Hugo Slim is one of the best known and most interesting thinkers in the humanitarian space. He works at Univeristy of Oxford on the ethics and practice of humanitarian action and currently focus on answering the question “What is Climate Humanitarianism?” In this conversation with Lars Peter Nissen, Hugo discusses how we should define and prioritise humanitarian needs. The two papers that form the basis of the conversation can be found here:
- How should we define and prioritise humanitarian need?
- Painful Choices: How Humanitarians Can Prioritize in a World of Rising Need – A Conversation Starter for the Climate Emergency
Transcript
Lars Peter Nissen 1:09
Hugo Slim is one of the best known and most interesting thinkers we have in the humanitarian space. He works at University of Oxford on ethics and practice of humanitarian action, and currently he does a lot of research around climate humanitarianism. Before then, he was with ICRC, where he was the head of policy. Hugo has recently published a couple of pieces on how we should define and prioritise humanitarian needs, and that is what we will discuss in this conversation. You'll find a reference to both papers in the show notes. As you will hear, Hugo and I don't agree on how we should prioritise in the humanitarian sector. A couple of the principles he proposes really rubs me the wrong way and we have a good and quite direct discussion around that.
That level of disagreement is what made it such a fun and good conversation, and I really want to thank Hugo for the way he engages in the humanitarian sector and challenges all of us to think new thoughts so that we can do better.But make up your own mind. Listen to the conversation. And when you have listened, please share your thoughts on social media. Also, don't forget to share the episode with colleagues and friends who might be interested in it. As always, most importantly, enjoy the conversation.
Hugo Slim, Welcome to Trumanitarian.
Hugo Slim 2:33
Thank you very much. Lovely to be here Lars Peter.
Lars Peter Nissen 2:35
I almost feel like I don't need to introduce you. You are one of the, I would say, leading thinkers in the humanitarian sector on: How do we do better? Are the principles the right ones? Should we even be neutral anymore? But anyways, it might be useful if we just say a few words about what you currently are doing.
Hugo Slim 2:54
Yeah. So I'm back at Oxford University now, and I've shifted from war to climate. And so I'm trying to research and write a new book on what ethics we need for the climate emergency as humanitarians. So I'm very lucky to be funded by three Red Cross agencies, 3 Caritas agencies, for two years to ask the question: What is climate humanitarianism?
Lars Peter Nissen 3:17
And one of the themes you're picking up in relation to that work on climate is: How do we define and how do we prioritise humanitarian needs? Or how do we shape the humanitarian narrative in a climate emergency context, I would say. And then: What are the implications for the decision making of the changes we'll see in the future? What drives that interest in needs and participation?
Hugo Slim 3:43
So I think what made me take needs and prioritisation seriously in my current thinking about climate is you know, a couple of words from the IPBC and they talk about unprecedented quite a lot. And that's important because it means you can't necessarily say needs will be on a trajectory that they have been on so far with war and sporadic disasters. So we may face unprecedented needs. And of course, if you're reading into climate, you're also reading tipping points and certain tipping points may make things irreversible, which is another word that makes me think, OK, if something is irreversible we're not going to go back on certain things, so we're going to have a new state of affairs and new set of needs. So it's really those things that made me think and, you know, being a theologian originally and innately apocalyptic, I thought, you know, maybe we're going to face something. I decided to call massive needs or they've actually, I'm not a complete apocalyptic person on climate. But I do think we might want to take massive needs seriously. And recurrent needs because you know you're gonna have one storm in the same place and then another storm in the same place. And so that's what made me think about it.
Lars Peter Nissen 5:02
It's very hard to come to terms with something that is unprecedented, as you say. I sometimes try to recall what I felt like a couple of weeks into COVID when we just knew that something was happening, and now try to remember: How did I imagine this would end? And I thought it was around easter it would end. And a couple of years later, you have had a transformative experience, I would say, with the whole shutdown and the way the world has… and that is still with us. And I think that's just a small taste of what could be coming our way.
