Europe, tied to Russia's war and less U.S. cover, while voters demand clear payoffs: "People want to understand why do we do this? Why does the government spend our taxpayer’s money in these countries?" 
 

The focus sharpens on shared stakes—security, trade, migration—in Africa's Sahel, Horn, and the Middle East. Humanitarian cash stays untouched, funneled unearmarked to NGOs and UN funds for spots like Sudan. "When you support without earmarking... that funding can be utilized at the moment it is required and wherever it is required," Collet explains. Partnerships lean on Dutch know-how in health, water, food to rebuild frayed social contracts and head off chaos. Private cash flows bigger: pension funds dumped over a billion into development banks; risks backed by decades of data. "The risks and the returns of development finance are very acceptable and even profitable... it will generate billions of dollars which we need also for climate finance," he says. Examples like Seed.NL mix Dutch firms, NGOs, African researchers for drought-tough seeds that boost farm output and teach lessons both ways. 
 

Climate money swings to adaptation—food security, water—with 60% as grants, since solar costs crashed 90% in five years. Multilaterals get trimmed for duplicate mandates, but UN core, development banks, and EU hold firmly if they slim down. Tax transparency ramps up domestic cash in partner nations, via G20 deals on multinational profits: "Domestic resource mobilization is... the cornerstone of investing into your own economy." Equal footing beats handouts: "If we do it right, we can come to a model which is not extractive... a truly equal partnership based on mutual understanding and mutual interests." 
 

Listen to the full episode with Steven Collet on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.  

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

In climate politics, it is easy to treat COP summits as a travelling show: intense media noise, careful drafting marathons, and then a quick shift to the next crisis. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam talked with Paulo C. De Miranda about when these summits stopped being just diplomacy and started to matter for people, balance sheets and fragile communities. 

Paulo, Chairman and Co-Founder of DEEP and a senior executive in impact management, argued that COPs only truly mattered “when they shape real investment decisions,” when declarations coming out of Belém or Dubai “flow into budgets, balance sheets and investment mandates” instead of remaining on paper. 

A central thread in the conversation was the gap between climate text and the financial system. Paulo said that the language of COP had improved and the scale of the problem was widely recognised, but he stressed that the world was “still not very close to closing the gap between the climate text and the financial system.” He pointed to the distance between trillion dollar announcements and the much smaller flows that reached communities living with volatility, displacement and compounded risks, and warned against “accounting optimism” that repackaged existing instruments without changing the rules of capital allocation. 
 

Politically, COP30 in Belém also exposed structural hesitation. Paulo highlighted one glaring omission: the failure to name fossil fuels explicitly in the outcome. He called this a critical signal that global politics around the fossil fuel economy “has not broken ties with the past,” despite the technology and resources available to move faster. If something as central as fossil fuel phaseout could not be clearly stated, he argued, it revealed the limits of the deal and showed how issues that should be nonnegotiable – fossil fuels, deforestation, protection of vulnerable communities – were still treated as bargaining chips. 

From a development perspective, Paulo argued that COP needed to evolve into something closer to a “conference for sustainable humanity” because, in fragile and crisis affected settings he had worked in, climate change was part of daily survival, not an abstract risk.  

 
Paulo closed with three blunt points: leaders must rewrite the rules of the game around sustainable humanity, finance must treat sustainable living as a core asset, and citizens must own accountability “here and now.” He recalled Georgina, a 10yearold from Tanzania who said she was in Belém to help solve problems she did not cause – a reminder that climate summits should be judged by whether they change incentives, capital flows and accountability for those with the least room for error. 

Listen to the full episode with Paulo De Miranda on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

The United Nations Office for Project Services, widely known as UNOPS, is pushing climate accountability into the core of development work by tackling the most elusive part of its carbon footprint: Scope 3 emissions. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam speaks with Samantha Stratton-Short, Head of Strategic Initiatives, Infrastructure and Project Management at UNOPS and Manager of the UNOPS Climate Action Programme, about a new methodology designed to map, measure, and manage the emissions embedded in every stage of UNOPS’s value chain. 

Scope 3 emissions – those generated by suppliers, contractors, travel and the full life cycle of procured goods and infrastructure – typically account for 70-90% of an organization’s greenhouse gas footprint yet are the hardest to track because they depend on external data and lie outside direct operational control.  

