Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Oxford Martin School.
My name is Charles Godfrey and I'm the director here and I'm going to be introducing the speaker.
But the questions will be will be organised by Andrew Thompson.
Andrew, who used to be head of the Arts and Humanities Research Council,
has for the last four years been professor of global imperial history at Oxford and within the Oxford Martin School.
He runs a programme on changing global order and is very interested in the topic this afternoon.
I'd also like to welcome Wolpert who is here. Mark has run everything.
The Wellcome Trust was government chief scientific adviser and ran UK IRA as well and it's particularly nice to have you here.
Just after Angela mclane, who has done a lot of work with the Martin school has been appointed your successor
but one we will the talk is webcast and those of you who are online you will see
that there's the opportunity to ask questions and something that's very helpful
for us as you can vote on questions as well to help us prioritise those to ask.
So with no further ado, let me come to our speakers this afternoon.
If Dr. Eva Swiss and went to the University of Geneva and after doing things in the media, joined the International Committee of the Red Cross,
I think in 1992 and worked in the field in some of the most challenging environments, challenging areas imaginable.
It became director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross and held that position for ten years from 2010 to 2020.
And he was a major thinker about the role of international organisations around humanitarianism, around urban urbanisation and AIDS.
Talk this afternoon is kind of international humanitarian organisations at
that to face the challenges of this century if welcome to the Martin School.
I'm very pleased to be here, to be with all of you. Thank you very much for the introduction, Charles.
I must maybe just put two elements of context to start with.
You just mentioned I will talk about humanitarian. I will talk about mainly international.
You imagine, I would say professional.
And of course, my to add a bit of context, all the following one a I'm coming with one perspective and this perspective can be a challenge.
There's a lot of different perspective about humanity and organisation, about what is happening.
And of course it is tainted by the fact that I've spent a lot of time at the
International International Committee of the Red Cross work a lot in different contexts.
So I've been exposed to the limits of human organisation,
to the limits of what we do and of course have been also able to to look at some of the power of our people to do so.
That's one element. And I think the other entities I've been right now informed a lot by the work that we've done together with the UN,
the Thompson and at the at all the work that's that has been done when it comes to this project,
research project at Nuffield Angel and the Long United actions.
And I think it's and along you mentioned century and I think it was useful for me to be able to to, you know,
challenge my own assumptions around what is happening and to ask ourselves what we want to do as a, as an organisation.
So that's the two element of context. I will just to, to put. So what I would like to be able to do is you mentioned that Charles.
I think when we talk about Romanian organisation, especially when they are international,
I think we need to ask ourselves do they have the ability to continue to adapt?
If you think about humanitarian organisation, I'm willing to look at the modern time,
let's say since so let's say 40 years and we can have a long discussions about when the modern time started.
I mean, it's a question of, of course, vulnerabilities, it's a question of power,
it's a question of mobilisation, but it's also a question of of adaptation.
And I think if you look at the last 40 years, I mean,
you and this organisation had to adapt themselves to a lot of different stakeholders, different situation.
And I think the real question we should ask ourselves is are you making an organisation still able to adapt themself?
And my response will say, No, that's it, that's the end.
No, don't worry. My response is yes, they might be able to adapt and I'll challenge that a little bit.
But I think if they want if we want to continue to be relevant, they need to adapt in specific situation, in specific field.
We can't talk about adaptation as such, and that's what I would like to be able to do that.
But first let me and we could take 20 different key factors,
but I would like to start with five key factors or key elements that are really I think so have shape and
will continue to shape humanity and organisation when it comes to their own ability to operate in the world.
And I say really look at these five one because they, I really think they are important and will continue to be important.
The first one is about digitalisation and people.
So we all are living in a world where we are all thinking about digitalisation.
The impact on digitalisation, what it means for all of us, I think has a tendency when I look at international organisations,
especially international NGOs, international organisation that are dealing with humanitarian,
what I see is they have a tendency to look at processes, to look at data, big data, ERP,
and that's the way they look at digitalisation, not the way the experience of digitalisation.
And it's not only true for humanitarian, it's very true also for academic corporate world.
And I would say they are somewhat missing the fact that is first and foremost about
people and that what is happening when we talk about digitalisation is that people,
including people affected by war, by natural disaster, are absolutely already moved to another generation.
I was just again recently in Nairobi and I was again amazed just to look at East Africa.
I mean, what has happened, how much you have mobile phone everywhere in every single household, and what it means?
Not just that it's present, but it means, for example,
today you can exchange money in a much more simple way without banking account, for example, that even ten years ago.
So today, just a phone number, a SIM card, and you are able to exchange money.
What it is deeply changing the way people interact among themselves.
The people think about it and that is still something somewhere where in fact I would say international NGOs, international organisation,
internal system find difficult to grasp what it means, including by the way, in the way they are looking and counting.
If you just think the fact that today people are able to exchange money in a very easy way,
you can't things humanity in actions without thinking also about remittance remittances and the
impact it has right or today the way you manage in action is somewhat described in terms of money.
They will say, oh, we make connections. If I look at figures is something. Around $30 billion.
That's a very static number. But what if you compare that to remittances, for example, that is 620 millions around the world.
You have a very different element.
So it tells you something about the fact that when we think about digitalisation, when we think about people, it's very static.
So I think that's the first element. Think about digitalisation in people, and that will create a different dynamic.
The second point, and it's not a surprise when I see Valerie.
Hi, Valerie. So happy to see you. The second point is about sovereignty.
And we've seen that that's nothing. Nothing surprising, but sovereignty is confirmed.
I would say for me, at the almost ultimate norm in the international system right now, and it will continue to be so.
And we've seen that Russia, Ukraine crisis and war is absolutely, for me an inspiration of that.
But it's not just the newest. And we've seen that in every single context where you can do whatever you want as a country very clearly,
because your sovereign and sovereign has become something central.
Look at the Security Council. It's not just a question of sovereignty, but it's also a question of sovereignty around that.
And I don't think it will change. And what it means.
It means that the framework in which you manage an organisation operating, including international, public,
grow international you to know is a framework that is very weakened, not so much in terms of norm,
but in terms of implementation, in terms of agreeing this is a common grammar because that's what nation states should be able to do,
is to agree, even though they are competing each other, that we have a common grammar.
These common grammar is not really applied. So I think there is something about that.
And when you talk about sovereignty and if you lack somewhat a common grammar, then what happened also is that containments become then the response.
If it's true about sovereignty, then you're containing the problems. You still believe that you can contain the problems outside of the border.
And we see that with COVID, with all the pun related, that we see that tragically every day with migrants and migration.
So I think there is something about the sovereignty and the containment element that makes in fact
international organisation and in general you met an organisation in a very difficult situation.
So that's the second element that will continue to shape whatever happens when you think about your organisation.
The third one in on that one. I'm not sure I'm right.