Hugo Slim 5:34
But the nice thing is that what we know from COVID is that transformative experience you talk about is not all negative. And actually we've discovered great new things. I mean, you're probably podcasting, partly because you needed to talk in COVID and, you know, this is a way to do it...
Lars Peter Nissen 5:48
Yeah, I was bored out of my head…
Hugo Slim 5:48
Yeah, so there you are. So lots of good things emerge in challenges. And I'm sure that will be the same with adaptation and new ways of living and working and helping people in the climate emergency.
Lars Peter Nissen 6:04
What would you say are the key issues we should think about with respect to needs?
Hugo Slim 6:09
Well, I think it's a good moment for us as a sector to think about where we really need to focus, what parts of people's lives, what moments in people's lives, we need to focus on as a sector. You know, if the humanitarian word is going to mean anything, presumably it means a particular set of needs. And I think the other thing is that I feel we, you know, the IASC system has an investor crisis at the moment. You know investors are not rushing in to meet the pledges, so that's the reality now that's been recognised by OCHAs latest report which, you know, says we have to prioritise. So I think there's less money. There's a new climate emergency around us. There's escalating war. There's also a new crowd around the climate emergency, new finance, you know, Green Finance, IFI is engaged, sustainable developments coming, big play businesses, and there is the humanitarian. So in that new crowd, how are we going to organise our roles and the humanitarian fit within that crisis because, we're tiny compared to a lot of that bigger money, and I think a lot of our traditional donors may think: Well, that, you know 2 billion, we could have given to the humanitarians, we'll give it to someone else in the crowd, cause they'll do it better. And they have more skills. So we need to prioritise and focus.
Lars Peter Nissen 7:32
Yeah, I would agree with all of that, and I would add that I don't think that it necessarily is scalable what we're doing. So I'm not even sure you can solve it by just throwing more money at the IASC.
Hugo Slim 7:41
No, I don't think you can. I think we have to do, you know, the cliché – more with less or less with less. I actually think we should try and do less with less. I think we have become a bit utopian in the last 20 years. You know, since I started in the 80s as a relief worker, we're now basically trying to, you know, live out and help people enjoy the whole declaration of human rights, and I think that's challenging, and I think humanitarians should focus in some way on emergency, and relief. Which is getting people back on their feet. We don't have to make them live a whole life, you know? That's for them and for others.
Lars Peter Nissen 8:28
Yeah, you describe it in one of your articles as an overloaded Christmas tree, I believe, where we just keep on hanging new dongles on there, or whatever they're called.
Hugo Slim 8:36
We do, we keep on hanging new needs every year and the General Assembly adds a few more and these are processed needs and outcome needs. So the ways we should work better with people and the way we should work better with development and peace, it's a it's a massive agenda, big tree, lots of baubles. And I I'm interested, I did report on needs lately and I think it's important that we recognise humanitarian aid, if it's about emergency, is a satisficing project, not an optimising project. We're trying to satisfy certain needs crucial to life. We're not trying to optimise a person or a family or communities, whole lives and give them full prosperity, full human rights and everything else.
Lars Peter Nissen 9:19
So really back to basics is what you're saying.
Hugo Slim 9:22
Well, yeah. I mean yes, back to a core set of needs. You know the sphere standards are not bad when we look at what people might really you know need in emergency but, you know, basic needs are quite complicated to meet. So it's not basic to meet a basic need. If you're going, you know, well, if you're going to get water to people that needs systems, there are systems needs for, you know, water sourcing, distribution, purification, etcetera.
Lars Peter Nissen 9:50
You're distinguishing. You're riding between life-saving, life-keeping and life-making needs – can you just elaborate on that.
Hugo Slim 9:57
Yeah, so I think humanitarians should focus as emergency people unless they think there's something else, on life saving and life keeping, so keeping people going while they get back on their feet. But we are not the sector that should engage in a life making the whole range of human rights, the whole, you know, move towards greater prosperity and things.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, that very much resonates with my thinking as well, but – I was a bit surprised then to read you having a go at impartiality – because I thought surely impartiality is part of that basis, that we built on as humanitarians. That we don't discriminate on the basis of identity. But we do discriminate on the basis of suffering and urgent needs. How can we say goodbye to that?