“Reducing our direct operational emissions is a core responsibility for UNOPS,” Stratton-Short notes, “but we must go beyond that and measure the emissions of our suppliers, our partners and our implementation activities as well.” This broader view, she argues, “allows us to understand the full climate impact of our work and gives us the ability to influence others, even markets, to adopt new low-carbon solutions.”​ 

Over three years, UNOPS developed a step-by-step methodology that is compliant with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol but tailored to non-commercial, humanitarian operations and UN values such as inclusivity and stakeholder engagement. “We couldn’t just copy-paste private sector solutions,” she says, pointing to the unique way UN entities operate across more than 150 countries and project types. The result is a materiality framework that, in her words, is “robust enough to be scientifically sound, yet flexible enough for the UN’s complexity,” capable of systematically identifying “the highest emitting areas in our value chain with a specific focus on the delivery of development projects.”​ 

The stakes are especially high in conflict-affected contexts such as Yemen, Afghanistan or Somalia, where resource scarcity and climate stress already feed instability. Here, the methodology helps UNOPS “prioritize solar-powered infrastructure and green procurement,” reducing dependence on diesel and making essential services less vulnerable to supply shocks and price volatility. 

Listen to the full episode with Samantha Stratton-Short on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

International development is heading into a crunch moment, and this episode with Professor Raj M. Desai puts numbers, mechanisms, and politics around what “shrinking aid” really means for countries that still depend on it—especially in the context of USAID cuts and the growing push toward blended finance. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam speaks with Desai, a leading scholar of foreign aid and development finance at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution, about how the sharp fall in official development assistance is reshaping global development and what options remain for countries trying to close financing gaps. 

The conversation opens with Desai’s diagnosis of why aid is falling just as needs spike: long-standing donor fatigue, the fiscal and political aftershocks of conflicts and refugee crises, and lingering budget pressures from the 2008 financial crash. He explains that foreign aid has become an easy political target in many donor countries, with bipartisan support in the United States for shrinking budgets and European donors increasingly redirecting funds to refugee resettlement and security spending at home, tightening the space for traditional development programs and setting the stage for debates on USAID cuts. 

Desai then outlines five strategies for countries facing declining concessional flows: mobilizing more domestic revenue, tapping diaspora financing, engaging cross-border philanthropy, expanding the use of blended finance and impact investment, and working more actively with newer bilateral and multilateral donors. He stresses that remittances, diaspora bonds and structured instruments can all play a role, and that newer players such as China, Gulf countries and emerging-economy funds could expand options if recipient governments strengthen their own aid coordination systems and avoid fragmented deals that respond only to short-term shocks like the 2025 USAID cuts rather than long-term development strategies. 

In the final part of the discussion, Desai connects the projected collapse of U.S. development assistance—from roughly US$65 billion to about US$10 billion per year by 2026—to the broader need for joint financing frameworks that integrate domestic revenue, philanthropic flows, private capital and official aid around national priorities. He calls for open data architectures, better tracking of cross-border philanthropy, and unified strategies that align domestic resource mobilization, diaspora investment and blended finance, arguing that in an era defined by the USAID cuts and the organization’s dismantling and more volatile financial flows, the future of development finance will depend on combining smarter public oversight with genuine country ownership instead of treating new instruments as a simple fix for shrinking aid.​ 

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam interviewed Rebecca Thissen, Global Advocacy Lead at CAN International, for an in-depth look at the real outcomes of COP30 in Belem, Brazil. Thissen, a veteran defender of climate justice, shared her perspective as a COP30 participant on how high-stakes negotiations and geopolitical tensions shaped both the atmosphere and the decisions at this much-anticipated summit. 

Thissen described COP30 as “very challenging,” and pointed to “geopolitical tensions, wars and trade conflicts” influencing positions and making consensus elusive. Yet, she recognized one key shift: “For the first time, countries acknowledged that social justice and the realities of people, communities and workers are part of the climate action discourse.” The episode explored why climate action must move “beyond headlines and buzzwords,” and how real change depended on connecting global decisions to the lived experiences of those most affected. 

A major outcome of COP30, Thissen explained, was the Belem Action Mechanism—a just transition framework designed to bridge global commitments with local realities. “It was probably the most important decision made at COP30,” she said, “with the potential to help connect, in a much more concrete manner, the reality of transition on the ground to decisions.” She emphasized the power of bringing marginalized voices, from workers to trade unions to civil society, “to the table” for meaningful solutions. 

