Paul Knox Clarke and Lars Peter Nissen discuss the implications of climate change for humanitarian action and the new initiative PREPARE, that Paul has launched on this issue.
You can read more about Paul on his LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-knox-clarke-0489905/
You will find information on PREPARE here: http://www.chcinitiative.org
The work Paul did for ALNAP on change is available here: https://www.alnap.org/help-library/transforming-change
Duncan Greens book on Change is available here: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/how-change-happens-consultation-draft-581366/
Transcript
The latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC was shocking, but not surprising news. Basically, the panel has moved from urging the world to take action against climate change to avoid catastrophic outcomes to informing us that it's now highly likely that we will be facing a catastrophic outcome as a consequence of global warming. That's bad news for all of us. But in particular, bad news for already vulnerable populations that, as always, will be the hardest hit by the crisis we will be facing. What does that mean for us as humanitarians? And how should we position ourselves vis a vis the onslaught of crisis we will be facing? That's the question I asked Paul Knox Clarke, who was one of the driving forces behind Prepare, a new initiative on climate change and humanitarian action. Paul has worked in the humanitarian sector since the 199Os, and has experienced from Save the Children and WFP as well as other humanitarian actors. He's probably best known in the sector for his work as head of research of ALNAP, where he was the driving force behind several of the State of the Humanitarian System reports, as well as excellent work on for example, how change happens in the sector, and other initiatives as well. I always enjoy talking to Paul, it was fantastic to reconnect with him after a while, a great conversation that I hope you will enjoy.
Paul Knox Clark, welcome to Trumanitarian.
Paul Knox Clarke:Thank you. Thank you. It's great to be here.
Lars Peter Nissen:So Paul, we're here today to talk about climate change. And maybe let's begin by you just... just explain to us what is coming our way.
Paul Knox Clarke:When it comes to crises, disasters, I think there are a set of things we need to think about. There will be, according to the IPCC, far more frequent disasters. So we're looking, fairly soon, at sort of 10-year drought being 5-year droughts, doubling in frequency, heat waves increasing by up to 10 times in frequency. And, of course, we're seeing that already many people are living that experience already. The second thing is that those more frequent crises in many cases will also be more violent. As with sort of cyclones, hurricanes, tropical storms, again, seeing that, already an increase in the in the number of violent tropical storm events. The third thing is that it's going to be happening more or less everywhere. So we're quite used to... of course, disasters do happen everywhere, but disasters which kind of go beyond our ability to respond effectively will probably be happening in the Global North and the Global South. And I think that changes the peace quite significantly. And fourthly, along with being more frequent, much more frequent, more violent, more global in nature. We will also... we're also, I think, likely to see a lot of crises that we don't understand, that we don't have a playbook for, that are unexpected, or that develop in sort of kinetic ways that we weren't expecting. And humanitarian... we've seen humanitarian action was very effective in many ways. It's not very good at that. We're not very good at that. We're not very good at stuff that we haven't done before. So, though, that I think is what's coming at us.I think it's also important, you know, to think at the first layer, what does that mean for people and what will be different? One is that the increased frequency will be many people who already find it extremely hard to survive and to weather emergencies will have their coping strategies and their resources degraded as emergency after emergency after emergency hits them. So the people that we are working with will be finding it more and more difficult to cope. Also, a lot of people will have to cope with things that they're not used to doing as the range of crises moves, you know, so people are good at dealing with droughts when they live in drought affected places, are very good at dealing with cyclones, but all of these things are moving. So people might be (including you and I) might well be finding that we have to deal with disasters on our doorsteps. And then thirdly, what it means for people, I think there are going to be whole parts of the globe, small island states, maybe areas of desertification, where the possibility of just having to leave, where they were going to become unlivable. And I think that's going to obviously be a huge challenge in all sorts of ways.