Hugo Slim:Well we don't have to. I mean, I do recognise severity and urgency as a criteria as my first of the seven criterias. I recognise urgency in urgent cases but the reason I'm coming for impartiality now is different. I'm coming in part for impartiality, and I'm not the only one, because I think we have to make decisions about the future as well; future lives, a lot of investments into adaptation, and disaster risk reductions, which I think we have to be a part of for communities, and actually thinking about saving lives five 5-10-15 years ahead, you know, what I call intergenerational aid. So impartiality gives… you bump into a boundary there with impartiality… because you need to say most urgent cases of distress in the future as well. And so that's where I'm thinking at the moment about impartiality. That's one aspect where I think impartiality is no longer flexible enough or realistic enough. The other reason I'm coming for impartiality a bit is that I'm afraid I do feel, and I'm… one of my 7 criteria is proximity… and we can't actually, you know, impartiality is morally unrealistic. We can't be universalist entirely, and it's right sometimes to help people who are closer to us. In geography or kinship of some kind, and alliance of some kind. So again, I don't think we always have to rush to the other side of the world for the greatest case of need. We have obligations to people near us emotionally and physically.
Lars Peter Nissen:Interesting. I'd like to return to that sort of at the end of the conversation, but maybe we should dive into the seven criterias that you outlined that you think we as a community should be using to priorities needs right, and the first one is urgency. Tell me a bit about that.
Hugo Slim:Well, that's the core principle of you know… Impartiality itself says you must, you know, distinguish on the basis of need alone. And then, of course, if you've got so many needs and you have to prioritise again, you must do the most urgent cases of distress. So there's a sort of triage logic there. And I agree with that. We have to look at who is in most urgent need and focus there. If we are about life saving and life keeping.
Lars Peter Nissen:And that's by and large, uncontroversial, I would say. Does anybody disagree with that?
Hugo Slim:Yeah, no I don't think that, that's mainstream.
Lars Peter Nissen:Cool. So let's jump to #2, which is around differential suffering and need. What's that?
Hugo Slim:Well, I think what's you know, I quite like the language from the Paris Agreement, from the COB process of differential capacity and differential responsibility. That states have differential capacity to engage in climate action and differential responsibility. And I think we should add in differential suffering, because I think we have to bring on the old distinction of absolute suffering and relative suffering. And you know, this is a universal emergency, climate emergency, so there are going to be people who are suffering in London at the moment because it's so cold and there's a freeze in London, OK, but there's also going to be people suffering in other parts of the world, because of floods or whatever and disasters at the same time. Now both groups are suffering. It's a bit like urgency, but it's saying actually, who is suffering and has less ability to cope. And that's where you focus, I think. You have to be conscious of differential suffering. Just suffering itself is not enough. Because one of the problems we're going to have is that rich countries are going to say: We've got people suffering In our own country. But I’m gonna say: But it's differential suffering and they're not suffering as much because actually there are more people that can do something about it.
Lars Peter Nissen:I would say again here we are pretty close to current practice right?
Hugo Slim:Yeah, pretty mainstream, yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:And not very few humanitarians would disagree with that.
Hugo Slim:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:Cool. Then becomes #3: Present and future Needs.
Hugo Slim:So this is the challenge of saying, you know, we have to think of the future of it in climate ethics. We have to think not just of anticipating in three months or a year, but actually trying to do Disaster Risk Reduction investments for 10 years, 15 years ahead. So people in the future should be on our radar. If we think their needs are gonna be even worse than people today. So you know, I'm saying you always think ahead. You know, when you build a hospital, you build it for people today and with that money, you know it will be helping people in 20-30 years time and you're not spending that money on other people today who may be ill in some way.
Lars Peter Nissen:So my obvious question here is, yeah, I agree with that, but is it us as humanitarians who should do that? We started this conversation by talking about what we shouldn't do and how the Christmas tree had become more and more overloaded. And now you want us to deal with Christmas of the future.
