Gareth Owen is the humanitarian Director of Save the Children UK. In this conversation with Lars Peter Nissen he discusses the trade-offs between quality and scale, between his humanitarian heart and his humanitarian realist.
The fundamental question posed by the conversation is whether you “Can you change the master’s house with the master’s tools?” Gareth is in his own words “an establishment guy” who sits the “at the apex of the problem” but he still believes that is the right thing to do and that it is possible to achieve change from within the system.
Transcript
This week's guest on Trumanitarian is Gareth Owen. He is the humanitarian director of Save the Children UK. And he's come on the show to talk about a chapter he has written in the book "Amidst the Debris" where he talks about the rise of the humanitarian cooperation. A lot of the conversation is around the tension between what Gareth calls his humanitarian heart and his humanitarian realist. If you listened to last week's episode, that will sound familiar. Last week, Themrise Khan and Mabala Nyalugwe, who both works in the aid industry in East Africa and in South Asia, spoke about how their frustration with the business model or the industry that we work in has led them to the conclusion that they need to continue their careers outside big aid outside the institutions that dominate the sector today. Not surprisingly, Gareth offers a different perspective, he sits in almost the exact opposite end of the human centred food chain, namely inside the headquarter of one of the largest institutions we have in the humanitarian sector, the Save the Children, family, as you will hear, I really enjoyed the conversation and I want to send a big thank you to Gareth for coming on the show and being as open and excellent guest as he was, enjoy the conversation. And don't forget the bit about making noise on social media and recommending the show to your friends. Gareth Owen, OBE Welcome to humanitarian.
Gareth Owen:Thank you very much what an honour and I've been looking forward to this.
Lars Peter Nissen:You are the humanitarian director of Save the Children, UK and we've known each other for a while, we decided to do this conversation because you have written a chapter in a book called amidst the debris, humanitarian ism and the end of the liberal order. Now, why don't you what what is that book about?
Gareth Owen:So this book, which I'm very proud of, is a product of the humanitarian affairs team at Save the Children. And it's various partnerships with academia, in the UK and around the world. And really, I suppose the starting point in this is to promote critical reflection in general, in the, in the aid sector. To counter this kind of retreat from thinking that we see as a feature of modernity, generally, you know, the everyone's clicking online, everybody reaches for the Netflix binge, where where is the new thinking happening? It's a problem that's cited generally in society, I think, you know, this kind of retreat from thinking in one word. And I would contend that it is one of the major challenges of the aid sector is the retreat from kind of philosophical political thinking, within an aid industry that has set that aside in the 21st century in favour of economic growth. That that is what I kind of described in my own chapter, which we'll come on to, but the book in general is is deliberately provocative, the title itself is provocative, and it's not branded, as you'll see, as I say, the children product because firstly, it isn't it's a collaboration with many institutions. But it is positioned in this kind of space of, you know, kind of the outer edge of what we do, where, where we're trying to think systemically where we're trying to think politically, very deliberately. Because the the challenge in big institutions of any kind, especially big busy agencies, like say, the children or indeed any, any, any of the agencies, is that I think personally, they struggle with this kind of notion of thinking for thinking sake. Because we were in organisations that are about action about delivery, they're highly managerial alized in the modern way, and it can be seen as something of a luxury to spend time thinking and that for me, is a challenge. So we wrote this book, to sort of show showcase really what contemporary political thought around humanitarian action that isn't policy that isn't kind of here's a list of recommendations. It's a it's a reactivation of history in many ways of the humanitarian sector over the last century.
Lars Peter Nissen:I, so maybe let me just pick up on this. We don't think for think the sake of thinking we do. I think maybe for me, the challenge is slightly different. I think we like to think about money. We like to think about scale, we like to think about big, but we don't like to think about quality operations, accountability to the, to the populations we serve that I mean, it's not I don't think it's like we're not thinking but we think about how we can get the money and run.