Lars Peter Nissen:So if we go back to the first thing you say, you say, we will have more disasters, they will be bigger and new geographical areas will be covered. And I think if we look at this summer's flooding in Germany, Belgium, so on, for example, and the scale of that, I think, took all of us by surprise. So I think those three are very valid points. But they also, if I can stretch it, it's a purely quantitative way of thinking about, Okay, there will be more of them, there'll be bigger, and they'll happen in new places, but they're not fundamentally different from what we see today. I know you had a fourth point around the quality stuff, but if we focus on, let's say, that's what's gonna happen, those three, more bigger new places. Does that challenge what we do today as humanitarians? Isn't that just a question of scaling our operations? If I was a humanitarian director, I would think, okay, I need to build a bigger programme, I need to apply for more money, I need to get better at fundraising so that I can do more meeting bigger crisis in more areas.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah, I think that's... that is, I think that question is a vital question. And I don't know the answer to it. I think we can only start to kind of project from what we're seeing already, and sort of make kind of, you know, make projections. And I'd be interested in, actually, in your answer to that question. But I'll give you mine, or some of my thinking, first. Yes, it's true. That this is largely a matter of scale, although we shouldn't forget the the unprecedented part, because I think that's going to be the bit that's going to be most difficult. But while we stick to this, it is true, it's largely a matter of scale. So firstly, financing. When unable to finance the needs that exist at the moment (and those needs won't go away), it's really important not to kind of pitch this as a climate is everything. Climate is the context within which all of those other needs to conflict, the human created, crises are going to be occurring, but they're not going to stop. So if we can't finance that now, and we're looking at a massive increase, what does that look like? And maybe we should we should be talking about loss and damage financing a bit later, because I think that's a very interesting area that humanitarians haven't haven't engaged in very much. So that's the first piece. I think the second piece is context, yeah? All of this increases, potentially, in a situation where the external context is also changing. So at the moment, still, the formal humanitarian system (that's not to say all humanitarianism, that happens everywhere. But the thing that we're kind of talking about here, that piece of it) is kind of a tube, isn't it's, kind of a pipe, from the Global North to the Global South in terms of in terms of funding, particularly. But when the Global North is experiencing these sorts of stresses as well, can we expect money? Can we expect public support for international solidarity? You know, or are we going to be in a really different political environment, particularly if people are moving? We've seen this with COVID. I mean, we haven't... the world has not covered itself in glory, has it, in terms of what happens when everyone's affected?
Lars Peter Nissen:No, we're looking at booster shots for ourselves, while 1% of the population in some of the most vulnerable countries only have had one shot, right? I mean, it's insane. And from a public health perspective, it doesn't make sense not to... We are interdependent, and it doesn't make sense not to ship massive amounts of a vaccine to the rest of the world. So I think we have the answer to to what happens once we become quote unquote, victims also, once we become affected population, how are we going to react and clearly we're going to look inwards first.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah. And if that is the case, (and I think maybe, you know, COVID has some way to play, and we might see ourselves paying the price for that insularity, and that might might change the way that we think about these things. But if, if that is the case, and I'm a, you know, emergencies director)... I wouldn't be putting all of my money on scaling up what I do at the moment, you know, I wouldn't be thinking that's how that's the solution to this problem. Because not only the financial context of how things are done at the moment, but also, if you like, the logistic, operational context, you know, the whole piece about relying on these very long, and again, we've seen this with COVID, but relying on expatriates, on very long supply chains, as basically the core business, and maximising building that up? Is that really how we want to go with this?
Lars Peter Nissen:I think I'd like to take us back to I think the last time we met in person. You were doing a presentation of the World Humanitarian Report. This must have been 18. Is that right?
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah. Yeah. What a lot has changed since then.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yes, a lot has changed. And I actually (and I'm not trying to be funny) but I can't remember... I can only remember one thing you said?
Paul Knox Clarke:[laughing] One's not bad. I'll take one.
Lars Peter Nissen:All right. It was your last slide. And what he said was, we are changing, you were sort of celebrating some of the changes and improvements that we have done as a sector. So we are changing as humanitarians, but the world around us is changing so much faster and so the gap between what we are and what we should be is growing. And that I think is still true.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:Maybe even more true than it was in 18.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so I wonder whether we are looking at in the wrong place here. Because if we are, as an industry, struggling to meet the needs of today, if we're struggling to be fit for purpose today. And again, as we started out with just reflecting briefly on Afghanistan and Haiti, I think that's a worthwhile question to ask ourselves, are we fit for purpose today? Or how are we fit for purpose, is probably more more nuanced. I'm not sure we are the guys who should be reacting to this, or maybe whatever we do is going to be marginal in relation to this crisis.
Paul Knox Clarke:I think that's true. I think... I mean, there's two parts to that. The process of change, I think, and the relation that the humanitarian this sort of formal humanitarian structure has to the way it changes and the way it relates to changes in the world. That's one part that that that brings up, that's really interesting. And the other is kind of... is the content question of well, maybe this is... maybe we're just out of date, and the climate, you know... the crises of humanitarian crises of climate are going to be the end of the system. It's going to, you know... we're going to be less and less relevant if we're less and less able to respond. Is that Is that the kind of thinking? Or have I miss...
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I don't know whether I will say at the end of the system, but I think I think we're going to be allowed to hang around in a corner somewhere. But we're not going to be centre stage and I don't think we're going to be a significant part of the solution to this unless we find a fundamentally different way of operating. And I don't see any evidence that we are.