Hugo Slim:Christmas of the future. Yeah. OK. I mean, you mustn't expect it to be too consistent, Lars Peter. I'm contradictory human being as well. So I still think that a lot of agencies will be working with communities to help them adapt in some ways and help them to reduce their risk. I mean, I think DRR is a core part of our emergency tradition to try and prevent worse coming and that will mean making choices: that we're gonna work with this community, and it'll probably mean driving past a lot of people who are quite sick and quite ill on our way to plant trees and create better water systems and things for another community who will benefit in the future. So I just wanted to point out that trade off and I think it's probably OK – we have to do that as Human beings.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I can see it because we begin to project how climate change will make the situation in, say, Bangladesh worse and worse. And we need to think about that and tackle that. And that may deprioritize other areas.
Hugo Slim:Yeah. I mean, there's no down in Bangladesh when you invest a lot in cycling shelters to save a lot of lives over the next 5 to 10 years. You're not investing in primary healthcare somewhere else. So you're making these trade-offs.
Lars Peter Nissen:I still think we are beginning to get on the edge of where the humanitarianism ends and something else kicks in, right?
Hugo Slim:Yeah. Well, in which case, I mean, I agree, we've got to probably redefine this new big climate crowd, and that means I think a lot of people who are working in DRR should perhaps stop using the H word, the humanitarian word, and they should say: No, we're Disaster Risk Reduction people, we are adaptation people, we are in the climate action investment area. We're not life savers now. But again, very often they're probably doing a bit of both in the same community. Often they’re not.
Lars Peter Nissen:#4 is then around proximity and social bonds, and you touched upon this when we started the conversation. But please explain a bit – how, so we help people next to us, and not people far away?
Hugo Slim:Yeah. Sometimes we do and sometimes we're right to do it. So you know... Let me give you an obvious example which… or two, which really tend to shock the, you know leftist, liberal conscience, the universalist conscience. One is Ukraine, which everyone felt was deeply unfair, that we, the European money, would help Ukraine enormously and that it meant it wasn't money being spent in parts of Africa and Asia or whatever. And I think the point about that is that, that’s fine for me, you know, moral realism tells us we are closer to some people than others, and that gives us added obligations towards those people. You're closer to your family then you are to me. So I would expect you in an earthquake, when you know your children are in a school a mile away. I would expect you to run towards that school. And if I'm half a mile away, limping about and looking helpless, I would expect you to run past me, actually, because I would expect you to prioritise your children at that point and want to know what was happening in that school. And try and find them. And that makes sense to me and I wouldn't stop you and say: Hey, what about me? So that… and the other thing about the Ukraine thing is that actually often those arguments that the West is bias are simply not fair… You know… the idea that we spent too much in Ukraine and not enough and Syria and Somalia is not true. We've been investing money as the West in Somalia for decades. So it's going to take us a long time to catch up in a sense. So that's one thing. And the other example that's quite interesting is evacuation of foreign nationals from places like Sudan last year, or from an earthquake, or whatever... Or, and you know, everyone does this, the Pakistanis do it all the time. The, you know, the UAE people, the Brits and others. Now that seems horrendous and it often seems racist to people. I don't believe it's necessarily racist. I believe that if you have particular bonds with those people and emotional bonds, you should prioritise them. And it's probably not all you're doing anyway, because you're helping in other ways, but, you have an obligation to them based on some kind of family. So impartiality is not realistic in that way.
Lars Peter Nissen:For me the question is not whether it's racist, but whether we should use the H word, when we do it.
Hugo Slim:Yeah. Well, I don't have a problem with that. I think it's humanitarian. If I if I was, you know, if I was a Sudanese Britain, I was in Khartoum under gunfire and the Brits came to get me, I would think that was a profoundly humanitarian act and they'd saved my life, and, the principle of humanity would be met because it's to protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being and it's done in that job.
Lars Peter Nissen:I think the UK is doing their job by getting their citizens out. Don't get me… I think that's fine. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's not humanitarian.
Hugo Slim:I think it is. Right. We disagree. I mean I think it is. I think it's a great humanitarian act to go and save people when you can, and you can't save everyone. Save someone and why not save people that are close to you in some way?