Not that I'm saying the first to a perfect, but this one. I'm not sure I have the right wording, but I would like to try to share something with you.
And it's maybe, maybe, maybe it's something that we still need to study a little bit.
I think it's it's the why we call the shift or maybe the evolution in the way we do collectively experience vulnerability.
Right. There is something happening to us as a collective and also as individual that has shifted over the
last few years about vulnerability and what who is vulnerable and how are we vulnerable collectively?
It is related not only, but is related to a mix of global crisis and maybe a lack of response from from states.
That makes us a little bit more vulnerable.
If you just look at what has happened and what's happening with the climate crisis over the last five years,
we all feel, without any exception, that is coming very close at much faster than expected.
Right. We do. We really do. And we do. That isn't just affecting us and our family, but it's affecting entire society.
I was just in France, for example, in France, one of the debates, of course, one of the debates about retirement.
Right. So we can have a long discussion about it. But the other one is very much about the fact that there is no water anymore, really no water.
Major crisis and it's coming. So and what do you do with it as an example?
So it's very concrete for a lot of country, including for our own country here.
I think the other element is, of course, related to COVID, not so much COVID as such, but the fact that the pandemic can really affect us,
change our behaviour, change, by the way, we are relating to each other, change the law, change the exceptions in which we operate.
And we all feel if we look at education, health, logistics, that our systems also have a systemic vulnerability.
So I think there is something in terms of how it works.
And my assumption and what I see is, and you look at also in history is when you feel that somewhat vulnerable,
it is coming closer to you as individual, bourgeoise collective.
It has an impact on the way you are distributing and putting.
And solidarity and possibly resources. And how do you feel related, in fact, to the other vulnerability, to the vulnerability of the other?
Right. So I think there is something about that which I think is important to understand.
And it's interesting. If I look at humanitarian action, because that has a huge impact, double impact.
A, we are collectively too moved.
I would say classical vulnerability related to a human and humanitarian emergency.
Look at all of us. We've seen the terrible image and suffering of the people in the earthquake in Turkey and in Syria, all of us.
So we are suddenly taken aback. We understand this vulnerability.
But after two days for good reason, we are over. And I think that is one of the big challenge for you mind and actions.
We know that emergency is only one part of something much more so smaller.
We need to be able to think long term. We need to be able to operate in protracted crisis.
So I think you have also a double shock. So vulnerability are coming closer to us and the one we are moved about are something,
you know, the very specific a group of migrant dying or an earthquake and that's it.
So I think there is really something questions here and I'm still wondering what will be the impact.
We've seen already an impact in terms of funding. No surprise about it. But it's not just the funding is how do you relate to the vulnerability of the
other and how do you feel yourself that you are part of something that is larger?
So the third point is somewhat a shift in the way we experience vulnerability.
And then what? What it means for us, for the people to support and you might.
And action in that case. The first the fourth one.
And again, I'm not sure of the word I'm using on the one. Right. One.
But you would, I hope, understand what I would call the paradox of accountability.
And it has a huge impact, I would say, on the way you think, humanitarian actions.
And again, as you can see, I'm focusing really on your mind and action that are happening in difficult places where you have a very low governance,
where the national government is not always able to provide basic solutions or services to its own population.
That's where I'm focusing on. One of the reason is because if you look at natural disaster,
it's one of the good news is right now, over the last 15 years, you can see that the localisation,
the fact that local actors have been able to take over and to really control what they do for you, make an action is something very powerful, really.
Over the last 15 years, I've seen in my own former family, the Red Cross, for example.
How much local Red Cross?
I'm much better when it comes to natural disaster with the local with the local government, and that that's something important.
So I'm focusing really on on the places where what we call protracted conflict, we are comforting our last thing.
And think about, of course, Yemen, Afghanistan, Congo.
But you can think about Myanmar, you can maybe think also about Ukraine and a lot of places like that.
So in these places, when you operate, you do have a level of risk that is high, of course, because you're operating with very complex stakeholders.
Some of them are considered as terrorist, some of them are absolutely not legal.
So once you are also operating in a level where the level of security is sometimes very low and you need to understand what happens,
you have hostage taking. You do have a lot of difficult situation and in this environment.
We. I think the part of accountability is challenging very much humanitarian.
Why? Because we're living in a world where I feel we on one hand one all to be accountable.
Start with our politicians, rightly so. Right. And we want also our leaders to be accountable as a society.
And we all want that. But at the same time, the way we think accountability, if I translate that, is about I want this guy to be fired.
I want this person to be cancelled. I want some blood.
And so I think the way we talk about accountability as a collective.
Is an enormous pressure on the specific people and we are not ready at all the society to accept excuse the inquiry.
We want decisions to be made and if it's true.
That's at least my perception. What I've seen is over time is I've seen developed a system to somewhat allow leaders,
organisation culprits state to somewhat be careful not to be pushed too much into account and not being pushing too much into account.
So we have a system that has been developed to try to manage risk as much as possible, but by managing risk, bringing third party,
making sure that we can show to the public very suddenly that we have done our best,
but not really for accountability reason in order to avoid to be killed in the public space.
There is something around that. It's a bit more softer, but there is something about it in my own experience.
And I did that together with you. But if I may say, I've experienced that as a CEO of the ICC at the time.
I've experienced that over my last few years. As you mentioned, I left my position until 2020, but I would say since 2015.
Already, to give a bit of a sense last maybe few years,
I had the feeling when I was talking to a high level minister or two high level public servants representing a country willing to invest.
Into the operation of my organisation in Syria, for example, in Afghanistan.
The question was not about performance. No, no.
The question was about how can I transfer the risk to you? Right.
So there was a real questions. And of course, if that is the question, that's why I talk about the progress of accountability.
We all agree about the importance of accountability. But if the accountability transfer itself in terms of risk management and the risk transfer,
of course you're challenging the entire way international organisation operating because this
risk transfer will have an impact not just on the organisation but also to all the partner,
to all the risk transfer will be going down the chain, I can tell you.
So I think there is something about that and I have not seen any change in that.
And that has a huge impact in the way humanity organisation will continue.
One especially professional organisation won't be able to operate in difficult places.
So that's the fourth force element and the first one.
And by the way, I should say the fourth one, it was a one word in the project that we carry out together with you and Valerie.
We did a survey, right, and I think we surveyed 50 CEO, 60 leaders of 50 different NGO.
And what I was struck about,
when you ask them what is for you possibly the most important field or issue that will impact not just your work now, but the Europe.
The work in Europe come what they were saying, it was risk management and donor compliance.
It's interesting. So their feedback, to my surprise, was not about, you know, accessing or the needs of the people.
No, no, no. It was risk management and compliance also.
So it's also confirmed by the experience of leaders. And there is really something around that that is important to have in mind.
So the fifth issue is it's not a surprise because it's an issue that is really at the core of what we do when you are humanitarian.
