Improving the international humanitarian system:

the potential of the corporate sector

By John MitchellDirector ALNAP

Agenda

Overview of the humanitarian system

Corporate engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts

Future potential

Formal International Humanitarian System: main actors The formal system is made up of

The providers: donor governments, foundations and individual givers

The implementers: Red Cross/Crescent Movement, INGOs; UN agencies and IOM; national and regional civil society

The recipients: affected populations

Key actors seen to be outside the formal system and informal systems which are also of importance

Central but often neglected actorsAffected governmentsThe militaryBusinesses

Informal systems Global remittancesZakat systemFront-line, local humanitarian systems

“International aid is a footnote in the survival strategies of poor people”

Alex De Waal

International Humanitarian Footprint: staffing

Estimated humanitarian staff 595,200 UN agencies and IOM 49,500 Red Cross/Crescent 48,400 INGOs 112, 900

Aid worker population has increased by 6% over last 10 years

6

International Humanitarian Footprint: funding

International humanitarian resources $18 billion - 2008

Emergency aid flows $4.4 billion - 2007

Emergency aid flows $6.6 billion - 2008

Humanitarian aid rising faster than official development assistance (ODA)

RESOURCES

INFORMATION

The system is made up of multiple actors, relationships, resource and information flows

What kind of system is it? Aid is supported by basic ‘business model’ supported by

‘default position’ of a largely international alliance of agencies

Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI) describe sector as ‘quasi market’ with an indirect producer-consumer relationship

The ‘market’ is loaded with information and power asymmetries such as weak incentives to deliver good quality services efficiently

9

How should it work? A Vision from ALNAP Membership

10

“...Humanitarian assistance will be more systematic and delivery will more closely reflect humanitarian principles,

norms and codes... Active partnership with affected people, local administration and civil society groups will be more

evident and will reflect an explicit recognition by the international community of the importance of local skills and knowledge... Humanitarian agencies will act accountably and

will ensure that learning and change processes, including evaluations, are part of a commitment to continuous

improvement...”

How have aid agencies tried to become more accountable?

A combination of 3 broad approaches:

(i) improving participation of affected communities and local ownership (downward accountability)

(ii) developing codes, standards and principles

(iii) focusing on performance and results

11

Approach 1. Improving participation and ownership by local and national stakeholders – current initiatives

Humanitarian Accountability Partnership: NGO membership committed to Quality Management Standard

Collaborative Development Action: the Listening Project on views of affected populations

Fritz Institute: use of beneficiary surveys Promotion of participatory evaluation methodologies Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) through Red Cross Quality COMPAS – quality management approach Global Study on Participation – participatory techniques and

monographs

12

Approach 2. Codes, standards and principles

Red Cross/Crescent NGO Code of Conduct. Debates about IHL and humanitarian principles (neutrality,

independence and impartiality) after Rwanda genocide, Chechnya and Afghanistan

International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) development of legal frameworks

SPHERE: technical standards, sectoral approach People In Aid: promotion of HR best practice HAP Standard mentioned previously is a standard focusing on

participation

Approach 3. Performance and results Evaluations – OECD-DAC Criteria

ALNAP Evaluations Impact assessments, innovations Humanitarian Performance Project (HPP)

Results based management

Quality approaches – Compas, EFQM and ISO 9000

Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB) Good enough guide

There is no lack of change and reform initiatives to help implement different elements of these three approaches

QUALITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, LEARNING, ADVOCACY Sphere, HAP ICVA, Voice ALNAP, PiA URD, Coord Sud

THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT Rights & Empowerment HIV-Aids, Gender LRRD Protection Participatory Approaches

STRUCTURE Clusters Internationalisation / Decentralisation

JOINT ACTION AND PARTNERSHIPS Joint Ventures e.g. ECB,

Good Humanitarian Donorship Capacity Building Programmes Partnership Building e.g. WEF PPPs

BUSINESS PRACTICES Finance & Funds e.g. CERF Leadership e.g. HCs Communications & Media

What do the various approaches and multiple initiatives add up to? Performance ideals are not easy to realise across the system

given the quasi-market nature of the system and the multiple relationships - focus to date has been on specific organisations, principles and mechanisms

System-wide performance is shaped by and emerges from interactions between different sets of stakeholders

