1. Improving the international humanitarian system: the potential for corporate- humanitarian partnerships

2. 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

3. Agenda Overview of the humanitarian system For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid The future potential

4. 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

5. 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 actors  Affected governments  The military  Businesses Informal systems  Global remittances  Zakat system  Front-line, local humanitarian systems

6. International Humanitarian Footprint: Staffing Total estimated humanitarian field staff 210,800  UN agencies and IOM 49,500  Red Cross/Crescent 48,400  INGOs 112, 900 Aid worker population has increased by 6% each year over last 10 years 6

7. 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)

8. RESOURCESRESOURCES INFORMATIONINFORMATION The system is made up of multiple actors, relationships, resource and information flows

9. 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

10. 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

11. “...Agencies need to pay as much attention to how they do things, as to what they actually do...” As the TEC identified....

12. 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)

13. 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

14. Agenda Overview of the humanitarian system For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid The future potential

15. 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

16. 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 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 16

17. 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

18. For-profit footprint: tsunami focus

19. 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

20. “...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...”

21. 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

22. 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

23. “...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...”

24. Agenda Overview of humanitarian accountability For-profit engagement in humanitarian aid – some recent evidence and preliminary thoughts The future potential

25. Corporations have made an important and vital contribution to innovations in humanitarian action

26. 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

27. 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 markets  Private sector is not just about Nokia and TNT’s of the world  Practical Action and Oxfam’s work on market analysis in emergencies

28. Case Studies: Use of mobiles in emergencies Partnerships with leading technology and mobile operators Cash and food distributions  Safaricom, Kenya  Southern Africa, Canada Tel Collaborative R&D in operational settings

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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!

33. 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

34. 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

35. Final point: we need to transform our learning and our collaboration “Catastrophe first” “Vulnerability first”

36. Thank you for listening! Please keep in touch  Ben Ramalingam b.ramalingam@alnap.orgb.ramalingam@alnap.org  Find out more about ALNAP at www.alnap.org www.alnap.org