It's the fact that trust is becoming even rarer, a more rare commodity.
And that's a trend that is going on for a long time. But I see that really changing fast and with a lot of impact.
And I would argue that being a humanitarian,
being an NGO you can even talk about it is not anymore a guarantee that you have a moral high ground at all, both in this country.
But also both fronts very clearly. And we can we can go of about why what's happening.
And I think one of the reasons not the only reason, but one the reason is we're living in a time where there is a lot of distrust towards the other.
Maybe maybe the default mode is not. I trust you, but I'm not sure who you are.
I want to understand you are a humanitarian. You want to help me prove me, prove me that you agenda is an honest agenda.
And of course, that was a love story that I'm not very good for humanity. And as well prove me also that you are not part of a global agenda.
Prove me that your principles are not part of something that I don't really understand.
So I think there is a lot of things about that and that's recognised still today.
That's the humanitarian professional. I'll still most of them, not all of them coming from the West.
And so what for a long time went to the so-called Global South.
So I think there is also something and when was the last time that an ongoing country like like the
UK or Germany would accept international organisation coming from China or Russia to help them?
And also, if you think about it, so is also in terms of pure reflections about reciprocity that that is a minimum.
So this is fine, but we can, we can have much more.
But think about that. The digitalisation and the fact that is perceived more a process that what it means for people,
the sovereignty and then the containment questions around that,
the change in the way we experience collectively vulnerability, the paradox of accountability and the trust as a as a as a major issue.
So what what interests me now is, is what does that mean then for in fact, international agreements and actors?
And I would have we should have start when I'm thinking about you mentioned actors and seeing my friend Hugo Slim in the in the in the room.
When I talk about U.S. and actors, I don't talk only about humanitarian as as, you know,
doing transactions where you come and you bring relief to people that needs relief.
I really think about humanitarian as a social practice that seeks to understand the conditions,
the need of the people, then work with the people, with their association,
possibly with the government or the people who control them rights in a way and other in order
to to achieve improvements in their people life and possibly in the collective experience.
So really grasp that. So the idea that we just bring relief in a principled way, so almost transactional, this is gone, right?
So I think it's important to know that. So if we think about being able to and to adapt itself,
my points based on the on the five element that my challenge you mean to an organisation over time I would say yes,
it's possible to adapt, but this time it needs to be radical.
It needs to touch deeply the organisation.
And my sense is still a lot of adaptation have been in the margin.
Of the organisation and not at the core of the organisation. And that's, of course, risky, right.
And I would like not to present several way. And again, we can discuss about where in fact the my sense where needs to happen.
But if you want to adopt and that's the first point, if you want to adapt, you need to recognise also when there are gap between theory and practice.
And of course, I'm saying that out of love, right? I should have started with that.
Charles, I still love the humanitarian, you know, I'm, you know, no bitterness.
I loved every day I spend at the ICRC, I saw soul limits.
I still see to say that. But I'm also able to say that there was some some real issue and there are still some issues.
So the first one, you need to recognise that there is a gap between theory and practice and we take that's normal everywhere.
But on one specific point that is very challenging is the way humanitarian believe
and talk about putting people in communities affected by war or by disaster.
At the centre, at the centre of their action strategy communication.
And I would argue I would argue that's true.
They really think about it. Their heart is in it.
Their strategy is there. The communication is about people at the centre.
But if you observe and let me give you example if you take organisational development, it was very interesting to observe an organisation,
never look at the budget, but look at where did they invest over the last ten years in terms of organisation development.
What what, what was the new position was what has a new program, where did they invest and where did they disinvest?
And you really look at that, what you will see over the last ten years. Is the massive investment was around compliance.
Risk management impact evaluation result value for money.
And it's not wrong or right, but it's clear.
And the reason is, okay, first the sun says, Oh, wow.
That means that organisation adapted to a very concrete reality, which is in fact the reality of the donor.
And I'm not saying that's the fault of the donor. It's just a reality. So first we start to see at the centre maybe,
but the reality in terms of adaptation has been frozen foremost to the pressure to the asked the requirements of the donor.
And surprisingly, if you don't go one step further and you look more closely and you look at how they operate, where international organisations are.
How much efforts they put in, where the leadership is spending time.
You see, there's a third category of I'm careful what I'm saying, almost clients.
So if we agreed, I'm careful in saying don't blame me immediately.
But if we think about people and community affected being a client of the centre, we start to realise all the donors are also possibly a client.
But there's a third category which are of course the group nominee, not, you know, non-state armed group,
but sometimes government that are controlling the territory and the fate of people in the community affected.
You can't access to them very really easily. You need to negotiate that space.
And of course, the impact also the way you are relating, the way you organise yourself, the people that you bring in your organisation.
So I would argue it would be good in order to adapt to recognise that is a gap,
to recognise these three sort of clients, if I may say, not just one for the people.
Yes. And the community of course, but the donors are absolutely central and possibly the Taliban, Iraq governments or other that are very central.
To your organisation. It's not wrong or right, but it'll be useful not to hide as an organisation.
Was a sector behind the kind of old people at the centre as always.
What are you talking about? It will help to maybe be a bit more clear.
Where can we have? I'm. The second point is, is really related.
If we now look at adaptation, the first let's say the main adaptation would be and it's a difficult one,
that was the most challenging one I had as a CEO, and I still believe it's very difficult it's to be true.
To the evolution of the needs of the people and their condition.
And really true. Which means challenging the own design of your own program.
And can I even go one step further challenging your KPI? You have to work with KPI.
We have to show that you have in fact, you have to show that we've been very efficient. And the reality is.
Most of the places where you operate, the needs of the people do not correspond to the KPI you developed.
Surprisingly right. And then you need to be able to deal with that.
Maybe the need of the people, especially if you work in protracted crisis.
Where the emergency is lasting. Think about Afghanistan.
Thinks about Yemen. Think about Somalia. Myanmar.
I can go on and on. Colombia and other places like that. It goes on.
So I think the issue is then you need to understand that what people, what community are talking to you, the need they are explaining.
I'd be very different to the one you would like to see or you would like to be able to respond.
It might be a balance. In fact, their own security.
It might be about the behaviour. And the pressure they are under.
If you're a woman, for example, and what it means, it might be job.
It might be wi fi. Might be a different set, very different nature.
And I'm not saying as humanitarian, you need to be able to respond to it, that maybe you need to leave that space, which is a classical space.
There's a crisis as you might end up responding like a fire brigade.
No, I don't know. What maybe the expectation is you need to be able to understand.
What he's trying to understand, the evolution of the need not to respond.
But you need to be able to understand in order to connect, in order to see what happens.
And that's why I like to give you a definition.
You're all about the fact that humans in Action is a social practice that seek to understand the conditions and the needs of the people.
And that takes time and is an important one. So be true to the evolution.
