✅ Tailored for a specific, underserved actor type

Unlike generic MEAL guides, this resource is explicitly designed for HGS/H2H actors — organizations that provide technical services to other humanitarian actors rather than direct response. It addresses their unique challenges: demonstrating indirect value, working through others, and serving multiple donors.

✅ "Good enough" vs "Ambitious" levels

For each of the six elements, the guide distinguishes between a proportionate, feasible "good enough" approach and a more resource-intensive "ambitious" approach. This recognizes the constrained contexts in which HGS actors operate and avoids setting unrealistic standards.

✅ Emphasis on evidence and learning over mere accountability

The guide prioritises learning about "what works and how" (Element 4) alongside accountability for outputs. It introduces Evidence and Learning Questions (ELQs), case study guidance, and quarterly learning events to foster adaptive management.

✅ Practical tools and templates

The guide includes five ready-to-use tools: a humanitarian value proposition development template, an example log frame, case study guidance, an evidence and learning tool, and a suggested MEAL plan with timeframes and level of effort.

✅ Recognition of the "complex adaptive system" context

The guide acknowledges that the humanitarian system is a complex adaptive system where change is non-linear and unpredictable. It encourages iterative approaches, adaptive management, and regular updating of value propositions based on learning.

✅ Resource allocation guidance

Element 6 provides concrete advice on allocating resources to MEAL, including designating a MEAL coordinator (as a function, not necessarily a full-time role), budgeting 5-10% of overall budget to MEAL, and mobilising resources through demonstrating value.

⚠️ Power and politics of HGS work are absent

The guide treats MEAL as a technical exercise, with little attention to the political economy of HGS work — how power dynamics between HGS actors, donors, and direct responders shape what gets measured, whose learning counts, and how findings are used or suppressed.

⚠️ Accountability to affected populations is peripheral

While the guide mentions "accountability" in its principles, the primary accountability relationships addressed are with donors and the humanitarian system. Accountability to affected populations — a core humanitarian principle — receives minimal attention.

⚠️ Limited guidance on measuring contribution vs attribution

For HGS actors working indirectly, establishing causal contribution is inherently challenging. The guide mentions contribution analysis briefly but does not provide detailed guidance on how to apply it specifically for HGS actors — a significant gap.

⚠️ Donor harmonisation is identified as a challenge but not resolved

The guide notes that HGS actors struggle with multiple donors requiring different log frames and indicators. It calls for donor collaboration but offers limited practical strategies for harmonisation beyond suggesting that donors "define benchmarks."

📊 "Good enough" is a valid, professional standard

For HGS actors and other resource-constrained organizations, "good enough" MEAL — proportionate, feasible, selective — is not a failure but a principled choice. The guide provides a model for what this looks like in practice.

🔗 Value propositions replace needs assessments

For HGS actors working at a global level, traditional "needs assessments" are less relevant. The Humanitarian Value Proposition (HVP) is a tailored alternative that clarifies problem, solution, added value, and impact goal.

⚖️ Learning over accountability alone

MEAL systems that focus only on accountability and donor relations cannot generate adaptive learning. The guide prioritises evidence and learning about "what works and how" as essential for improving humanitarian effectiveness.

👥 MEAL coordinator as a function, not a role

The guide recommends designating a MEAL coordinator as a function — someone with coordination skills who owns the plan — without necessarily requiring a full-time MEAL expert or additional budget.

🔄 Adaptive management requires quarterly learning loops

The guide's emphasis on quarterly evidence and learning sessions — bringing strategic managers together to reflect on emerging findings — provides a practical model for adaptive management in practice.

💰 5-10% of budget to MEAL is a benchmark

The guide recommends dedicating 5-10% of overall budget to MEAL activities — a concrete benchmark that HGS actors can use to advocate for resources and that donors can use to guide funding decisions.

What are Humanitarian Global Services (HGS) actors?

HGS actors — also known as H2H (humanitarian-to-humanitarian) actors — offer specialised technical services to other humanitarian actors with the intention of strengthening the quality and/or accountability of humanitarian action. They work at a global level, and their users are humanitarian response actors at country level. Examples include ACAPS, INSO, GISF, and the H2H Network itself.

What is "good enough" MEAL?

"Good enough" MEAL means choosing a simple solution rather than an elaborate one, proportionate to the scale of the programme. For HGS actors, it involves being selective, propositional, and prioritised — not comprehensive. The guide provides "good enough" and "ambitious" levels for each of the six elements, allowing organisations to choose what is feasible.

What is a Humanitarian Value Proposition (HVP)?

A Humanitarian Value Proposition is a statement about the value an organisation will deliver in terms of contributions made to saving lives, reducing suffering, and upholding human dignity. It describes the problem addressed, proposed solution, added value, and impact goal — replacing traditional "needs assessments" for HGS actors working at a global level.

What is the main critique of this guide?

The guide undertheorises power and politics in HGS work, gives limited attention to accountability to affected populations, provides insufficient guidance on measuring contribution for indirect actors, and identifies donor harmonisation as a challenge without offering practical solutions. It also treats MEAL as a primarily technical exercise rather than a political one.

How can I apply this framework in my organization?

Start by articulating a Humanitarian Value Proposition (Element 1). Then develop a simplified logic model with 1-3 causal chains (Element 2). Identify the minimum data needed for accountability and learning (Element 3). Set up quarterly evidence and learning sessions (Element 4). Develop a 1-2 page MEAL plan (Element 5). Designate a MEAL coordinator as a function (Element 6). Start with "good enough" and build toward "ambitious" as resources allow.