Paul Knox Clarke:So I think we're agreed that, you know, going back to your earlier question, maxing up on the status quo is not going to work. Although, you know, let's see what other comments come. You know, the comments on this conversation, you know, people may disagree with that. And in a way that's good. I mean, in a way, what climate change does, is by... as we said, there's two elements here. There's the element of maxing up and massively increasing the needs and therefore the strains on the existent existing system. And then there's an element of what's different. But if we stick just with the bit of what's the same but more, the what you're calling sort of the quantitative difference, what climate change should do is it should be hastening those sorts of changes that people have been pushing for for a long time. I mean, someone was saying to me up until now, localization is very largely been a political and a an ethical issue. But now it is entirely a practical issue. Because... and I agree with that, you know, that the argument for... all of the other good arguments for communities and community based organisations taking the lead, to those arguments, are increasesed... is increased, the fact that if humanity external humanitarian supply chains aren't working, and they can't get there for one reason or another, and the crisis is just much, much too big for any group of organisations to deal with globally, and they haven't got support any financial support anyway, why would we not now immediately be doing far, far more work with communities so that they can build their own ability to respond?
Lars Peter Nissen:I'm not sure that's going to be the change. For me, the obstacles to localization, are probably less about supply chain and more about power and letting go of power. And I'm not sure that I see the concentration of power in the sector fundamental being challenged in spite of where we are right now,
Paul Knox Clarke:No, you're right. I'm not talking about the obstacles. I'm talking about the argument for. Now, whether that argument, leads to change or not goes to your first question, the first observation, which is how does the... I think there's a much stronger argument for it, and there was always a strong argument. Now, the question is, does the humanitarian system, do decision makers, do the structures and the inequalities in the system, do they change? Or do we see a great... an even bigger gap opening up between the changes that are happening in the world outside and the changes that are happening inside the system?
Lars Peter Nissen:But what argument, right? I mean, here are the words you never heard in humanitarian circles: I am anti localization. I want to centralise, not localise. Nobody says that. Some people act as if that's what they actually want, but nobody says it. I don't think the discu... there's a bit of like, Oh, you know, there's not enough capacity to handle the requirements, we need to build the capacity. That sort of, at times, quite patronising way of talking about local actors. But I don't see anybody actively arguing against localization as something we must strive... I think where the problem lies, is that it's not happening.
Paul Knox Clarke:Goes back to this gap between the external reality and the... You know, you and I have talked previously about the idea that the humanitarian system it's not... it's as much a story, it's as much an idea, as it is reality. And the story of localization, I think, is a really interesting one, because it's another way of the humanitarian system talking about itself, ou know? Localization is here, because that's how most people achieve... (We know, isn't it?) It's how most people in most crises get most of their assistance from people around them and groups around them. Localization, with a kind of big L... The conversation which is meant to be about local NGOs, but it's very often about the relationship between the humanitarian system and local NGOs, is a subset of a much bigger conversation.
Lars Peter Nissen:All right. So we've spoken about the scaling, the things get bigger and worse, but not qualitatively different. And sort of how the human service sector can react to that. And will we be able to meet that challenge? But we've left out the fourth point you brought up which is around new types of crisis, new, qualitatively new, situations, risks, maybe because of cascading risk, maybe because scale sometimes, once it's big enough, actually does become qualitatively different. What about that Paul? What's coming our way that we haven't seen before?
Paul Knox Clarke:The problem is, it's the unknown unknowns that need to worry us. So it's not a question that can be easily or effectively answered. Because the things we most need to worry about other things that we're least prepared for that we don't know until they hit us. And, you know, COVID... although we did know that pandemics were in the post, but COVID is an example of that as well. But having said that, and you know, having said that, I think there's some things that we're seeing already that that are, if you like, indicators. So, the first is that the dynamics of certain kinds of weather disasters are changing in some cases. So cyclones, hurricanes are developing much more quickly. You're getting two cyclones within a week of each other following along almost exactly the same track. Cyclones are, or hurricanes are, turning around and doubling back, you know. So you get a... one thing we need to worry about is if we have developed our preparedness, our early warning, our responsibilities, our risk reduction around certain, you know, certain natural laws that we understood about how these disasters emerge, and our not doing what we expect them to do. We need very quickly, I think, to be thinking about, what does that mean for for our response capacity? So that's one piece. I think the other sort of unexpected and perhaps more worrying yet is, is what happens when these things connect with a very globalised economic/political system? You know, we said that a key factor here is size, yeah? But when things get to a certain size, then their impact on the way the world works changes quite a lot, doesn't it? And so, you know, one can then hypothesise all kinds of apocalyptic or negative scenarios, but, you know, sort of big disruptions to the global food system, which, you know, are entirely thinkable in the pretty short term. And what that those things potential knock ons, then, in terms of politics, in terms of people moving or having to move, in terms of stability, and therefore into... all of these things can, as we've seen, unravel very, very quickly. And the question, then... you know, it's been... I think we're all quite good... Because I'm not, you know, I'm not... we're all... there are things that the humanitarian system is good at. And...