Lars Peter Nissen:Interesting… you have… this is only #4. This is getting… Hugo..
Hugo Slim:Yeah. No, but I get, I get a lot of flags from people about the proximity 1.
Lars Peter Nissen:But I find it really interesting because it's counterintuitive to…
Hugo Slim:Well, it's counterintuitive for universalism. But universalism is not realistic. Universalism is practically not realistic in most situations.
Lars Peter Nissen:I understand as a father you would want to help your kids. I understand. But do you really want to give governments another legitimate reason to not care about people in Congo DRC?
Hugo Slim:Ah so you're worried about a slippery slope that if we recognise that as part of the repertoire of being humanitarian, then that's all they'll ever.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah.
Hugo Slim:Yeah, possibly. But then it's our responsibility to say that's not all you should ever do, and it's usually not all that they do.
Lars Peter Nissen:I mean, of course I am, because we're talking about prioritisation. And we're talking about a situation of massive, well, needs.
Hugo Slim:Yeah, there's no doubt. They probably spent more money on those 2000 people they get out in an evacuation than they will on, you know, 20,000 Sudanese they could have helped. There's no doubt that it's a definite prioritisation.
Lars Peter Nissen:Which I can live with, as long as they don't take it out of the pot money that was supposed to go to international humanitarian aid. I think we need to ring fence.
Hugo Slim:OK, so the other reason I'm talking about proximity, is in the wider context of geopolitical division of labour, because I think we now have to have a system of systems and you know, China, India, BRICS, Brazil there's a lot of countries, a lot of middle powers, Indonesia, Mexico with a lot of money and Western humanitarianism, which basically funds the ISC system with a bit of Gulf money as well, needs to focus on a certain humanitarian sphere where it has resonance capacity and effective reach. Now there are lots of parts of the world where it doesn't have resonance – people think it's western and ghastly and won't let it in. It doesn't have reach, therefore… and it costs them all to get there. So they've got to decide where the Western emphasis should be, geographically, geostrategically, where it can play best. The Chinese have to decide where their bit can be, and the Indians have to decide and others do. And then we need a system of systems, not just the ISC Western donor system. So the other way to do it is to, you know, shared responsibility and the West tries to hog the responsibility. It should share it much more.
Lars Peter Nissen:It really does… it rubs me the wrong way in so many ways. Right? I think on one side it sounds to me like, you know, we'll divide the world into your crisis and our crisis….
Hugo Slim:Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's exactly what I'm saying. And I think that's important. That's what we do with states. At one level. Take humanitarian responsibility in your sphere of influence, reach and resonance.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I… get that… I just worry a bit that… You started with theology. You come at this from an ethical point of view. You you're not in in the trenches here. You're not in the deep operational stuff and I feel like here, you're somehow dipping down and becoming a bit too… just a bit too much realpolitik for me. And I think if you want this to be a criteria for how we think about needs… it's not a great criteria to say: Ohh, you know, we chop the world into your people's needs and our people needs…
Hugo Slim:Yeah, but hang on a sec. But to be fair to me.… these are 7 criteria that you can use as you make decisions. And I'm not saying this is the only one. So I'm saying if you're facing a certain resource crisis, you've only got so much money and so many demands, then one of the things you can look at is proximity, of geography, therefore probably better value for money and of emotional resonance and tie, because that actually in my view gives you an extra obligation anyway. I'm not saying it's the only thing you ever do. So I'm not just saying this is the new way to do humanity and only give it to your friends… I'm just saying if you are having to make a priority decision, you know, this is one of the things to think about.
Lars Peter Nissen:How does it play with the fact that, I mean, I think we can all see how we're going to have millions of climate refugees in the future, right… and so the people who are not our neighbours today, may be our neighbours tomorrow.
Hugo Slim:So they may suddenly become very close, very proximate, and they may put special responsibility on us in exactly the way I'm saying it. So it's one of the seven quick.
Lars Peter Nissen:All right, all right.
Hugo Slim:Let's move past it, cause everybody hates it always anyway.
Lars Peter Nissen:Great! Alright, #5 is feasibility.