Gareth Owen:Well, we're thinking about the wrong things. And aren't we, I mean, money, what you're describing is something that features strongly, you know, you're describing the liberal order worldview, in many ways, as represented in modernity. In late modernity. I mean, if you look at Save the Children, if you look at most of the big organisations that were, you know, we're familiar with all the bigger INGOs, the UN agencies, there was a deliberate decision. And people have commented on this, to get big. In the early noughties, there was a there was a strategic choice made that scale, financial scale turnover, equated to influence equated to impact. And it was a proxy proxy. So yeah, of course, we thought lots of we strategize a lot about how we were going to grow. But have we have we thought as much about the consequences of that in relation to our value space, our heritage or history, the political activism that is rooted in humanitarian action? I would say not. And so in a way, what writing these kinds of books is a counter to that to suggest that there are consequences of all our decisions. And if you avoid, you know, constant critical reflection around the ethics, because ultimately, that is the point, right? I mean, critical reflection is the ethical foundation of our practice. So if you subordinate that, which is what I talk about, in my chapter in the book, to economistic behaviours, you know, homo economists, the modern way, then you're losing at risk of losing some of the soul of what we're about. And I would suggest, in today's age, aid world, whether it's Ukraine or anywhere else, the consequences of a highly economised aid system that is driven very strongly by Master signifiers like money, there are huge, huge challenges with that.
Lars Peter Nissen:Let's return to that point in a little bit, I'd like to just walk through the chapter you write, I think central in your writing is sort of the tension between what you call humanitarian realism, and the humanitarian heart. So on one side, the need to actually get some things off the ground and scale is not bad in itself, we can help more people if we get more money. On the other hand, as you say, the ethics the personal conviction that I think many of us have, the reason why we do these things.
Gareth Owen:So I suppose I mean, my, I mentioned my maternal grandfather, at the start of the book, who was a Shakespearean scholar, and he wrote a famous book about Shakespeare's doctrine of nature, which is about the play King Lear. And it's kind of a, it's quite relevant. I mean, Lear has been turned into succession recently, you know, so the story reemerge is about what I would consider in what he would consider one of the sort of great paradoxes of human nature, but also, it's a big paradox in the aid sector. And essentially, big aid agencies acquire resources from the powerful in order to counter the worst effects of, of the acquisition of excess resource by the powerful. That is essentially what we do. So in other words, is sort of the history lesson I'm rehashing here, the role of civil society has always been to counter the worst effects of the prevailing political economy in the world. That's certainly where Save the Children came from. But there is a there is this inherent paradox in doing that you risk being co opted by the powerful, and that is part of the story I'm telling in the 21st century story of Save the Children.
Lars Peter Nissen:And would you agree that it is this tension between the heart and the realism? Is that a good way of expressing?
Gareth Owen:Yeah, I mean, heart and realism, soul and economics. I mean, you have to have both. It's about balance, really. And I guess what I'm describing as something of a cautionary tale, having lived through all of Save the Childrens 21st century, kind of an taken active part in the strategizing for growth. I believe in impact. I believe in scale. One of the great joys of working for a big humanitarian organisation is we are always present where children need us we have the means to mobilise, very, very importantly, large scale response in the face of you know, egregious abuses of children's rights of human rights of massive humanitarian need. So I'm not saying scale. I'm not in the camp. that says scale is bad. I'm not sort of it's not sort of E. F. Schumacher small is beautiful. That's not my contention. My contention is, as you do these things be very conscious of the the effect on your identity.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah. And you could say that you're in the wrong job, if you if you believe that small is beautiful, right?
Gareth Owen:Well, absolutely. I mean, you can't face into a world of enormous humanitarian need, like we are in now, in 2022, where the numbers are off the scale, and suggest that small is going to is going to bring help to all those people who need it, it just isn't. So you have to be in the business of operating at scale. But you have to do that with constant reference your ethical foundations.
Lars Peter Nissen:Now, if you look at the big families of of NGOs, we have, would it be fair to say that Save the Children may be the family that has chosen to focus most unscaled? I mean, that it's it seems like you growth, growth, growth has been such an important thing for you.
Gareth Owen:it's definitely been, you know, what I've what I've sort of contended with and participated in, you know, for the last 21 years, it's the children growth. But it has been, you know, there's sincerity in that it is this point we're making about impact it is, but it's the issue of it being a proxy for for true impact for quality for where other measures are subordinated to the you know, the financial kind of imperatives, and that's driven by near managerial thinking from boards onwards, you know, and that is changing today. But do I think save is any different to the other big INGO families? Not particularly, I think it was Barney Tallac did a study a few years ago on this, which showed pretty much save may have jumped on this kind of strategy early, but it was definitely adopted by the other big families as well. We're not the only ones who've taken a an aggressive growth strategy.
Lars Peter Nissen:No, maybe you're just better at it than the other?