Lars Peter Nissen:Give us a flavour.
Paul Knox Clarke:Well, I think the, you know, the standard... if think if you'd see the these kind of response to the four famines, you know, I think that was... in many ways you could have been so much better, but it also, at a level, it works. You know, doing the things that we've been doing for 20-30 years, you know, doing the things we've been doing, if I can say, since you and I have been kind of going around the block, and before. That works quite well, I think, it's when you get a Ebola, COVID, European migration situations: these big things that we don't... you see our organisations running around going, what's my position? What's the strategy on this? How do I work with people I haven't worked with before? Who do I need to work with to make this... You know, that stuff becomes very messy, and we'll see a lot more of that stuff.
Lars Peter Nissen:I agree with that. I thin we are one of the most agile parts of the international system. And I think I do agree with you. It's impressive what can be done sometimes. But maybe what we're looking at here is that if we are the guys who run around filling up the cracks that appear in the world so that people don't fall into them, the cracks are no now becoming so big that what before looked like an agile bunch of people who could respond quickly, now, a community of practice realising that we are actually not that different, that at the scale we are at, we are outmatched by the ambiguity and the dynamic nature of the crisis we face. And we need a new rulebook and a new, I think, organisational and cultural way of working to be agile at this scale.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yes, to be agile. And also I'd add to that, maybe, because I think that's critical. And the other piece that's really important is a redefined sense of self. You know, if it is too big for us to handle, and it is, then what is our redefined role in a global system? You know, not leading but where are we fitting a global response to this problem? What's our bit where we are useful?
Lars Peter Nissen:I fully agree, I fully agree. And I think that's probably what I was trying to say with cultural. And... You see, I think the the unique thing about us, the unique thing about humanitarians, is that we, on a regular basis experience, a massive loss of control. If you if you work in the sector for a while, you will end up in dangerous, uncontrollable situations where you're powerless. And you just have to somehow find a way of continuing. And I think that is maybe what we have to give the world these days, especially a world that is as drunk on data and control as we are, is that skill set or that muscle memory that comes with repeated loss of control. I know that it may sound a bit spaced out, but I do think that there's a real truth in that.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah, I don't think it sounds spaced out. But I'm not sure I agree. You know, I'm not sure that we are that good at be being in a place without control. I think part of the reason that we are good at following the playbook is because the playbook gives us control, it gives us a structure that we can work around. And when we're really not in control, things become more difficult. And beyond that, I think... you know, everyone's got to control their world, I mean, that's the basis of lots of psychology, to my understanding, you know, otherwise you go mad, but as a sector we have... we and other sectors have mentally structured the world that we work in, in certain kinds of ways so that we can understand it and that that understanding then helps give a sense of control. And that structuring includes, you know, drawing a line saying this is humanitarian, this is DRR, which isn't kind of really humanitarian, it's not development, this is development. One of the big things that we're going to, I think, need to consider is, did those those silos and those structures that we created to allow... bound... you know, those boundaries we created to allow us control, understanding control, over what we were doing, which worked well for the 80s. Are they going to work for the 2O2Os? My suspicion is they're not. And I link that to control because I think the reason that they're there is to help us control the world and kind of get a sense of what's going on here. And what they're doing now is preventing us understanding what needs to be done.
Lars Peter Nissen:I feel like I'm mixing up two things. On one side, the personal traits that you develop, if you work in very messy situation, decade after decade. And I think they're... I I'd like to maintain that there, we do have a special, I like the word muscle memory, because I think if you experienced things falling apart a number of times, then you you know that they're not... you don't take them for granted. And I do think as individuals, a lot of us have, yes, a great sensibility. And then the other side is all of the institutional nonsense we have built up to then have more quality in our work, whatever you want to call it. A lot of that is precisely wrong, in my opinion. It is an... but it doesn't change the fact that, as a community of practice, I think a lot of us have a skill set that is really well-suited to situations that are out of control.
Paul Knox Clarke:I agree with that. I think the basis of of change is always going to be building on not what works, you know, and to the degree that works, it's something we need to build on. At the same time, why do all of those individuals, you know... why do those individuals who are good and flexible and able to be in places of ambiguity then allow systems which say... or you know, how has it turned out that a... if all of the individuals who comprise the system are so flexible, the system is so deeply inflexible and you can be in a place where you can't get funding for that because it doesn't fall within the lines. You know, we're not colouring inside the lines. You can't, you know... or, even worse, where many of individuals involved, many of us, spend a lot of time scrapping over those lines as if it's a kind of either or, either we do this or we do that, when in fact, the reality is, we need to think about what does it look like when we do both?