It doesn't mean that you are perfect in responding,
but you are absolutely key and you need to be the one to understand what's happening for the people and including listen to the people,
to the fact that we find maybe a central part right now or data is a central part for a lot of
people and being able to integrate that and and maybe redesign then you KPI and your program.
The suds limits. I'm still working on adaptation.
So the first one is really agree about the gap between theory and practice.
So one is really the ability to to look at the evolution of the needs and the condition of the people and to be true about it.
The third one is really it is basic, and I'm sorry to say that because some of you are really experts, but still it's to engage all actor.
And I'm surprised to say that in 21st century, in 2023, right here in Oxford.
But I need to say that in a very highly polarised environment, I must say I'm stunned by what I see.
Listen, about Russia and Ukraine, for example. So as a humanitarian, we can have whatever position about Russia.
And I totally agree and understand about what we say when Russia is invading and what it means in terms of suffering,
what it means in terms of the breach of international law. Absolutely. And as you might, you need to be willing to continue to engage with Russia.
No question. Central. You need to be able to engage with every single people.
So I'm worried when the is high society said no, we should not talk to them.
This should be cancelled out. Nothing really. Are you sure?
So as a humanitarian sounds basic, but that is a very,
very complex endeavour and as an adaptation means that you need to be able to willing to talk to all the people,
even the even the most difficult, even the ones that are challenging maybe you value right now.
It's a fundamental and I would say surprisingly, that remains one of the rare unique selling positions, if I may use it, of the humanitarian sector.
We can still do it, but should do it even if it's very painful.
The fourth one. And this is not new,
but this is something which maybe is important to look into that I think because I think humanitarian actions with I'm thinking
also the framework in which we operate and we can't think you might take action without thinking about international public.
No, we can't think you made an action without thinking about protection.
And I would argue that all organisation or professional organisations that are operating internationally,
even if they are not experts of so-called protection, like my former organisation, the ISIS ones, they need to be able to think about protection.
They need to understand there is an important dimension.
Protection when it comes to the people and the community affected.
And they need to go one step further, which is also to understand there is a need when it comes to protection in the virtual world,
as well as a real so-called real world, really that is central.
I have not seen you mentioned organisation being at the forefront.
Of some of these issues related, for example, data protection they need.
That is a place that needs to happen. I've seen some of them working around that, but not really be on the forefront.
Should be and that should not be one organisation only that should be sector wide as an example.
So if you think about adaptation is also your own ability to understand that possibly tomorrow you
will have more local organisation and maybe businesses that will do the relief work and it's okay.
But the protection part, the ability to understand.
And when I talk protection, I'm not just talking about visiting prisoner, I'm really talking protection with I would call a big P,
which is you really think about the protection dimension in everything you do is something that needs to be regenerate and I think
needs to be understood as something that is really the responsibility of humans and actors when they operate in protected God.
It's very difficult, it's very complicated.
But learning how to leverage on international public law is a central part that needs to be trust owned by one organisation.
That needs to be something that is very powerful. Are you still with me?
Yes, absolutely. Great. So perfect. So I'll give you three more clays to add up and then I'm closing.
I'm more now an organisation but I think it's an important one is I really think in
terms of adaptation that humanity organisation needs to regain control over compliance.
It's too easy to complain about the compliance of the donor. Really?
It's too easy. It's too easy to just say can't do.
Donner is asking. I'm trying to implement. Sorry about it, you know.
There is a need to reshape it, to discuss it.
But to do that, you need to collaborate. That is difficult in your method world.
You need to be able to propose a model. That would work and would be interesting in terms of compliance.
I know it's difficult. I think, again, some of you have work hard on the grand bargain and all the some of the discussion
at the time between donors and you make that organisation as an example.
It's a time where you make an organisation if they want to be able to continue to be relevant and some wants
to be able to manage this complex relationship between donors and themselves and the people affected.
They need to invest, but invest intellectually also in terms of what is compliance in a very unstable environment.
How does that work? What all the information we sharing.
I think there is something here that has to be not being invested politically by you.
But to do that, you need to you absolutely need to collaborate.
You can't do that as a single organisation and hoping that your competitor will suffer more than you when it comes to accountability,
because that is not exactly what is good. And we've seen that in a very negative way.
You also need in terms of adaptation to shape new audiences.
I think there's no way to make an organisation will be able to continue to be relevant, including big organisation.
And here what I mean to achieve new audiences is not just audiences within the U.S. in sectors all with development sectors that we can talk about it.
I'm really thinking about also political alliances.
I am of the opinion, for example, that there is a time where you might organisation need to shape alliances with the cities around the world.
I really think cities are coming up and emerging as a strong power.
Not perfect. They won't solve everything. You will see that soon.
I think there is a report on multilateralism that is again coming up and soon with a proposal.
And one of the proposal of how do we rebuild multilateralism in this world will be to say even within the UN,
we have to be space to cities, could have a role to play. Why?
Because they are the frontline of a lot of issues. They have to deal with the migration, the climate crisis.
They are not perfect. Of course they will not solve all the problem. But they have a role to play right now in a time where state,
nation together are not able to create the consensus that are needed to deal with global solution.
So shaping new ideas means also humanitarian being a little bit more open,
a little more curious about trying to find the new audiences and not just one or two, but really do that.
I think there is also a role to play with the academic world in general.
I think the academic world difficulty the academic world as such.
But I think I see two trend. One trend is I see the academic world, some universities, some centres being willing to trying to find a role in society.
I see other also willing to retrench from there from the society that you might in world needs to work and use the academic space.
I would say in the academic liberty and the academic multidisciplinary to be able to develop some ability to understand again the
needs of the people have a better perspective on long term impacts and not specify specific KPI but long term impact of their role.
They need to be able to understand that they have a different role to look into that.
I think that that is an important.
My last point, I would like to conclude with that and it's the most important one in terms of change for me and adaptation.
And that's the one so far where I've seen us and here I'm saying us out of love.
Let's play that. We are failing or maybe not not taking this seriously enough.
It's about the people. It's about is a humanitarian.
And who has the power in international organisation, but also in international NGO and in humanitarian professional organisation.
I think we have not taken seriously or not enough the so-called decolonisation element.
We don't understand it with nervous about it. We are not the only one once we don't see it.
We hide ourself, you know, beyond the fact that, you know, you need to get back to the model.
You need fire brigade and you need people that are able to carry that forward.
We need I think there is a massive change that need to happen very clearly for me.
And I'm amazed when I look at the survey of over 50 leaders. They all look like me.
And it's okay because maybe not just the problems, but I think there is too male dominated again.
Totally. They are too western dominated totally. And that's maybe not the most important.
I think the way power is shared within an organisation remain very classical.
So where are the base? Where are the headquarter? Where are we?
Anchor. Oh, that's interesting. How do we look at the partner?
I mean, if you look at one thing that is never discussed in terms of moral, you have in the humanitarian acquis several.