Gareth Owen:Well, I mean, I wouldn't, it's not for me to judge. But I think what's interesting about about this kind of competitive drive, is how we chose to sort of not fight that because it would have been pointless, I mean, we would have been out of a job if I if I was trying to say smallest beautiful, but to how to turn competitive advantage into collaborative advantage has been much of the story of my time as humanitarian director. And maybe that's something else we can talk about. But this kind of the problem with the problem with this kind of one of the other deeper problems that we talked about in this book, to a certain degree, it's less so my chapter but other other more sort, philosophical chapters, you know, talking about how kind of the whole point of the book is to create vibrant thought and to create vibrant debate and to provoke because a lot of what goes on that I see in the aid world is kind of shouting into echo chambers, it's not really debating anything, it's not enriching. It's not deepening, understanding or insight, it's sort of othering and can.., all the all the stuff we contend with them identity. So so the kind of stuckness that aid finds itself in isn't being there aren't pathways out of that, through thought really yet that I think are new. So I think people are really just rehashing and risk of making the same mistakes as a result. There's another reason why you've got to go deeper with the thinking. I fully agree with that. And I think if you look at the way in which we try to improve the sector, the humanitarian reforms, the transformative agenda, the grand bargain. I mean, they have made a difference clearly, but it's also clear that there are diminishing returns on these reform attempts. And that the the residual problems we have cannot be solved in that way. We need some new thinking we need a new business model, a new set of actors in order to be able to move forward Yeah, and I think by having a team here it's a the children whose job was to critically reflect on attached to the sort of threshing machine of the daily business very deliberately so that they weren't going to be forced into a position where it's well give us the policy answer give it you know, it's so interesting when you confront busy leaders, I include myself in this you know, the the instinct for answers reductionist, answered, you know, move past, the difficulty of thinking onto action is one of the things that dogs ate, you know, and you see it all the time you see it in some like Ukraine today, where trying to use kind of rubrics and premises of aid that are no longer apply in advance the changing world in transition, it's just, there isn't no one's pausing and saying, Hold on, let's go deeper, let's get back to sort of political philosophy around this of the kind that was very bright, vibrant in the aid sector in the 60s and 70s, arguably, and fostered a lot of change and a lot of growth in aid and a lot of new organisations. I think we're at that time again, I see that in the critique of the kind of mainstream aid that sits in the periphery. And I think that is, that is what we have to contend with, you know, and we have to sort of embrace that, and we have to, but by doing that from within, means you have an opportunity to sort of, you know, change leadership mindset, you're not a protest movement on the outer edge, you know, you're connected into the metropolis where I sit, you know,
Lars Peter Nissen:Before we get back to that discussion, because I think that is the central point. What is the credibility of that voice coming from inside an institution like this? Can we just go back to the different big operations that sort of has shaped the sector and and where you in the chapter describe. Let's start with Rwanda in 94. Right? How, what did that mean for us?
Gareth Owen:I mean, I think the aid sector, so once every generation has a dramatic kind of crisis, and I think the Rwanda post 94, I was very lucky I, I missed the Rwanda genocide, I say I was lucky because I, I was on my way there in 1994, from Angola, which is the second Civil War, I'd been in the age of 25. And I was already very damaged as a result of two civil wars. So luckily, somebody stopped me from going otherwise, I don't think I'd have stayed in the aid sector. And indeed, there aren't that many of my vintage of aid worker who went to Somalia and then Angola and then Rwanda, who kept going, in fact, there were very few, because I think he did so much damage. So it was a very traumatic experience, it came at a really interesting moment in the sort of, in modern geopolitical history, because it was just after the Cold War, it was the end of the Cold War, it was the end of history. According to Francis Fukuyama, American hegemony in the world was proven, you know, we're at the end, that was, that was uncontested that, that that that you know, as a result of the the end of the Cold War, but obviously, that's changed. So Rwanda happened, and the, the, it's remembered mostly for things that didn't happen, you know, the non intervention in effect of the, in the genocide. So it was a crisis of, I've kind of, you know, of, of quality, I think, and accountability in the aid sector. And then later on, we've had a crisis of kind of influence, you know, at the start, which probably spawned the growth period in our aid agencies still relevant in the political world in the beginning of 21st century. And now we have this kind of crisis of legitimacy. So these periodic crises are our times of reflection for the aid sector. But then, the extent to which there's a deep new philosophical kind of premise emerging out of any of those kind of crises periods is questionable, you know, we sort of kind of keep going with the same stuff that we've been doing for half a century.