The conversation turned to finance, where Thissen was candid about ongoing obstacles: “Beyond the fact there was no new money on the table… we also saw backsliding from any commitment they had on climate finance. That was a very worrying trend.” And while the summit pledged to triple adaptation finance by 2035, she cautioned, “there is no clarity, no baseline, no timeline—just logos rather than concrete action.” 

Still, Thissen chose optimism, grounded in science and solidarity: “We didn’t have the luxury to not be optimistic… Every tiny degree saved was already impacting billions of lives. But climate action without centering people, communities and justice was just not working.” Her closing message: for COP31 and beyond, climate justice must move from preamble to principle—otherwise, “we risk leaving most of the world behind.” 

 Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

Artificial intelligence is changing the way we think about healthcare, offering new ways to connect, diagnose, and support patients—especially through telemedicine. More people than ever are speaking to their doctor from home, getting advice online, and sharing data from their devices. It’s fast, it’s convenient, and it’s full of promise. But is it enough? Where does technology stop and real human insight begin? 

In a recent episode of Development Aid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam sat down with Professor Krishnan Ganapathy, a veteran neurosurgeon and one of the world’s leading voices on digital health. Together, they cut through the hype to talk honestly about what AI can—and can’t—do for medicine today. 

Ganapathy doesn’t shy away from the benefits. He’s seen firsthand how remote consultations and wearable gadgets make it possible to spot health issues early, save time, and reach people who might otherwise be left behind. He’s comfortable with the future—“A clinician who’s not AI literate is a menace to society,” he says. Still, the heart of his message is caution. “Chatbots may handle routine questions, but they cannot get inside my brain—or understand my patient’s real needs.” No app or algorithm, he insists, can read the whole story behind a symptom. 

Instead, Ganapathy believes that good care depends on context, conversation, and trust. “The human-trained brain understands not just symptoms, but a patient’s story—their social status, their context, and can factor in what matters most.” He’s wary of putting too much faith in technology and sees doctors as the guardians of real judgment. “AI can recommend, but only humans should decide management for real people, at real moments.” 

He calls for proper training, careful oversight, and honest conversations between doctors and their patients about what technology can—and cannot—be trusted to do. “A fool with a tool is still a fool,” Ganapathy says with a smile. “Technology is only useful in the right hands.” 

This episode reminds us that new tools are exciting, but real care is personal. As healthcare moves forward, it’s the human touch—and the wisdom behind it—that will always matter most. 

In line with his vision for advancing digital health, Professor Ganapathy is playing a pivotal role as Scientific Advisor for the upcoming Transforming Healthcare with IT (THIT 2026), South Asia’s leading international conference on telemedicine and digital health. Scheduled for January 30–31, 2026 in Hyderabad, India, THIT brings together global experts, innovators, and policymakers for keynotes, workshops, and interactive sessions designed to translate talk into real-world technology adoption. While Ganapathy is a staunch advocate of telemedicine, he emphasizes the importance of physical, face-to-face conferences in driving collaboration and meaningful change. His tireless efforts not only elevate the conversation but help bridge the gap between concept and impact, ensuring technology serves the cause of accessible, patient-centered care. For more details or to participate, visit www.transformhealth-it.org. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

The age of artificial intelligence is reshaping healthcare delivery worldwide, with telemedicine at the forefront of this transformation. In episode five of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Dr. med. Jan Niclas Strickling, a German board-certified interventional cardiologist who has played a key role in advancing telemedicine through Germany’s certified centers and holds multiple certifications from the German Society of Cardiology.  

“AI is redefining what’s possible in telemedicine—but at every step, it’s collaboration, not competition,” Strickling said, unpacking how digital tools are changing patient care.” 

Across Germany and the EU, AI-driven triage systems, medical imaging analysis, and real-time language translation are making healthcare more accessible. “If AI takes the strain out of documentation—which is half my daily work—it frees me to focus on the patient,” Strickling explained. Wearables like the Apple Watch, CPAP machines, and glucose sensors generate continuous data streams that help identify patients’ needs remotely, especially in underserved areas. 

But he cautioned that technology alone isn’t enough. “AI can bridge gaps, but equity depends on broadband access, device availability, and whether AI models are trained on diverse populations.” Without representative data, AI risks missing or misdiagnosing patients from different demographic groups. 