What do you mean? You have massively to model. One model is direct operation.
So you operate directly with your own people on the ground in partnering with people.
But there's a lot of other organisation that operate via partner.
What I would say it's a subcontracting model.
And the subcontracting model creates also dimensions of power in a relationship between the centre and the periphery within organisation.
That is very problematic. It's not new at all, but I'm amazed to see the difficulties of who makes an organisation to someone.
The challenge that I've seen again a lot of doubt about localisation when you talk about
that and it will be interesting to reflect about what has worked so well in localisation,
as you mention, when it comes to natural disaster. Over the last 15 years I would consider not perfect, but there was a clear success.
And one of the reason was because I think it was not just the organisation, it was also the local government.
It was also because maybe there was a need to be able and the people understood why it was important.
I know in protracted crisis it's much more difficult, it's much more complex,
but at the same time there's no way for you make an organisation to be able to leave if they're not able to embrace,
I would say, an hybrids complex model because it's not just localisation kind of dropped.
No, no, no, no. But it is certainly a different way to share power between locally hired staff and expatriates.
You have different the wages, for example, that are absolutely not things you can't explain.
I'm sorry to say that. So I think how do we do that? What is the language we use, for example, when we describe this different function?
So I think they are elements that are very central and if you manage an organisation,
want to be able to continue to operate and want to be perceived as relevant,
and if we agree, that is first and foremost a social practice with a certain code and rules.
And in principle you need to make sure that then the entire organisation with all the level,
are able to to be rooted in the community of where it happens with all the problems.
Again, I'm saying when it's a war, I'm not saying you should just say local, the local organisation will be right.
That's what I'm saying.
But if we want to make a check and balance within each organisation, the way the power is distributed need to be really seriously challenged.
So that's the several area where back to what we said, it's not about adaptation as such,
but it's possibly adapting in specific area organisation can choose or maybe will be forced
to adapt in some of the places and maybe I should finish with that is if international
organisation or let's say you manage an organisation working internationally do not
want to adapt or can't adapt maybe or want to adapt only to one place is no worry.
They will not disappear. They will just shrug.
And what's happening already. And it's difficult to capture because, again, the figures we're giving are difficult to observe.
I would argue right now it's already the case that the market share and I'm careful I'm using the market share
of international United organisation has as as slightly shrink a little bit and not towards competitor.
But what's the people? I'm still amazed if you look at Somalia with Syria,
two very different contexts to see that a lot of humanitarian assistance aid came from the communities themselves,
from the diaspora, from the business. Maybe that's true.
It was not principled in search of and it's maybe why you mention can still do bring a very impartial organising response,
which is of course much more difficult when it comes from a community because community wants to help their own people.
But if there is no will and no ambitions and maybe no push to do that collectively,
because that's the other story, I think the only risk is you will still be you will still reflect together.
I hope it will be another project policy will still reflect together of what happens to your mind and actions.
And it will shrink a bit more in terms of market share and be less relevant for a lot of people.
And that is maybe the questions we should ask ourselves. Thank you very much.
Well, no shortage of things to sink our teeth into there.
We've got up to half an hour for questions.
And I've just been asked to remind everybody that this part of the talk is also being webcast and recorded.
We have at least one roving mike who would like to get this going.
The gentleman right at the back closest to the mike. Thank you very much.
And Ray Taylor from Orford. And we work on multi continent famines.
So Amartya Sen and others showed very clearly that most famines in the 20th century were to do with distribution and equity and war.
But this year, for the first time since 1816, we're looking at 48 countries that may face an absolute shortage of food,
where the WFP and major relief agencies simply are not able to get enough food to those 48 countries in those four continents.
That's a huge change. You know, when you're you're expecting that the supplies will come in.
It relates to what you said about Russia being one of the world's biggest exporters,
but even more so into the fertiliser crisis that affects both Russia and Belarus.
So have you thought about this? Do you have any hope or advice for for the major NGOs?
Because we haven't been let down, you know, by the FAO, IMF.
They've been talking about this since April of last year. So the main crises and the women in crisis have done really well for us on this occasion.
And it's us that isn't really facing what's coming. You know, Edinburgh University have projected the like it has and so on.
So I wonder if you see that as a, as a challenge we can rise to and how.
Yes, I do. Thank you very much for your your comments and your question. Yes, I do.
I am very nervous about what I see happening in front of us, both in terms of as you mentioned, in terms of anger.
But I'm also very nervous about what I think in terms of climate crisis, of the speed in which happening.
I mean, in some some of the region seems to be under such a pressure.
So we know already that the migration will be extraordinarily high. And I think there is no questions about what to what to do.
I think we are back to what we said the beginning. I think we need to create new audiences.
That's creative.
I mean, needs to be discussed with all the people that just the IMF and the World Bank, the World Bank and the IMF all doing what they are good at,
which is some wants to to somewhat frame the response, maybe put a price on the response,
but they won't be able to to provide the response to the country.
No way. So I think if if we want to be able to move in the right direction.
So I think and not just waiting at an absolute disaster, which will be then too late,
because we know one of the problems with famine is if we intervene too late and maybe we are already too late in some other places,
what I see some of the figures we need to create a different type set of audiences.
Absolutely. And the audiences are maybe with different set of foundation of of cities.
I'm back to that. But really creating a dynamic that is a bit different.
Otherwise we will face and I'm rather to be honest on that one, I'm a little bit grim.
I don't have a lot of hope that things will change quickly,
because I see a lot of other places where I don't have the feeling that the international community is ready to move in the right directions.
If I could move the mic all the way to the front, I think Lucy was flagging me just there.
Firstly, thank you. That was an absolutely excellent talk and I think we were all amazed that you had no PowerPoint to rely on.
It was all in your head. My question was this a lot of what you talked about, the the what needs to happen did rely on this collaboration,
this this idea that humanitarian organisations which have often been pitted
against each other or pitted against each other in funding sort of competitions.
Wouldn't be able to come together and make some big, hard and potentially expensive decisions.
What could you imagine could happen to make that happen?
What could be done that would get that collaboration and change to happen?
It's a good question because I as a CEO, I was not able to bring the collaboration.
I wanted to I think there's two of these several women. Maybe there's three.
The first one is common threads.
It's always great, you know, when you are threatened by something that creates maybe so many elements, you could have a new competitors coming in.
I'm sorry. Just to look into it. I hope you're not shocked by that, but you could have.
And then we see that in development. You saw that big organisation like TWC, for example, KPMG.
We're starting to move into the area of first development and humanitarian.
Why? Because they understand there is a market when it comes to risk management.
What they understand. That's right.
No government would be ready to pay a little bit more bit of a premium as long as I can use one of the big one as a risk manager.
And then what would happen is you would hire TWC.
I hope that whatever KPMG or one of this organisation and then they would subcontract based on a very specific KPI,
it was subcontract an organisation to do that. So far they have somewhat resisted to move into conflict because the level of risk is a bit too high.
But they have moved already in some of the open area and if you look specifically about
some of the figures in this country where the money has gone over the last five years,
we'll be surprised that they've gone, you know, massively into some of this in between organisation.
So let's imagine that you see KPMG and others start to really move aggressively some money into the market.
I would say traditionally you might connectors might start to say,
well that's the time to act together because we will soon not be in a position to be able to it.
So that's one option, option to less money, that's resource.
It's very sad to say that. But when you have less resources, these are moments if you are smart,
where you need to start to reflect about the way you collaborate and the way you want to do that.
I know it's rare because only when you have less money, you become more competitive.
But these are moments where you maybe want to start to reflect and have a sense.
And maybe the last one, which is maybe the most interesting one,
is when you start to understand that you will not be able to operate anymore based on your own assumption.
They are places that are more and more difficult to reach out for international organisation
very quickly because the cost of operating in terms of security for home is too high.
They are places where you need to have a much better understanding of the evolution of the needs and the condition.
So you might be then more willing to work and collaborate with the local actors and find a way.
If I give an example and again take it all that is public.
So I'm very nervous about what I can say or not. But I'll give you an example of my own organisation, my,
my former organisation when I CSC was and still is working full fledged in big operation like Afghanistan or like Yemen.
Frankly, we would collaborate with the Red Cross and Red Crescent and nicely with the UN,
whatever, but not that much funds carefully managing our own territory, if I may say so.
When we were operating in places where we were smaller because we didn't have a mandate to operate,
because maybe they didn't want us to be there, or maybe because we were under the threshold of a classical conflict.
I'm thinking about I'm thinking about, for example, Latin America.
This is like Salvador, Guatemala, whatever. At some moment in history and all the recent history,
we have much more collaborative because we're smaller and we have no choices then to collaborate
deeply with the National Red Cross that was then running the show together with us.
So what I'm saying here, I'm trying to observe it doesn't have to be like that.
But then when there is almost a common understanding and maybe I would say almost an agreement about the fact that we are interdependence,
that will change a bit the tactics. And last but not least, that's another element is if we continue to have a model of subcontracting,
let's say humanitarian actors in the United Response, and that's donors continue to be to be ready to pay.
That's going be the force element. So it's also a different way to look at that. That will be very difficult to be able to collaborate.
So I think there is also a model that is really subspecialty, the subcontracting model that is really not in favour of collaboration.
Okay. We have another question on the front, and I think someone in the middle of the room should get to go over the mark.
Thank you. It was terrific. So I want to return to the first question, which is it's the 8 billion people problem.
And I'm just wondering what the boundaries of humanitarian care are when we've got people an enormous
amount of economic migration and when is economic migration actually a response to a humanitarian crisis?
And I suppose it goes back to one of the early points, which is the rise of sovereignty and containment.
And we're trying to contain something which is now under such pressure.
I mean, I can't see anything other than a rather pessimistic future, but it is that challenge.
When is it humanitarian? When is it not?
So we're okay with people coming away from an earthquake, but we don't like people coming across the channel in rubber beds.
You asking a deep. Question you can ask.
You can also ask questions about the migrants and the refugees coming from Ukraine and versus what happens to them and versus,
you know, what happened to Syrian or Afghan migrants.
Okay, let me try this. The first is we do have as a humanitarian, all you mentioned the have to be very humble.
I mean, they don't call the shots for that kind of thing. Let's be very clear rights.
And I think their ability to help is very limited.
The key questions and maybe the moral question sometimes is do you want to intervene into a framework in which you are used to manage crowds?
Right. And I think there is something about that.
If I look at migrants, I think one of the key question is,
do you want to continue to make the life of migrants in the border of Greece and tomorrow, soon, when it will be will great European hub in Niger?
Do you want us humanitarian to somewhat manage the fact that people are waiting there and decrease the suffering?
But you are still absolutely not tackling at all the fundamental problems.
And I think this is not new. You has always had to balance that.
My sense is if we you are able to provide an impartial and independent response and you are able to somewhat provide humanity somewhere,
you have to go for it. But at the same time, being super clear about what you role, what are the limits of the role and how to do that.
I mean, I was working in organisation that were systematically confronted with that.
When you are operating in prison. I can tell you you really are confronted with issues that are not related or beyond your control.
But you need to be aware though, right? So I think that's the balance in which we operate.
So all when you talk about the migration questions or what you talk before about the the massive health but also anger issue that are coming to us.
Yes. These are all for humanitarian. Absolutely. But you might need to be very humble.
But at the same time, being able maybe to push and create the rights alliances to maybe shift that had been some
of the policy that that is the that is the balance in which you are somewhat operating.
Very fragile. Balance. Very fragile. Given we have in the room with us and I will get to the middle of the room, I promise.
But a former secretary of state and head of the Office for Humanitarian Affairs in the U.N.,
I think it would be rather remiss not to bring Valerie into the conversation at this stage.
Thank you. And thank you very much.
You really encapsulated, I think, a lot of the discussions and debates that we've been having over many, many years.
But I really wanted to partly come back to your question about, you know, where does humanitarian action stop and how do we define that?
But also have to come back to a couple of the points that you made in your fantastic
introduction on this issue of where where does humanitarian action begin or stop?
I mean, in a way, I think the answer rests with what Eve was talking about, about people.
Because always you have to say people do not they don't experience their lives in stages.
They don't say, oh, I mean, the humanitarian crisis today and tomorrow, actually, I mean, the development crisis.
So the important thing is really about. How are we responding to the needs of the people on the ground?
And one of the big challenges we always have is this distinction between what happens as a result of conflict,
what happens as a result of natural disaster. Which partly brings me to your point about sovereignty,
because I thought it was really striking recently when we were looking at what was happening in Turkey and Syria
and watching how people were responding and talking about the slowness of the response and everything else.
But actually there was quite a lot of challenging from the people on the ground themselves in the context of Syria about,
well, why didn't you just cross the border? Real challenge of this.
The answers that were coming from international organisations, the U.N. and everybody else who was saying,
obviously we couldn't just cross the border because we needed the permission of the Syrian government and people on the ground saying,
but there were people suffering and there was nobody helping them.
So I guess my question to you in the context of your sovereignty point, and this is something that we have talked about time and time again,
is is there anything or is there a way in which we can use the fact the people on the ground now are challenging the sovereignty narrative?
In a helpful rather than unhelpful way.
It's basically becomes people versus government. And then my second I've got lots of questions for you, but I won't ask them all.
But my second question is really about your point about risk.
Because we all saw the way that over time risk was being.
Risk was being used almost as a way. Governments were trying to shove the risk onto the people doing humanitarian action.
The most obvious example was always, Why is a proportion of your aid?