Lars Peter Nissen:But if we go back to Save the Children, how did Rwanda change Save the Children?
Gareth Owen:I mean, the the big decision was not to work, you know, Save the Children chose not to engage heavily in the in the, you know, the genocide response for a variety of reasons. I mean, it was already present, you know, doing work, but I think it saved then participated. You know, in all, as I've always does, I mean, save is ubiquitous in any kind of attempts to reform the sector. After after 100 years, as, you know, many of the big agencies took part very much helping, you know, the sphere project, and, you know, I've my save for that saves always, you know, yes, it's big. Yes, it's kind of an industrial heist. Welcome to the modern world. But there is a there's a, there's a strong moral conscience, say, for children, that that is very permissive. And, you know, that's why I enjoy working here, whilst I know what my day job is. And the whole point is that we're here to save children. There is space, there is space in the periphery of that to look at the systemic change to sponsor systemic efforts. And that, you know, this critical reflection work is an example of that alongside the other things that we do in kind of systemic, supporting your organisation, for example, yeah, we believe in, you know, we believe in being a global being a globally good citizen of the sector.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, we should say, for full transparency, I guess that saved the children has just funded ACAPS' work in Ukraine for a whole year. And I promise the listeners that I'm not gonna go easy on Gareth, because of that, on the contrary.
Gareth Owen:This is not the first time we've we've supported your organisation that we've always believed in ACAPS and your work. And, you know, that's a collective effort from the DEC agencies to support your work, and rightly so. I mean, that's the quality of kind of collective collaboration and is is obvious for us in relation to that. So, ya know, somebody save, save, as always tried to sort of keep up and be at the forefront of efforts to reform in a positive direction in the aid sector. But I think my issue was, I think it's, I think it's still on the surface. A lot of this, I think it's not contending with the kind of neo feudal capitalist realities that you know, that that are the truth of much of modern age, right.
Lars Peter Nissen:T he way you describe it, then is 94. Save is a bit on the sidelines, you don't jump in fully, you choose to stay a bit of a distance. When we then get up to 99. You have Kosovo, how did Save
Gareth Owen:so the cost of a crisis was an important moment for for the, for the humanitarian sort of reimagining inside the children certainly saved from UK decisions made in the 1990s saw a lot of these sort of operationality that save UK had been known for, you know, around the world, kind of just They're quite quickly in an era where focus on rights and the sort of policy side of life and advocating for that, looking at the sort of bigger picture, kind of start to take precedence over operational delivery, which I think was a challenge for lots of you know, I don't think it's as as unique. But then the Kosovo crisis happened in Europe's backyard, and save was slow to react. I know because I was on the ground, working for another organisation I was heading up actually get some good work and Kosovo. And you could see, you could see, you know, there was this kind of lack of operationality playing through an organisation that kind of structured that away, certainly, most of the operation capacity and safety in UK was still in out in East Africa. So mobilising that, you know, for Europe was proved difficult. And I think, you know, that's often the case with big agencies that are, you know, they can be sort of like slow tankers turning, and they're not that agile and everyone, everyone knows that. But once they get going, they get go, they get going big. So it was a big moment. I think it sort of kind of it reminded the organisation that humanitarianism lay at the heart of the the work of say the children always had for a century. And so there was a desire to sort of rebuild that. And then then post, post Kosovo in, we had the Iraq crisis. And then the real moment was the Tsunami, where, you know, there's a huge, a huge international aid operation on a global scale. We all know the history of that. But it's it happened to Save the Children, Save the Children hadn't strategized at that stage around around sort of serious investment in humanity and growth that came after.
Lars Peter Nissen:So actually, what you're saying is 94, we chose not to be that heavily involved in the operation for various obvious reasons. 99 We missed the boaT
Gareth Owen:A little bit.
Lars Peter Nissen:Iraq and the tsunami in 2001, 2004
Gareth Owen:Yeah
Lars Peter Nissen:that's really I think you've described it as the point of no return?