Alongside opportunity, risks persist. Strickling described “alert fatigue” where oversensitive AI systems overwhelm clinicians with notifications, potentially obscuring urgent issues. The bigger danger is “automation bias”—over-relying on AI recommendations while sidelining clinical judgment. “The final decision must remain human,” he stressed. He recalled uploading his own ECG to ChatGPT, which wrongly diagnosed a life-threatening arrhythmia. “For patients, that can cause needless fear and erode trust in doctors.” 

Highlighting the promise of AI, Strickling described a heart failure project in Germany where wearable defibrillator vests and smart scales transmit continuous health information. AI analyzes daily blood pressure, weight, and body movement to preempt hospitalizations by advising medication adjustments. “The data flood makes sense only when paired with human judgment to determine who needs attention now.” 

Hybrid care models blending remote monitoring with targeted in-person visits are expanding, with virtual rounds led by nurses and specialists joining as needed. Yet, the human connection—empathy, understanding, and trust—remains irreplaceable 

As digital health advances Strickling calls for transparency, patient consent, and robust regulation. “We must disclose AI’s use and limits, monitor for biases, and ensure privacy through encryption and strict data controls.” The need for accountable human oversight is paramount. “Who bears responsibility for AI-driven errors? That must be a clinician.” 

Echoing the complex future, he said, “Experience and learning from mistakes remain at medicine’s core. AI assists but can’t replace the wisdom patients deserve.” 

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

The global humanitarian landscape is marked by stark contrasts: while some crises like Ukraine dominate international attention and resources, others such as Sudan, the Sahel, and Haiti struggle in the shadows. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam had a lightning interview with Désirée Ketabchi, Head of Humanitarian Action & Advocacy at Oxfam Belgium and a Brussels-based expert with experience at the European Parliament and Première Urgence Internationale. Ketabchi is a woman of action, with little time to be spent on talks. She offers a candid perspective on the drivers behind aid allocation, the real impact of funding cuts, and the urgent need to center humanitarian action on people’s needs beyond geopolitical interests. 

“The challenge is that aid increasingly follows politics rather than pure humanitarian need, leaving many crises forgotten and underserved,” Ketabchi explained. “We try to be people-centered, but funding is shrinking even as needs grow, forcing difficult choices.” 

Ketabchi described how geopolitical interests heavily shape donor decisions, creating disparities in which emergencies receive support. “When it’s not in the media spotlight, it’s hard to raise funds or public awareness, even if needs are severe.” She cited the impact of the Gaza conflict overshadowing crises like Sudan, where vulnerable populations especially women and children bear the brunt without sufficient attention from donors or the public. 

Calls for more flexible funding echo across her experience. “Rigid donor restrictions complicate rapid response,” she noted, observing that some governments’ foreign ministries and humanitarian agencies often struggle to align on priorities and modalities. Flexibility would enable aid organizations to deliver assistance based on evolving needs, not political calculations. 

Ketabchi highlighted the tangible fallout of recent funding cuts, particularly from USAID in the Democratic Republic of Congo. “Cuts mean fewer teams on the ground, less support for essential services like health and water, and ultimately, greater suffering for vulnerable communities,” she said.

“When one organization steps back, another can step in—but only if collaboration is strong,” Ketabchi emphasized, calling for deeper cooperation even amid financial constraints. 

Beyond immediate relief, Ketabchi underlined Oxfam’s integrated approach linking humanitarian action with long-term advocacy on inequality and economic justice. “Most crises have interconnected root causes—climate, conflict, systemic inequality—that demand holistic solutions.” Youth engagement is a vital part of this, with younger generations volunteering and campaigning for inclusive policies around the world. 

Looking to donors, she urged renewed commitment and solidarity: “Cutting funding and overlooking international law fuels more conflicts and humanitarian crises. The human cost is immense.” For listeners, she emphasized the urgent human toll behind headline debates: “Every withdrawal affects families seeking safe water, children awaiting a meal, communities desperate for protection.” 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

World Humanitarian Day 2025, observed globally on August 19, stands as a solemn tribute to the courage and sacrifice of aid workers delivering hope amid crises. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Sajeda Shawa, head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the United Arab Emirates. With over 18 years of leadership in humanitarian affairs across the Middle East and beyond, Sajeda brings a rare combination of deep regional insight and global advocacy experience — notably serving as Special Advisor to the UN Assistant Secretary-General and Regional Humanitarian Coordinator for Syria. 