Hugo Slim:Ah yeah, but that's gotta be practical isn’t it?
Lars Peter Nissen:So what you're saying? Pick the low hanging fruits right next to it?
Hugo Slim:No, I'm saying don't get hung up constantly knocking on a door that's ever gonna be open with hundreds of trucks and reserved money to one side of it, hoping that you're great access negotiators are suddenly going to get a breakthrough. They're not going to. Send that money somewhere else.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah I buy that… And I think by in large, we're doing that?
Hugo Slim:Yeah, probably. Maybe somewhere people are hanging on too much. I think people have favourite places.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah.
Hugo Slim:And Afghanistan is one of them in the Western humanitarian mindset. And I'm not sure that's a great door to go on knocking on if there are other people that need stuff elsewhere, you know it's not politically particularly feasible all the time and logistically it's difficult too.
Lars Peter Nissen:We just had a big House of Cards collapse, after 20 years in Afghanistan. Ee have to keep on trying…
Hugo Slim:Well, that's one way of saying it, but actually you could say god, we tend to screw up this place to an enormous degree. So probably best if we walk away.
Lars Peter Nissen:Allright… #6 Alternative capacity.
Hugo Slim:Yeah. So, I also think you know, you shouldn't naturally assume that you're the one with capacity and always want to be there. I mean, I give the example in the paper. If the Kenyan Government has a terrible draught, which it often does, and you know, I'm saying, the British Government, because I'm British. OK. So the British Government feels it might, you know, must rush in and help. Well, but actually… Perhaps the Kenyan Government has alternative capability. It could, you know, move some budgets around and meet that response itself much better, or someone else could help it do it. So it's really important to look at what alternative capacity exists within those states to become more humanitarian to meet their emergency needs more. And the other way I'm saying it is that, you know, there comes a point where a government has alternative capacity. It could collect taxes better. It could stop stealing taxes from its people, the kleptocratic government, you know, if it has alternative capacity, but continually refuses to use it, I would walk away from them too.
Hugo Slim:Because you go on just filling their budget for them and actually they should take responsibility and people should demand that they shouldn't change the government in some way if they can't. So you know, again I'm pretty hard there and you know, corruption shouldn't be a reason for going to help people when they could help themselves if they stop being corrupt.
Lars Peter Nissen:So, to what extent do you think we're doing that today?
Hugo Slim:I don't know. I think we hang around a lot with corrupt and useless regimes, South Sudan, quite a lot of Sahel.
Lars Peter Nissen:I mean, isn't it dilemma that we try to help people where the government is either unwilling or not capable to help, and the unwillingness normally goes together with pretty…
Hugo Slim:Yeah. So I'm saying, don't… you know, the unwillingness is the moral commitment. And actually they have alternative capacity and it's up to them to use it or their people to force them to use it.
Lars Peter Nissen:Quite harsh.
00:28:43 Taler 1
Yeah, I know. I know. Sort of realist, I suppose. But you know, we're talking about prioritizations. Yes, we have to make choices and decisions. And, you know, if you are faced with a corrupt government, or a government that could spend your money well and it would be good to work with them…then I would go that way.
Lars Peter Nissen:And I just want to say I really appreciate these seven criteria because I think we do need to become much more real in the way we talk about decision making in the humanitarian sector. We are very, very uncomfortable talking about that. So #7 is around balancing public and private efforts.
Hugo Slim:Yeah. So this is me being you know…I don't know… What I'm sayin here is look, you know, we know really that most people save their own lives. Most people keep their own lives if they can. Most people are doing most of the work OK, and I think a lot of survival in war and disaster involves personal responsibility to get up, find a way to save your family, work with people in groups to make things better. And I think humanitarians have to be very careful of the tendency to sort of, you know, be involved in every latrine, every mental health, health, social support group, every, you know, local business livelihood group. No, you know, focus on services and systems largely like infrastructure, you know, markets, roads and things that what are sometimes called multiplier services, which is if you invest in those infrastructure services, those system needs, then people can take responsibility and use their agency to save themselves, keep their lives better, etcetera. So I think it's a bit of a push back against humanitarian paternalism's way as well. It's a bit saying, look, do the basic stuff that helps going people to get on their feet and get going and then get out of the way. Save money by getting out of the way.
Lars Peter Nissen:I think they're pretty good. The seven.. I… #4 the proximity bit… It's just too much for me. That I really have….
Hugo Slim:Well, it's… You're nicer than me, Lars Peter. You're a nicer person than me. You want to save everyone you know.
Lars Peter Nissen:No, but do you know what my real concern is, that what I see us doing today is shooting the arrow and then painting the target.
Hugo Slim:Yeah, OK, I'm sure.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so I don't think that we really are evidence driven in our decision making. I think… It is much… I think if you really want to understand how we assess a crisis, you should look at the institutions who are assessing it and that will explain to you how they come up with that take on what the problem is… right… to a hammer every problem looks like a nail sort of a thing. And what I'm afraid of here is that these seven principles… I think are healthy for decision makers to consider. But in the absence of a robust, independent assessment of what needs are, and the shaping of the humanitarian narrative that are that's based on the core of the scale and severity of crisis, that bit about first shooting the arrow and then painting the target will just get worse.
Hugo Slim:Yeah. So in fact, there are eight criteria and I missed out the #1, which is evidence. You're absolutely right to put that one in. So I'm just so hopelessly not an empiricist and I'm not a social scientist and an economist. So yeah, of course, number one should be evidence and then there should be urgency, etcetera, etcetera.
Lars Peter Nissen:I think we need to challenge the way decisions are made and transparency around decision making as well as clarity on the criteria. I actually even don't mind the proximity one as long as it's clear that that's what we're doing and we're saying that and we can be held accountable.
Hugo Slim:Well, I think that's a really good point and I think actually a lot of these go on anyway as you say. And I think you know, somebody said to me in a – lovely person from MSF on my LinkedIn today – said, oh, you're just opening a can of worms. And I said, well, yeah, I probably am. But I think the worms are out anyway, I'm just naming them. I think naming the worms is quite good.
Lars Peter Nissen:I totally agree with that.
Hugso Slim:So we're conscious and we can say: Hey, you're doing that. Be conscious that you're actually doing #4, or you're doing #3, I think that's could be helpful.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, and I think being more explicit about these criteria must go hand in hand with a much stronger accountability and you talked about a systemic solution in terms of identifying different access either to take care of geographical areas or different functions, or sort of an ecosystem approach if you want. I really like that. I think we need that inside the sector in a way that we don't have. I think we have a lack of institutional diversity and there needs to be some independent watchdogs that keeps the system honest.
Hugo Slim:Yeah, well, that would be great, wouldn't it? I think the other thing you know, going back to the beginning of the discussion, you know, I have a great affection for our sector and I always feel bad. I'm ending up being, you know, critical quite often, but it comes from a place of you know, love and admiration for humanitarians, and what we will try and do. But I do have a sense of a sort of zeitgeist at the moment that this is a moment, you know – just as the last 20 years, in a sense, was a moment to expand – then this is a moment to redefine again, and to say, actually if this word means anything, what does it mean and what are humanitarian needs and what? How can we prioritise like… I offer this paper and the other one really you know, just to help the discussion, cause a lot of people are thinking about this?
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, but it's... They still have this nagging feeling, right that what you're doing is you're legitimising. You're making it easier for the West to just focus on their own bloody interest and not give a… about the rest of the world...
Hugo Slim:Yeah. But I would say I'm also making it easier for you all to say and describe how they're doing that… If they do it too much, you know, I think everything is about a middle way and a sort of moderation. And they're going to go on doing both and the main thing is that we know what they're doing. You know, ethics often gets, you know, criticised for letting secrets out-of-the-box. You know, you shouldn't. You shouldn't describe that the humans make these decisions because then people will start making them. But actually, we have to be honest and get debates onto the table.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I'm totally with you there. I think it's great you're doing this right? I'm not saying, oh, you're naughty. For even writing this down. On the contrary, we need thinking out of the box, right. We are way too much in our own little echo chamber and we need to be provoked in this way.
Hugo Slim:I think the other thing is that realists and ministries of foreign affairs are always thinking along these lines and there will be people thinking very hard about whether they should stop supporting the humanitarian sector as it is, or whether they should force it to focus or whether they should focus on a few countries or whatever. So realism is there.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, of course it is. But one of the things holding the bag is the principle called impartiality and you just killed that.
Hugo Slim:No I haven’t killed that completely because I like urgency and I'm just saying we need to think about it a bit as concerns the future and I am saying that it's morally unrealistic. I do. I do believe that universalism is really important and we should want to help everyone everywhere, but realistically as well as individual entangled human beings with relationships with people, we also have a particular obligation to help certain people, so we hold both intentions. You know, I can be a universalist who also has particular obligations.
Lars Peter Nissen:One of the reasons I like the principles is that it helps us understand how we failed this time. How did we fall short this time. And one concern I have here is that it will make it easier for us to pretend like we're succeeding.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I see what you mean. Possibly, but then you know, I think principles are there to help you do your best and ultimately you're gonna be pragmatic in many ways anyway. So you're never going to live the whole principle, around the world so.
Lars Peter Nissen:No, that's why we have them.
Huso Slim:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:It's great that you write these reports and introduce these criterias and help us think more, more laterally around how we do business. What are you doing to actually engage actively with the big organisations and challenge the way they operate?
Hugo Slim:So I'm working with impact initiatives. We just spent the last couple of days doing some round tables, so we've had the needs report out and the prioritisation report and we spent a fascinating morning yesterday with 20 people at IFRC discussing the report. We're really just listening to them and saying: What do you think it is? What do you think of these ideas? You know, like we are with you, what's good about them and what's bad about them? And we did the same with ICVA today. We had about 80 people around the world, you know, in the ICVA network did the same. And I hope I'll come back later next month to do a faith-based one with World Council of Churches Act and I hope some Islamic and other agencies involved. And then I think the Norwegians will probably do a round table of states where we'll present those voices from, if you like, the civil society a bit. And listen, listen to some states about it too.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so based on these roundtables you've had over the past couple of days, what are your main takeaways from the feedback?
Hugo Slim:Well, my main takeaway are that people are genuinely torn. You know, you get some people who are a bit like me. They're sort of saying, yeah, we need to be more satisficing, not optimising. We need to limit what we're trying to do. Yeah. Lifesaving, life, keeping. And we should really make it clear that other parts of the new big climate crowd and others have those other responsibilities. And other people find it very hard because they see needs as never ending and people living, you know, with the future in mind and you can't disappoint their future by saying we're only gonna help you like this. So I think there's a there's sort of torn in that way. I think the other thing quite practically and realistically, you know, because it's easy for me to write life keeping and life making. But they're not saying what's the boundary, where are the boundary between these things. So yeah, there's a lot of people taking care to think about it and how should we define a need and agree a priority? And a lot of them saying they're having this change thrust upon them because their budgets are shrinking. So they've got to prioritise.
Lars Peter Nissen:So Hugo, I don't know whether I agree with all seven of your principles and your writing, but I know that I am deeply appreciative of the type of work you're doing and the thinking you're inspiring. Because if there's one thing we know for sure it is that we're not fit for the future. We're not fit for what is coming, and we do need to find new ways of thinking about humanitarianism and be a voice and a support for the most vulnerable people in the world. And I don't think any of us really have the answer how to do that. So we need to have robust conversations like the one we had today, and we need to push each other and not be shy about talking about the difficult things. And I really want to thank you for the role you play in the sector in, in butchering one principle after the other and thinking you thoughts and just moving us forward, so thank you and thanks for coming and spending time.
Hugo Slim:No, It's a pleasure. Yeah, it's a pleasure. And I am coming for humanity next as well. Next, next on the list.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah. Surprise, surprise.
Hugo Slim:Anyway, thank you. And it's, you know, mutual. Cause I totally admire what ACAPS does. And I mean, I can't do numbers and data and I'm so glad there people who do it so well.
Lars Peter Nissen:Thank you.