It may have been, you know, .000 1%, but why does a proportion of your aid end up in the hands of Al Shabab or, you know,
some other organisation on the ground without any kind of recognition that you are operating in the most challenging circumstances possible?
I think it would be pretty amazing if some of the aid didn't go astray.
So on this risk point. How can we help the ordinary people, as it were, to really understand that?
Because what? Well, ministers and governments are worried about is a headline which says your hard earned tax dollars have gone to the hands of,
you know, some armed group on the ground.
But it partly has traction because we haven't really helped people to understand the difficulty of delivering that.
And I mean, I would sit in New York, sign off for, you know, members of staff that I was responsible for to cross conflict lines.
And I'd be getting a phone call saying we're being shot at, can help us.
I mean, that is the reality of the experience of people on the ground.
But nobody really understands and appreciates that.
And is there more that we can do to recreate the kind of alignment that I think we had many,
many years ago when there was a greater support for humanitarian and development action?
My apologies for being so long. It was great.
I start with the last question. I have the feeling that all the time you mentioned about alignment.
There was also an alignment about some with the way humanitarian we're talking about the oppression and what was their own reality,
which was somewhat we still believe in to emergency and we are mainly related to emergency and that's what distinguish us from the European actors.
That has changed dramatically and for good reason too, right?
So I think one of the big issue is humanity.
And the way they communicate, the way they fundraise is still around emergency most of the time or around specific.
What's called audience is target audiences, you know, the child or the people or whatever.
So, so being able to tell the story of the complexity of the united response in Syria, for example,
and what it means and who needs to be brought in and why it's a risk is a super complicated element.
But it's true what I still see. I'm receiving that as a citizen.
I'm still receiving a lot of ask in terms of funding.
And then we never about the complexity of operating.
They're always about emergency.
They're always about give us money and we will translate this money in immediate response and be aware this response will be perfect.
Oh, Jesus, that's not at all.
So I think the first thing would be to start is humanity and might be willing to slightly, slightly change a bit the way they were talking.
That would help. So that's maybe the first time. But I need to recognise also that people don't listen to your mind in any way.
So we still believe it's useful to do that. I'm sorry to say that, but I'm recently chair of a media group and and one of my I knew it.
But you know, when you see that, when you look at the age of people reading newspaper,
really worrying about and worried about where people are will be influenced by what.
So I think the key question would be, how are the younger generation being informed?
Where do they informed? I have not seen really a lot of influence here on the YouTube 45 seconds talking about
the complexity I have not seen maybe and maybe that's the issue with where it happens.
I'm not seeing a lot of young Syrian being able to maybe express that or maybe that is not reaching out.
So I think there is a question that goes much beyond just humanity and being able to communicate and influencing and telling the story.
Last but not least, what would be useful still, though, and that's possible.
I don't find humanity have done it. We've been that that I consulted me we didn't do a good job enough also with
parliamentary I think it's not just in the right the public but also parliament needs,
for example, to understand what it means, what all the questions of risk, how do we operate.
But let's also be honest, most of the European Parliament, for example, have not really discussed,
in fact, also the way their own country are operating in Syria or in Libya or whatever.
So if you as a humanitarian start to talk about that, you will find a lot of resistance also from the government who are not at all
interested to talk about special forces and what it means and whole come.
Oh, by the way they are in the same place that humanitarian actors.
So I think it's also interesting around around that but it's a big challenge I agree with you and
very difficult for me and seems to change the first one about the people versus the government.
For me, I don't think there's a global response. I think there are specific response and it's about the people.
It's not about us. In the humanitarian, I have the impression and that's the good news is government,
including non-democratic or so called governments, are more and more very aware of the importance of the public opinion.
And they are aware they try to control them,
but they are aware of how difficult it is to have suddenly your own citizen on camera, you know, talking about how you failed.
And we've seen that over the last six months. We've seen a whole bunch.
China has been impacted by that. We've seen that whole much. Turkey is very nervous about that.
So it's interesting to observe at what moment. And this is not something that you can control.
I see that as an interesting way to look at that. Of course, then it doesn't work everywhere.
In Syria, for example, people can continue to to say that.
And I don't think the Assad regime will feel any way related to that question, though I still feel,
surprisingly enough, that even the Assad regime is willing to somewhat manage a bit its own reputation.
So my point will be it's not something that should be pushed or helped,
but there's a recognition and that needs maybe to be we need to be more aware that two day government,
whatever the the government is and whatever the countries seems to be more
aware and more influence and more nervous about what their own people think,
especially when the people are life. There's something about that that is very interesting.
Does that mean that they will change the way they interact with people and change the way they will relate to human connection?
That's another story, but I find interesting, at least to observe that. Okay.
Well, from the middle of the room over there. And then I know that Charles, I've got to come to you.
I think we've got about seven or 8 minutes to work with. Thank you very much.
And first, thank you, Dave, very much for a fascinating discussion.
My name is Lachlan. I am a graduate student here at Oxford. And as you can tell by my accent, I am Australian.
So I'm one of the white Western men that you go to, many of us and we are sector.
I wanted to ask a bit of an amorphous sort of question. I like your thoughts on it.
And also, given that there are so many people in the room who might be considering careers in humanitarian organisations,
hopefully it's useful to more than just me. I have a background in human rights with the Australian Government and when I
was in Geneva a couple of years ago I met a young man who had just returned.
He worked for the ICRC and had just returned from about six months in Syria and in conversation
with me and he was saying he was kind of questioning my motivations a little bit I suppose,
and saying to me that if if I didn't seek a career or at least a portion of my career out in the field to see what it was really like,
then how could I claim to care about human rights? How could I claim to be, you know, really invested?
I guess I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on that claim and and whether choosing to not go out into the field,
rather choosing to say a capital or in headquarters does compromise the quality of
work that somebody can deliver or the kind of contribution that somebody can make.
Great question. So I am sorry to say that I fundamentally disagree with my former colleagues when it's for performance.
It depends what you want to do. I think there is a lot you can play an amazing, amazingly powerful role from Oxford here in terms of human rights.
Today you can and I'm amazed and I think one thing about digitalisation that is helping.
I'm totally amazed about what's happening. And again, so perfect with what's happening, what has happened in Syria,
but also in Ukraine in terms of justice, for example, we know it will be difficult to have justice.
But what's happened, if you look at Germany applying universal justice in Gaza way last year when
they were judging one Syrian responsible for can try a prison and they based
not all but a lot of judgements about on on in fact video and work that has been
collected by people and the people who conducted that we are not in Syria. Right.
So just to give a sense of a different way today to work on human rights, you don't have to be on this.
So I would totally disagree with that element, though.
When you're working in an organisation that's slightly different, right?
If you work in organisation that has cooperation on the ground, then we talk about some things.
We talking about you being part of the culture of the organisation, you willing to influence the organisation, right?
Which is normal.
And here in some organisation you have to be in the field, not so much to meet the people, but to understand how the organisation is assessing risk.
How is the organisation making priority? So what I'm saying, it's a different element.
I'm not saying that about human rights. You can do human rights work amazingly from wherever you are and specifically, right.
I think there's a lot of work to be done right now in the Western world, also from the Western world, but also about the Western world.
It's time also for us to think that we need not just to look at what's happening down there,
but also what happens in our own country in terms of centre and periphery, of deeply convinced.
I think there's a lot of relationship around that also for good, good reason.
And at the same times, if it's about being in an organisation that has an importance, I would say feel footprint that's slightly different.
You don't have to be exposed to understand human rights and the issue,
but you need to be exposed to understand the culture of the organisation and possibly you can look at your being willing to change organisation.
You don't come in your organisation without willing to change and that's easy to influence or an organisation.
So it's a two difference response. Charles We have some questions online.
So the question that has most but the line it is from Helen Fowler and it's got two
parts is both to do with UK policy as Valerie might have a view on this as well.
We used to have enshrined in law that we would spend 0.7% of GDP on aid and that went down to 0.55.
And we used to have a separate department for International Development and we've merged the two and just.
Hearing an Australian accent. The Australian Government did the same thing about five or six years.
And how does question is from the outside? What is your impression that those two changes have had on humanitarian activities on the ground?
I don't know about Ukraine. I find difficult to judge.
But what is very clear for me here, I'm really on a personal opinion is if you connect that with this country,
I found this country and this is not related to the 0.7%.
It's not related to sorry to say that's to the FCO or if it is related to the crisis in which this country has gone through relating to the Brexit.
Sorry to say that I've seen this country losing completely its own ability to think and to take distance and being totally taken on by the Brexit.
And I'm saying right, not right or wrong, but you've been so busy with the Brexit that I've not seen you being very strategic,
including in terms of the way you operate with towards Ukraine.
So I look at the way this country is operating towards Ukraine more as a result of, if I may say,
the Brexit in the aftermath of the result, much more than the result of having to defeat the FCO, an organisation.
Just to give a sense right now, point B Now if I want to be more specific,
my experience which in the not related to UK but is related to in fact merging a department specific department into one element.
My, my tendency would say I found personally better to have two different voices and I'm explaining why because of course
when you represent as minister of Foreign Affairs are the same times of development and you might an actress,
you are not expected to talk about the development.
You might that actress you are talking about, you expect you to talk about the interest of your country at the highest level, which is normal.
That's what is problematic when you are in intense discussions with the cabinet, you don't where to have as a person.
You of course are experiencing and pushing one agenda,
which is perfectly understood and of course that you made an agenda will not be on the table or very rarely on the table.
And that's what makes a difference.
I am aware, for example, in this country, but also in Australia and other places, that there were very tense discussions within the Cabinet between,
for example, the musical foreign affairs and the Minister of Development for good reason because we were talking about some issues.
This will go and I am of the opinion that it's always better to have different voices,
especially when you talk about situation as complex as a crisis, a conflict.
It's better to have some elements. So that will be my experience.
What I've expressed doesn't mean it's perfect at all, but at least it allows to have a more concerned with response and my affection to all that.
What was it that very quickly. You needed my credit.
You need a bank. Thank you.
I completely agree with that. But I would add two other things.
I would add the fact that when you bring two government departments together, you just become focussed on the internal organisation of it.
So we started to look much more inward than outward and at a point when we were going through a national crisis as a country and you know,
essentially we're trying to think about what is our, you know, what is our foreign policy.
If you had had two separate departments, you could still have an outward looking defender, even if you had an internal looking foreign office.
And my view is we lost that. The second thing I would say is that, you know, we lost we lost our thought leadership.
We had such important thought leadership around these issues, around development and humanitarian issues.
We were right up there in terms of our relationship across the world on that, and we completely lost that.
And I think it's a great pity.
And I think I would just drop a bit of history and remind ourselves that when Barbara Castle set up the Ministry for Overseas Development,
it was partly there to make aid more than a charity, as she said at the time,
but also to make sure that it wasn't an instrument of our foreign policy.
Whose next? Over here, just.
Yeah. Thank you. Good to see you again outside of Geneva.
Just a quick question. I know that may be difficult to answer,
but let me look at the grand bargain and the commitments that both governments and international NGOs you agreed to.
Where do you think is the biggest resistance coming from? Because six years down the road, we don't really.
You don't really see that the needle moved in any big way.
Is it because the international NGOs are afraid to lose their power, or is it that the donors are afraid to fund it?
I don't know if everybody's familiar with that. So there was what was it, 2016 lines?
It was a real conversation at the time. What happens between the big donors?
But then government ends big. That's a kind of an ecosystem of big united organisation and trying to find out what's called a grand bargain.
The beginning was interesting.
The name Grand Bargain was kind of because the idea was, Oh, let's do a grand bargain, that it would make it all collectively more efficient.
So I think we can always have a discussion about, well, it wasn't the case.
We've lost it because we were not able they were not able we were not able to focus on one issue.
And so there was too many issues.
And then when you have 2 minutes, you have it's very well, if you don't want anything to change, then change everything.
So that was exactly what happened to the grand bargain. Be sure that nothing would happen.
What has for me? What I would have pushed it. I know it's difficult.
I would have pushed really one findings that came out in Istanbul, which was the kind of the you mentioned, summit, big discussion.
And the idea was very interesting was in fact, only 2.5% of the overall money goes to local actress.
Right. I think what I found interesting is that could have been easily done.
Targets and let's push in that directions.
And I'm not saying everything would have been change,
but it would have obliged all the American actress and the donors to start to change their behaviour.
It hasn't really been pushed for different reasons and then of course we are back to let's have a collective KPI.
I'm not going to own all. And I think that was for me, maybe the places where you could have the most chance of success.
Because of course, when you suddenly decides that donors, government donors will pay directly and find historically local actors,
it would have created a lot of questions about what is a good local actress?
How do we qualify that? What does that mean in terms of accountability?
But it would have been very useful into the model. It didn't happen.
And we can have a long discussion why?
And that's why now we are in somewhere, which is, you know, with lot of proposal, a lot of change, and it will have very limited impact.
Sadly, sadly. So one thing I've learned about election night in school is that it aims for and achieves Swiss levels of efficiency in timekeeping.
And I've been told that that means that we have to ramp up. Now, two things just before we do.
The first is to remind everybody that there is a drinks reception.
You are all welcome to it. It will be back through the doors and just to the right.
And then, of course, on all our behalf to thank E for spending time with us today.
I think if anything struck me about that wonderful talk, it was yes.
I think the honesty with which you faced up to the problems facing the international humanitarian sector,
but just also how thoughtful and thought provoking you were on the possibilities and the potential for change.
And I think the latter is as important as the former. Thanks so much for giving us your time.