And it is currently weak

16

‘…once they have reached a certain size, agencies usually go out of business due

to poor financial management and rarely if ever due to poor field performance…’

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition

Changes are afoot which mean these three approaches to humanitarian performance need re-thinking, or at least re-visiting Increasing vulnerability, more disasters, global-local

crises (food, fuel, finance)

Changing international order (China, Russia, India, Brazil; G8 to G20; etc)

Changing disaster management modalities Internationally driven (Darfur)Hybrid (Pakistan Earthquake) Nationally owned (Sichuan earthquake)

Agenda

Overview of the humanitarian system

Corporate engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts

Closing thoughts

Corporate Footprint: what and who?

61 corporate initiatives identified in 2006 survey

3 forms of engagement: Single company engagement: e.g, The IBM World Wide Crisis

Response Team

Partnerships e.g, Motorola with CARE (most common form)

Meta-initiatives e.g, Disaster Resource Network (DRN)

20

Corporate Footprint: funds

Average size of corporate initiatives surveyed was $2 million

Largest is TNT-WFP ‘Moving the World’ $10 million

Budget data very hard to come by

Funding generated is very small compared with overall humanitarian budgets

Corporate Footprint: where and how? Predominate focus on natural disasters (especially post-

tsunami) Tendency for capacity-based engagement, focusing on

filling gaps or enhancing existing capacities Logistics e.g. Crown agents for DFID Procurement e.g. Global Hand IT e.g. Microsoft Telecommunications e.g. Ericsson Organisational management e.g. Accenture Development

Partnerships, Price Waterhouse Coopers Corporate Responsibility Brokers e.g. Corporates for Crisis

22

Drivers for corporate engagement in humanitarian work (i)Focus on partnerships and reducing

organisational risk Important role of CEO visionStrategic brandingReputational benefitsCorporate social responsibility

Drivers for corporate engagement in humanitarian work (ii)Staff motivation e.g. IBM, Deutsche post,

World Net, TNTBusiness intelligence to enhance

performanceProtecting assets from disastersDesire to put something back

What is the capacity of corporate engagement to change basics of the humanitarian system? On the basis of the presented evidence, and existing initiatives, there are

few examples of profitable organisations bringing significant change to the system

Corporates are currently engaged in improving how the system works, or in their own mechanisms for delivery, generally by using the norms of the system

Behaviour of corporates is just one element in emergent accountability of the overall system, and at the present time, not a particularly distinctive one compared to the approaches emerging from the ‘formal’ actors themselves

25

Agenda

Overview of humanitarian accountability

Corporate engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts

Closing thoughts

ALNAP has identified three broad forms of learning in the international system Single-loop learning is undertaken in line with existing practices,

policies and norms of behaviour. The focus is on incremental improvements in practices

Double-loop learning involves reflection on the appropriateness of existing practices, policies and norms within an organisation. Conscious process of re-designing products, processes and methods to generate new ways of doing things in response to changing contexts

Most challenging is triple-loop learning, which represents the highest form of organisational self-examination. It involves questioning the entire rationale of an organisation, and can lead to innovative and concurrent transformations in structure, culture and practices

http://www.alnap.org/

Central question: how can corporates contribute to double-loop learning in the humanitarian

system?

Key principles Vitally important to create new shared space and

opportunities to bring corporate competencies to bear on humanitarian performance, learning and accountability

Use this space to clarify goals, share perspectives, challenge existing practices, question assumptions underlying different approaches, identify and adapt different mechanisms, experiment and move forward in the spirit of mutual learning partnership

Some examples Community-based feeding therapy utilising best

corporate knowledge and products to transform malnutrition treatment

Use of mobiles in emergencies – partnerships with leading technology and mobile operators

Bringing quality management principles, especially ISO, into Q&A mechanisms such as HAP and People in Aid Code

Use of balanced scorecard in planned system-wide performance assessments by ALNAP

Should we be thinking about corporate engagement for1) Downward accountability?2) Codes, standards and practices?3) Performance, learning, evaluation?

Or

4) Corporate partnerships for humanitarian innovations that cut across all of these?

Thank you!

Please keep in touch

John Mitchell j.mitchell@alnap.org

Join the ALNAP network at www.alnap.org