“World Humanitarian Day is not a celebration; it’s a moment to remember those colleagues who have lost their lives delivering aid in some of the world’s most dangerous places,” Sajeda said. Last year alone, more than 380 humanitarian workers were killed, 98% of whom were national staff closely embedded with affected communities. Gaza remains the deadliest place for aid workers, with over 500 killed since October 2023. These numbers reflect not statistics, but human lives with stories, families, and profound loss. 

The scale of need continues to expand against a backdrop of more than 130 active armed conflicts globally. Sajeda highlighted that 300 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance — driven foremost by conflict and forced displacement at historic highs. Women, children, and marginalized groups disproportionately bear the brunt of crises exacerbated by rising food insecurity, sexual and gender-based violence, and the devastating impact of war on children. Climate change and natural disasters add layers of complexity and urgency to response needs worldwide. 

With attacks on aid workers reaching record levels, OCHA has intensified advocacy for protection and accountability. Sajeda described how the humanitarian community urges Member States and all parties to conflict to respect their obligations and end the culture of impunity regarding violence against civilians and responders. The independent voices of national staff, who endure disproportionate risks, anchor this call for global solidarity. 

Deep cuts to humanitarian funding — notably from major donors like USAID, Germany, and the UK — have forced what Sajeda calls a “humanitarian reset.” With only 18% of assessed needs currently funded, aid actors must make difficult decisions, prioritizing life-saving interventions and protection for the 114 million most vulnerable people. This hyper prioritization demands agility and coordination across agencies and governments to maximize impact amid scarce resources. 

Highlighting localization as central to effective humanitarian response, Sajeda stressed women’s vital role. Over 50% of affected populations are women and children, yet women historically have been underrepresented among decision-makers and responders. OCHA UAE works closely with local partners to boost women’s leadership and meaningful participation at all stages—from planning to diplomacy. Youth engagement is also a priority, aiming to nurture the next generation of humanitarian leaders across the region. 

In a time of rising needs and dwindling resources, she emphasized that solidarity, collaboration, and courageous leadership are key to sustaining humanitarian action and saving lives. 

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected 

The hard truth of modern humanitarian action was this: access had closed, risks had risen, and remote delivery had become unavoidable. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast (Season 3), host Hisham Allam spoke with Ina Bluemel—a veteran of emergency health, WASH, and logistics leadership across WHO, IFRC, and multiple NGOs—about what it took to keep aid effective when workers could not set foot on site, frameworks felt rigid, and trust was under strain. 

Bluemel set the tone bluntly: remote operations demanded relationship-building, coordination, and response start-up all at once—without physical presence—and shifted risk onto local partners who faced the threats international teams avoided. “This is never a one-man show,” she said, arguing remote response only worked when integrated teams supported partners and respected existing local systems instead of overriding them. 

On donors, she said the core challenge lay in accountability frameworks that scaled control but struggled with context. Many tools “lacked adaptability to a local context,” she argued, creating the familiar misfit where “your answer is A, but your structures are only providing B, C, and D.” The consequences, she added, included needs overlooked, wrong voices amplified, and vulnerable groups sidelined—unless agencies invested in triangulation, stronger local networks, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) shaped by the context rather than imposed upon it. 

Her prescription was radical in its simplicity: transparency “to the bone.” Bluemel acknowledged the sector’s fear that admitting problems risked future funding—“If we admit we’ve got it wrong, the likelihood that we’re going to get money in the future is reduced,” she said—but she argued donors must engage as partners, not just gatekeepers, and agencies must institutionalize feedback loops that made communities as central to accountability as funders. On data quality, she added that teams should combine primary and secondary sources, resolve discrepancies through deeper research, and expand capabilities with GIS, spatial analysis, and AI—without abandoning the “good old” discipline of multi-source triangulation. 

Remote management, she emphasized, was not a shortcut—it was “an enormous amount of extra work”—but it kept lifelines open where otherwise agencies would “pack up” and leave people to fend for themselves. At its best, it accelerated meaningful localization: investing so local partners “felt accountable,” ensuring local knowledge shaped plans and M&E, and making adaptability a first principle rather than an afterthought. 

Against tightening budgets and donor retrenchment, Bluemel warned of a “humanitarian emergency” inside the system and called for genuine rethinking that amplified new actors and turned “lessons identified” into lessons truly implemented. “We claim we learn; we tick the box,” she said; real M&E should be “project enhancing and future influencing,” not mere paperwork. 

Listen to the full episode with Ina Bluemel on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged. 

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected