Improving the international humanitarian system:

the potential for corporate-humanitarian partnerships

Global demand for humanitarian assistance, which is already considerable, is likely to grow in the coming decade, and to

see a major increase in our lifetimes.

Indeed, we are beginning to feel the effects… what we are witnessing is not an aberration, but rather a ‘curtain raiser’

on the future… These events are not abnormal; they’re what I call the ‘new normal’…

…In [this] era… collaboration is not an option, it is a necessity…

ERC John Holmes

Agenda

Overview of the humanitarian system

For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid

The 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

There are a number of other key actors who often seen to be outside the formal system, and a number of informal systems which are also of importance

Central but often neglected actorsAffected governmentsThe militaryBusinesses

Informal systems Global remittancesZakat systemFront-line, local humanitarian systems

International Humanitarian Footprint: Staffing

Total estimated humanitarian field staff 210,800UN agencies and IOM 49,500Red Cross/Crescent 48,400INGOs 112, 900

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

6

International Humanitarian Footprint: Funding

Total international humanitarian resources vary depending on the source$18 billion 2008 according to donors$6.6 billion 2008 according to UN FTS$7 billion 2008 according to provider expenditures

Humanitarian aid rising faster than official development assistance (ODA)

RESOURCES

INFORMATION

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

Over the last 10-15 years, aid agencies have attempted numerous strategies to improve humanitarian work

Three broad, overlapping approaches can be discerned... Focusing on performance and results

Developing codes, standards and principles

Improving participation of affected communities and local ownership

Many different kinds of change and reform initiatives to help improve the sector

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

“...Agencies need to pay as much attention to how they do things, as to what they

actually do...”

As the TEC identified....

The tendency has been to work within existing mental models and paradigms of aid

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse” (H. Ford)

The humanitarian sector, like society at large, tends to undergo radical change after major catastrophes –

usually when it is too late to do anything...

“catastrophe-first” model of lesson learning

Agenda

Overview of the humanitarian system

For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid

The future potential

For-Profit Footprint: what and who?

61 humanitarian – corporate initiatives identified in GPPI research (2007)

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)

15

For-Profit Footprint: where and how? Main focus on natural disasters

Tendency to focus on filling gaps or enhancing existing capacities Logistics e.g. Crown agents for DFIDProcurement e.g. Global Hand IT e.g. MicrosoftTelecommunications e.g. EricssonOrganisational management e.g. Accenture Development Partnerships,

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

16

For-Profit Footprint: funds

Average size of for-profit initiatives analysed was $2 million

Largest is TNT-WFP ‘Moving the World’ $10 million Funding generated is very small compared with

overall humanitarian budgets Companies tend to prefer in-kind assistance to cash aid

Budget data very hard to come by

For-profit footprint: tsunami focus

For-Profit Footprint: Why? Strategic branding Reputational benefits / publicity Corporate social responsibility /

Enhanced goodwill Staff motivation & morale Knowledge and experience, enhancing

performance CEO vision Desire to put something back

“...attempts to pursue partnerships with corporate agencies have often been frustrated as agencies are unclear about the intended outcomes for the partnership, or view it as a way of developing a long-term funding arrangement...”

Corporate engagement may be more significant outside of these initiatives Commercial contracting relationships - outsourcing by aid agencies of

parts of the ‘business’

Contracting of commercial operators by donors to deliver frontline services are commonplace

Some of it has been controversial, the idea that there is competition with traditional humanitarians is overstated

Recruitment of private sector into senior roles

Lack of data

Current contribution of corporate engagement to improving the humanitarian system? On the whole corporates are currently engaged in the

system within the existing norms and principles “helping us to get a faster horse”tends to be after major emergencies: “catastrophe-first

model of collaboration”

Corporate contribution is just one element in the overall system, and at the present time, not a particularly distinctive one

22

“...Interviewees from both private and humanitarian agencies with experience of partnerships emphasised the positive impact of non-commercial business engagement on the sector as a whole. However, while individual initiatives and companies make notable contributions to humanitarian relief, overall private sector engagement in humanitarian relief remains a niche phenomenon...”

Agenda

Overview of humanitarian accountability

For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts

The future potential

Corporations have made an important and vital contribution to

innovations in humanitarian action

Case Studies: Community-based feeding therapy

Utilising corporate products, business models and participatory approaches to transform malnutrition treatment

Cutting rates of malnutrition deaths and increasing the numbers of treated children

Case Study: Cash-based programming Cash distribution techniques

adapted from private banks, in some places in working partnership

The importance of local private sector and marketsPrivate sector is not just about Nokia

and TNT’s of the worldPractical Action and Oxfam’s work on

market analysis in emergencies

Case Studies: Use of mobiles in emergencies

Partnerships with leading technology and mobile operators

Cash and food distributionsSafaricom, KenyaSouthern Africa, Canada Tel

Collaborative R&D in operational settings

Some key lessons...

A two-way open and honest dialogue between the private sector and the humanitarian, to ensure greater understanding of each others competencies and further possibilities for learning and collaboration

Identify enduring problems and areas of common interest

Establish partnerships and engagement prior to emergencies, not just when an emergency occurs

Assess and work with other linkages the private sector partner may have, especially in the field of operations – e.g. supplying military forces

There is scope for much more systemic and strategic engagement around enduring challenges faced by humanitarians Radical and creative solutions tend not to come from

inside the formal sector but at its margins

There is a wealth of parallel and analogous corporate products and processes in development and in place which could be very useful and potentially game-changing ($532bn global R&D spend in 2008)

Cannot simply transfer from one sector to another, but needs active brokering, mutual learning and strategic vision

Humanitarian agencies must engage strategically with the private sector so as to harness both the relevant skills, and the desire to use them, in ways that will

benefit the delivery of humanitarian relief to those affected by disasters and

crises

Work is underway to develop a Humanitarian Innovation Fund Pooled resources and technical support for humanitarian

innovation processes

Partnership brokering, based on better understanding of enduring problems, core competencies and common interests (private sector and academics)

Principles of mutual learning, risk sharing and evidence-based practice Watch this space!

Agenda

Overview of humanitarian accountability

For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts

The future potential: strategic partnerships for humanitarian innovation

Summary The humanitarian caseload is increasing, the system is stretched, the new normal means that

collaboration is not an option but a necessity

We tend to learn and collaborate in the same way – within existing paradigms, and “catastrophe-first”

Corporate engagement grew after the tsunami and is clearly more than just buzz, but need more strategic clarity around how to engage and why to engage

If effectively positioned, resourced and managed, we believe humanitarian innovations can be the ideal entry point for enhanced, focused corporate-humanitarian strategic partnerships

Final point: we need to transform our learning and our collaboration

“Catastrophe first”

“Vulnerability first”

Thank you for listening!

Please keep in touch

Ben Ramalingam b.ramalingam@alnap.org

Find out more about ALNAP at www.alnap.org