Lars Peter Nissen:But to quote The Big Lebowski, you got to feed the monkey. I think a lot of us in this industry are strapped into roles and are constrained in ways that we aren't able to break either because we have to pay school fees, or are afraid of losing the job, or whatever it might be.
I'd like to move on to this new initiative you're launching. What is that?
Paul Knox Clarke:So this is Prepare, which is the new name from the World Humanitarian Day that we are giving to the Climate and Humanitarian Crisis Initiative, it's now being known as Prepare. What that is is an attempt to look at the kind of questions that you and I have been discussing now with as broad a constituency of potential, you know, people who have answers to it as possible and to say, first of all, what is the problem here? And those are, you know... and is there a problem here and what is it in terms of the way that the world provides assistance and protection to people who are vulnerable? Is that changed? Is it just bigger, as you've asked Or is it different in nature? Secondly, to... and that's the process that we've been going through really over having conversations with people we think have answers to that, not always the same answers, but that's the process we've been going through over the last six months. Secondly, to the degree that things are gonna be different in the future, what could be done by a group of concerned stakeholders over and above the activities that individual organisations could do? And those are the second set of conversations we've been having. And I think it's just really important, I'd really like to say at this point, given some of the other things that we've been talking about, that those conversations are not exclusively with the formal humanitarian system. We've been really reaching out, really trying to get particularly, the point of view of youth groups and civil society organisations, in areas that are already affected by by climate change. And women's groups in areas that are affected by climate change, partly because there's a lot of information, they have the information, partly because, if we continue to try and get the answers from this, if we have the same people sitting around the table, I think we've all found we'll get the same answers. And and what we need are, as we were saying earlier on, a conversation in which humanitarians are participating, but which is not structured and guided by the humanitarian way of doing things. So what's coming out of that is, yes, there is a real sense, enthusiasm and excitement, for groups of organisations to take action, to better prepare for climate related crises. What those actions might involve include... you know it all seems like a very small pin to prick a very, very big balloon, but what those things people have suggested could be are, firstly, clarity for decision makers, you know, humanitarian directors, clusters, humanitarian coordinators, who have all of these different concerns, clarity for them, about what the scientific evidence says they need to worry about. Now, that's the first piece, it's a piece I think you're gonna say which already exists.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, that's what I was gonna say.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah, it does. It does. And loads of organisations, you know, not least in the movement and others have been doing great work on that. The thing that we are consistently hearing from people like HCs is it's not that it's not there, it's that it's not... we don't read. Yeah? So how can it be made accessible and transmitted to us?
Lars Peter Nissen:Okay, let me challenge that.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah, go on.
Lars Peter Nissen:They just don't want to make decisions. They are decision makers. This... If anything, this field is as well lit as can be. We are not... I don't buy that. I mean we could talk about some of the most well educated, smartest, well-paid people in the whole world. And there are reports coming out left, right and centres. Forests are disappearing because of these reports being printed. And these guys want easy to read piece. No, no. Do your job, make some decisions. The evidence is there.
Paul Knox Clarke:I'm not sure I agree with that. And I think that goes to lots of really interesting places. Could we come back to that in just one minute?
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah.
Paul Knox Clarke:Yeah. Recognising that, but let's come back to that in a minute, because that is something that we're hearing, and we're hearing it not just from the people involved, it's certainly not from everybody, some people are saying exactly what you're saying, but we're also hearing it from the people within organisations who are really trying to get focus on this, that they find it hard. So let's come back to why that is the case in a minute. But if I could just talk about some of the other, quickly, some of the other things that people have suggested would be useful. Second, technical guidance, you know. What does this practically mean for wash? What does it practically mean for shelter? What... you know, if I'm doing something on the ground, what is it? What what do I do differently? Really, I know this is a problem, what do I do differently? So that's the second piece. Thirdly, a raising of the voice and experience of the many, many, many organisations who have been dealing with this for years already. Because they're in places that have been seeing the effects of this operationally, there are already good ideas out there. And how those ideas can get more into the mainstream. And also how the, you know, if we use the currency of knowledge as much as the currency of currency, you know, how they can be seen as important players in understanding what's going on. So that's the third piece, what are we learning? And what do we know about the organisations that're learning and how can they better be at the table? The fourth piece that we're hearing is around change and... change... you know, what strategies... if I'm an organisation, what strategy... what do I really need to be focusing on? And that's something that possibly can be... there's a number of ways that can that can be done, but one that's been suggested is doing more simulation work, more, you know, working in organisational... groups of organisations through what this might look like. And then on the basis of that, supporting the changes that are happening in terms of change management work, you know, peer related change management work or other, looking at this not in the traditional way of okay, we're going to write a policy, but looking at this in terms of, if we were going to change our organisation, what would we need to do to face this challenge? So those are some of the ideas. So at the moment, what Prepare is, is a loose, growing collaboration of people who are trying to find their way forward through concrete action to addressing, you know, making improvements around this massive challenge. What prepare is growing into, and I think we can say this, because we're kind of at the launch point, is a place where concretely different organisations within and outside the humanitarian sector, and dma's, and civil society and academics and humanitarians, connect to make these things to get these things done. But I haven't forgotten your point. Should we go back to that?
Lars Peter Nissen:Maybe I can just give you a quick reaction to all four of them. And I'm not going to we're going to rant about all of them, don't worry.
Paul Knox Clarke:No, no rant about all of that.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I mean, number one, for me, that's a poor excuse for very well-paid people not doing their job. Nothing more. Seriously. We've just had the IPCC report come out. What more do you need to know that it's not the problem? You know, the information is not the bottleneck, period.
Paul Knox Clarke:We're going to talk about that right now. But you're going to talk about the others first.
Lars Peter Nissen:Technical challenges, we will iron those out. We have a lot of smart technicians. I'm sure we will see communities of practice pop up. I'm not worried about that piece. I think... I don't think there are massive barriers to that. And that will happen. I don't have much doubt on that. Bring new access to the table, that's incredibly important. Lower the threshold for new voices to be heard, I really agree with that and I think it's very important. Strategy, simulations, yes, all of that stuff, it's important. At the same time, the question I'm asking myself is whether the current institutions we have can change. And I'm not sure of that. And I... what I worry about with that is that we spend so much of our bandwidth on helping an unfit institution put up window dressing in the echo chamber and do a new sort of strategy, that we don't invest in growing new, more effective institutional expressions that can connect in different ways and achieve these new new types of response that we need to develop. That's my take on it. But let's go back to the overpaid, under-deciding decision makers that you want to give a colourful map of climate change.
Paul Knox Clarke:So lots of thoughts about that. But really, in two buckets. The first bucket is, it's not that people don't recognise the problem. And maybe I was unclear there. I think the ask is the so what, yeah? And there have been, and I think it's a very legitimate ask. So what does that mean here? Some... in some heres, it's obvious what that means. In Bangladesh, it's obvious what that means. But let me just give an example of why I think this really matters, which is, it's not about the individuals, but is about, again, the way that humanitarian things are structured. Which is, you know, one thing that that comes up a lot is, yeah, climate change, but the problem here is conflict. The place that I'm working in is, the real issue is conflict and climate needs to be secondary. And so what do I do about climate? And I think that's a real question that people have. And I think it also is a question that is worth addressing, because it's a question that's been structured around current ways of thinking, where you have natural disasters on one hand, and climate on the other. And we know that the places that will be hit the worst, and the people who will be hit the worst by these climate issues, are in conflict environments. So if people are saying, you know, but how do I justify... how do i... What do I do, in this conflict, about climate? I think that is a question to engage them in the answer with rather than just saying, Well, you need to sort that one out.
Lars Peter Nissen:Let me get back on it, because I don't actually disagree with that. I think I hear what you're saying. But I... what I think the answer to that is sort of the fourth point you brought up, which is on strategies around simulations around testing different things out, I think what I'm triggered by is that I don't think we can find the answers by decision makers having option A, B, and C in front of them. And then, you know, I'll take the red one today, and that'll solve the problem. That's not how this works.
Paul Knox Clarke:No, it's not how it works. But I'll tell you how, how I think it does work. Yeah. I think it works in the way that we all work as humans, whatever, however much we're paid, which is that we have a finite bandwidth, a finite level of attention to deal with stuff, yeah? And that what we see, and have seen for decades, in the humanitarian system is the same pattern, yeah? Something important emerges. Some new realisation. The more work we do, something comes up and it kind of... we realise that it's a thing. Now, many people are too busy to really realise it's a thing so they just take on the vocabulary without actually engaging... because and that's fine. I've done that, you've done that, I'm sure, about many issues, because there's just too much going on, yeah? So at one level, I can be talking myself blue in the face about this topic, but I've not really thought it through, yeah? Secondly, I do think it through, and I think, But you know, my job is to deal with everything that's going on here. So I compartmentalise this thing. And I turn it into a specialisation. And I think that's what's happening with climate change. You have those people who do care about it, say, Look, we've got someone on that. Yeah? we've got we've got an individual, we've got a team in our organisation who do that. And those teams are doing fabulous work, don't get me wrong. But what those teams are also doing is that they're allowing me, as the decision maker, not to deal with this, yeah? And that is a standard, yeah? And there's nothing... that's kind of... that is how the system has dealt with many of these emerging issues: turn them into specialisations, take it the IRC, create a policy and some training, roll it out. What I think we're saying with this one is, it's just too big for that.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I think what I'm saying, Paul, is (because I totally agree with this business of, Oh then we do somebody who's an expert on this, right?) And that's why when I hear decision makers talk like this... and my answer sort of is, Well, the solution here is that you do your f***ing job. That's why you are there.
Paul Knox Clarke:But doing the job we've... doing the job is often about delegating. The challenge is deciding what do I and what don't I delegate. And I think the problem here, if I may, is that this one is often being delegated because it's full... because people have not thought out. Its full implications, as you and I were discussing earlier on. And I've got other stuff to do, I've got an emergency on. So someone else will think about this for me. But the problem with that is, maybe it's just too big, and I need to think about it for myself. I think we're saying the same thing.
Lars Peter Nissen:I think we are.
Paul Knox Clarke:I just recognise that whi-... I think people don't do that because they're stupid or wrong, they just do that because that's just how work works.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I also agree with that. But I think this is one of those situations where you... it's about leadership and management. And as a leader, sometimes you also have to say, this, we're just not very good at. Let's start there. We actually don't know really what to do about this. Number two, we don't have a cookbook, where we can look on page 83 and find the answer of what to do. Right? Point number three, I am the leader of this organisation, I get a very good salary for leading us, and so, as part of that leadership, I'd like to say we are now going left. And we will continue to go left, until we figure out that that's actually a bad idea, and do you know what, then we'll turn around and go right. And then we'll zigzag until we begin to see a pattern emerge. It's all our responsibility to think about these things, it is my responsibility to set the ambition for us as an organisation. And I don't need a little colourful map to do that, because that's an integral part of my job. That is what it means to be a leader here. That's how I would take number one.
Paul Knox Clarke:I also think that if the world and everybody in it was perfect, we wouldn't need to do what we do. And so much of making change is about recognising how individuals and organisations work in the world, and trying to structure it so that that work can be done better. I think that that's... and let me just say this, because I think this is important here as well: One thing that we're... in our sort of planning phase that we've been in that we're being told consistently, is in the end, we think these are the things that matter. And let me let me say that there's great difference between... in terms of what matters to people in different places and doing different jobs. But these are sort of some of the emerging things that are coming up. But what people say is... what a lot of people have said to me is, in the end, the what you do, is going to be less important than the how. Because if you do this in a way that recreates the existing ways of working, you are only going to recreate the problem. So what this initiative, if anything, if any success is to come from it, needs to be... is it needs to be, you know, be that change, as people say. It needs to work in a way that is not the standard humanitarian platform where humanitarians come together and sit around a table and recreate our reality.
Lars Peter Nissen:How do you do that, Paul?
Paul Knox Clarke:Well, that's a great question. Firstly, who's around the table? You know, that the language that we use, creates the reality that we're in, and we all know the language, we know the acronyms, we know the... you know, we've all seen where people who are not private sector colleagues or or civil society colleagues or climate change colleagues come into a humanitarian meeting and they have no idea what's going on, because they don't know the language. And that language limits our ability to think, so by having people bring meaning in different language, looking at from different perspectives, I think you get a different conversation that creates different things. So that's that's one thing that's really, really important. And we'll fail if it's just another humanitarian group. I think the second thing is that you just work things as if they were a change initiative. And what does that mean? So rather than being a kind of policy initiative, you say, if this was something that was... what do we know about what works for making change? We need to recognise, first, and it's the conversation we've just been having, that resistance to change and preservation of the status quo is normal, and is the situation that we will be in and it's a healthy psychological state for people to try and just create control in their own reality. So what are the things that we do... And that resistance to change is largely through ignoring stuff. So what's the things we do that help people not ignore it? It's one.
Lars Peter Nissen:And I think we should inject here that this is something you've done excellent work on, you wrote a report on change when you were with ALNAP, and if the listeners who want to understand change and what kind of process that is, I think that's an excellent piece. And I think another thing I just like to mention this Duncan Green's book How Change Happens, which I also found extremely helpful to understand these. So we'll put both of those into the show notes. So you can find them there.
Paul Knox Clarke:Thanks. And actually one of the pieces from Duncan Green... Duncan Green's work on How Change Happens that I think is really important for Prepare, is the recognition... (and it's we've seen it in the system. We've seen it with, for example, CALP, who did this brilliantly.) You know, is, don't talk about it, do it. Do things. And when... and find that... So first of all, use action rather than than policy, and then look for where people are doing things already. (And this goes back to this sort of trying to amplify what works.) Look for the the rare successes, I think Duncan talks about positive deviance. And rather than trying to say, Okay, well, how would we change the system? Ask how do we do more of the stuff that's working already. And that I think is a core element of how we need to work. So different people around the table, recognising that a lot of people are too busy, or, you know, are going to resist this by not engaging or thinking it's someone else's problem or whatever. And building on, and supporting the... those small embers of what's working to make them into fires and conflagrations. I think those are three points. And then I think also the people who come on board will tell the collective how, you know, how they think it, it's going to work better.
Lars Peter Nissen:Thank you for for explaining that, Paul. And I really look forward to seeing what comes out of, of this initiative over the coming years. I can't help thinking that a lot of the constraints that we have been discussing today, a lot of things that hold us back, are linked to where the money is coming from. You know, we have a we have a traditional sort of a back donor grant model. And that just comes with certain terms and conditions that are very, very hard to work around. So what do we do about that?
Paul Knox Clarke:So obviously, the funds available for humanitarian action are... they're not sufficient now. And they're going down. Certainly the UK expenditure is going down, COVID is going to have effect, we all know all this. And a lot of work has been done across the board to address humanitarian financing, financing for emergency response more globally: looking at the private sector and private sector engagement, looking at diasporas, looking at alternative sources, looking at risk financing as well, using private sector sector mechanisms there. So there's a lot of work going on. One area I think that humanitarians maybe are not engaging with to the degree that we should be is the whole loss and damage conversation. So loss and damage (on which I'm not an expert and you know, it might make a good episode actually, for Trumanitarian, with with people who really know what they're talking about)... but loss and damage is where the climate change discussions, meet disasters and crises. So a lot of the climate change discussions under the... or the majority of the discussions under the UNFCCC and in the subsequent conferences of the parties, the COPS, have been about stopping climate change mitigation, or about adapting societies to thrive or survive within climate change adaptation. But there's been very little discussion in those climate change conversations on what you do when mitigation and adaptation for the people it doesn't work. So what do you do for the communities, societies, individuals affected by crisis caused by climate events? And that gap has slowly... is slowly being filled by conversations which are... go under the title of loss and damage in the in the climate change negotiations. And I think we need to be very aware of what's going on in those conversations and in those negotiations. There is not... you know, there haven't been... there hasn't been any money pledged under full loss and damage for direct response type or preparedness and response type actions. And it's all being negotiated at the moment. And a lot of civil society organisations are trying to push the importance... a lot of southern states try and push the importance of, you know, someone has to pay for these responses if there's not enough money to pay for the responses when climate crisis hits. And the way that those negotiations are developing should be of concern to us. Because, firstly, there is a strong pushback from the donor states that climate funding, like humanitarian funding, for disasters should be discretionary. So that the loss and damage financing should be on the same basis as current humanitarian financing. You're under no obligation to give it. And obviously, climate... There are many, many, many issues around climate disasters, not least the fact that some states have benefited from causing... from emissions. And so is there not an additional obligation to make loss and damage financing to some degree compulsory in the way that sort of, you know, peacekeeping, for example, isn't assessed contribution but humanitarianism. So that's one one thing. The second issue is, I think humanitarians need to be very concerned about what loss and damage financing will do to existing humanitarian financing, and to ensure that it is additional to existing humanitarian financing and not just a moving of money from one bucket to another. Because as we've been saying, there's going to be massive additional needs. And just moving the money which is currently being spent on... to try and assuage human suffering... to try and assuage other human suffering is not what's needed here. Additional money is needed. And that is very important. And humanitarians I think should be engaged in that. Thirdly, a lot of civil society organisations are pointing out that the loss and damage conversations are going the same way. They're creating a... mechanisms, or potentially going to create mechanisms, which are very, very hard to access for local and national civil society institutions. So we run the danger of the loss and damage conversation going the same way and then having to have a localization conversation after it. It would make so much more sense if as this thing is being set up, all these mechanisms are being set up, they are set up with localization in mind. So there are important implications for these COP conversations about loss and damage and some things that I think humanitarians need to really be aware of because we're talking about very large sums of money, going to very similar context and for very similar purposes as existing humanitarian financing does.
Lars Peter Nissen:Paul thank you so much for for coming on Trumanitarian. It's been a real pleasure reconnecting with you. I'm very excited about this new preparer initiative that you'll be launching. I wish you all the best of luck with that, and I hope to get involved somehow in the work you'll be doing. And let's see what happens.
Paul Knox Clarke:Thank you. Thanks so much, Lars Peter. It's been a real... as always, really... you know, I learn so much from these conversations. It makes me think so much so thank you for that. I really hope you will be able to engage and, you know, sort of structure some of the conversations that that Prepare has. And I really hope that the many people are listening to this will think that some of the things that we've said are completely wrong, and want to get involved in those conversations to put them right, or will agree with some of this and want to get involved in those conversations and activities to take them forward. So, please, if you're if you're listening to this, we're very keen to have your input as well.