OneSec: William, before we get into the vision for the next Sphere Handbook, how would you describe the moment we’re in right now, and what it reveals about where the humanitarian sector stands?
William Anderson: This time, it’s not just reflection, it’s rupture. The withdrawal of USAID from humanitarian funding wasn’t another budget shift. It exposed the fragility of the sector. Since the Humanitarian Summit in 2016, we’ve made many promises, called ourselves not fit for purpose and layered concept on concept—localization, accountability, the HDP nexus and so on. But instead of clarity, we are lost in confusion – including essential foundations of our work such as the humanitarian principles. And while we talk about transformation, we’re still competing for funding, for access, even for visibility. How is that helping anyone?
The moment we’re in is a crisis. But in crisis, you can choose. That’s why I believe we have a chance to get things right. But we must be honest about what needs to change.
OneSec: You mentioned the need for honest reflection. Looking at the Sphere Handbook’s core structure—its Charter, Protection Principles, and Minimum Standards—where is that honesty most needed?
William Anderson: Each of these elements plays a distinct role. The Charter lays out the ethical foundation: our belief in the right to life with dignity. The Minimum Standards define what that means in practical terms across the sectors of food security & nutrition, WASH, shelter & settlement, and health. The Protection Principles ensure that our work does not unintentionally harm or exclude. And CHS provides a performance framework for organizations.
“Accountability isn’t about measuring outputs. It’s about presence.”
But here’s the issue: over time, especially in the last 15 years or so, these tools have become increasingly institutionalized and process-driven. We’ve gained a lot in terms of formal structure, but we’ve lost something equally important: the relational aspect of humanitarian work. The focus has shifted toward efficiency and effectiveness, but at the expense of presence, listening, and genuine accountability to people.
OneSec: You see a missing link?
William Anderson: That is right and that’s where I believe the approach of P-FIM comes in. Created by Gerry McCarthy and Paul O’Hagan, the People First Impact Methodology is a listening-based approach that helps uncover what really matters to communities, before aid is designed. It’s not just about gathering feedback, filling out forms or doing consultations. It’s about creating space for people to articulate their own priorities, on their own terms. That spirit is essential if we want the new Handbook to be as people-centered as possible, it must be a relational tool.
“CHS gives us structure. P-FIM gives us connection.”
What P-FIM brings is the final connection to dignity: not just designing aid for people, but by and with them. We’re exploring how to position it alongside the Core Humanitarian Standard as a foundational core standard. The CHS offers the solid structural accountability framework for agencies to support its systematic application, but I believe there also needs to be a complementary less structured approach. P-FIM can fill that active listening gap. Not a new tool we plug in, but a way of working that reminds us why we’re here in the first place.
“Sphere was never about bureaucratic excellence. It was born to protect dignity.”
OneSec: Sphere is often associated with professionalization and technical standards. But has that perception overshadowed its deeper purpose?
William Anderson: Many people assume Sphere is about professionalizing aid. It’s not. It was never about bureaucratic excellence nor being a rule book. It was born in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide, when the humanitarian system failed to protect people in refugee camps and, in some cases, enabled harm. Sphere emerged to reclaim something very simple and very human: dignity.
The Handbook is not at all a tool for perfection. It defines only the minimum standards that people should be able to expect in a crisis, because their dignity demands it. But we’ve continued to see more investment into resources in the back offices rather than at the front-line. More focus on effectiveness and efficiency. Less concern for the relational aspect of aid, less space for human dignity.
OneSec: How can the next Sphere Handbook become not just more current, but more alive to the realities of today’s frontline work?
William Anderson: We need to keep a strong focus of the Handbook for frontline aid worker. The 2018 edition didn’t anticipate a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19, and updates are required on for example mass casualty urban conflict, emerged health and nutrition concerns, and didn’t go far enough in integrating environmental factors. That’s why we’re working on the next iteration now. It won’t just be a static book. It will be a dynamic platform, a living, digital tool.
Some people wrongly assume that Sphere is a top-down guide, it’s not and the next digital edition will facilitate contextualisation. A resource that’s continuously updated, fed by real-time input from users around the world. Imagine a frontline responder in Sudan or Myanmar accessing and engaging with up to the minute, relevant, localized guidance through an app. The more diverse the input, the better the tool becomes. We’re also exploring AI assistance to help tailor content to context.
OneSec: Digitizing the Handbook promises agility, but also raises equity concerns. How do you ensure it doesn’t become another form of exclusion?
William Anderson: That’s a crucial point. We won’t allow a digital solution to become another form of exclusion. So accessibility is built into the design process from the start, low bandwidth, multiple languages, offline access. And we’re listening closely to our network to understand what features are useful versus overwhelming. The future version of the Handbook needs to serve everyone, from global coordinators to local responders. It’s going to be even more agile, more user-friendly, and more grounded in practice.
“Minimum standards should start a conversation, not end it.”
And here’s something that often gets overlooked: communities themselves can use the Minimum Standards to advocate for their needs. They can say, ‘We understand this is the minimum, but in our situation, more is needed, and here’s why.’ That enables the Handbook to be a starting point for genuine dialogue. It shifts the standards from being static benchmarks to dynamic platforms for negotiation, shaped by context, not imposed on it.
OneSec: That’s a powerful example. Do you see communities already using the Handbook this way, or is that more of a vision for the future?
William Anderson: There are emerging examples, yes. In some contexts, communities are beginning to recognize the standards as leverage, not just as something agencies use to measure quality performance, but as a shared framework that can support advocacy. But we still have some way to go in building awareness, access, and confidence so people can engage on equal footing.
“We can’t expect frontline workers to stay principled and resilient if we don’t equip them.”
OneSec: As crises become more protracted and complex, do you believe the Sphere Handbook will still serve its purpose a decade from now, and if so, in what form?
William Anderson: It’s the second most essential thing after a toothbrush for humanitarians, and I think it still will be. But it has to evolve. And for that to happen, we need donors who believe in enabling, not just delivering.
Right now, many donors focus on funding direct implementation, which I can understand. But if we want frontline workers to be effective, principled, and resilient, especially as crises will worsen and become more complex, we need to equip them. That means investing in quality guidance, standards, and tools. If we lose the ability to support frontline responders, we will lose the heart of humanitarian action. If we give up on reaching minimum standards, we give up on dignity. And that, for me, is not an option.
“If we give up on reaching minimum standards, we give up on dignity. And that, for me, is not an option.”