Gareth Owen:Well, because what happened in 2005, was there were three major emergency responses with the tsunami, which was profound. I mean, no one had ever seen anything like it, the the scale of, you know, human compassion on a global global scale was enormous, right. So it was a really big change moment. But then it was followed in the summer by the Niger crisis, it was followed in the autumn by the Pakistan Earthquake. So there were these three huge emergency responses in one year, all of which reminded this organisation of the power of public engagement with humanitarian action, which has sort of been going out of favour. And if you think about how big organisations like mine work, that is their bread and butter, I mean, we engage the public through a variety of PR methods to mobilise their consciousness towards responding to the plight of children in distant places. And that is very powerful. And it remains very powerful to this day. And alongside that the strategy of growth was around ever increasing acquisition of state sponsored aid, which had a fundamental effect on the kind of structure and the mindset of leadership in the organisation, it changed the character of the organisation hugely and peaked, you know, more than a decade later, when Save the Children UK was about 75%, funded by state sources, which made you know, a considerable, you know, when you when you're dealing with power like that, that will have considerable influence on the decisions your organisation makes. And I kind of reflect on on some of that, as we go as we went through the 21st century in my chapter in the book, which I titled the rise of the Humanitarian Corporation, because that's what it felt like to be part of it. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm sort of reflecting on on the experience of that, you know, as I as I lived it.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so you're saying you take the big money, and that fundamentally changes the organization's you need to be able to do anything from anti terror checks to insane log frames with indicators left, right and centre, you need to have fundraisers, going out and getting funds from the public by appealing to them in order to not be fully dependent on the state money.
Gareth Owen:So but you're the thinking problem here is that you're dealing with capitalist bureaucracy, the whole time, which is what has become enormous in the 21st century, if you look at the rise of the methods of capitalist bureaucary on a heat, this is the Critically Reflective point. And it goes back to sort of, you know, it is a it's kind of a it's kind of a near feudalistic model of power that has been is being applied to the aid aid sector, if you're honest about it. And it's an uncomfortable thing that I'm saying. But you know, what I mean by near feudalism is power in the hands of the few, who then impose a whole load of regulations on the many, and that starts to immediately feel like the aid sector, doesn't it? And that control has been very, very, very explicitly increased in the 21st century.
Lars Peter Nissen:And I think it is a concentration of power that you see in terms of where the money is coming from. But also who gets the money, right? Big agencies such as yours?
Gareth Owen:Well, yeah
Lars Peter Nissen:and the UN take up the vast majority of the resource.
Gareth Owen:I mean the controllers, who are states impose a regulatory environment, on their partners through Commission's through all sorts of legislation. If you look in the 21st century, the rise of anti terror legislation, anti fraud legislation, global data protection safeguards, much of it, you know, legitimately necessary, but the effect of it has been to create an environment where... of increased survelence of, you know an expectation for compliance under the guise of risk regulation. Now, if you were to take a sort of historical view of that, you'd be in the territory of Jeremy Bentham and the, you know, the Panopticon, the famous story of Bentham is, I mean, one of the underlying philosophies of universalism, right, so one of the founding philosophers of humanitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, alongside Immanuel Kant, right, I mean, he warned, he came up with this idea of the panopticon, which is a kind of prison, where one guard, one watchman, who is unseen by all the prisoners, could watch everybody, and the prisoners wouldn't know whether they were being watched. And by just the thought of maybe I'm being watched, was enough to sort of create this kind of self modifying behaviour. And if you think about modernity, and the sort of colonising effective technology, and you start to see these patterns, but But it's Bentham warned, you know, in the late 1800s, of the risk of this kind of thinking, because what you get is, you know... and look at... think about a today, regulation, surveillance, punishment, that is Bentham logic of the panopticon. And the risk of that is that when you arrive in a modern conflict like Ukraine, with that as the as the as the dominant kind of rubric, it doesn't work because the premises don't apply, right?
Lars Peter Nissen:Let's just fill out the blanks here. So we let's go back to the post tsunami, the evaluation, the reflections that came then. And and that tipping point, a point of no return, you describe in terms of save, opting to really become big aid, real big aid. Take us through the time from 2005 Up until now.
Gareth Owen:So we had a in late 2005, a corporate modernising CEO arrived from from industry, who was I credit Jasmine enormously with with revitalising the humanitarian agenda, not just in Save the Children UK, but in Save the Children worldwide. She rightfully knew that this, this was what the public knew us for, and therefore, it was where we should focus investment. But she also was, you know, canny, in terms of business, she knew this would be a driver of growth for the whole organisation and the whole movement. And, you know, she was joined by a chair of the board, he was incredibly politically connected. And they they were a powerful alliance, which she she introduced the idea of ambition as a good thing. Because in her view, and I think she was absolutely right. We weren't being ambitious enough for children. They were we weren't, we were, we were low balling our efforts. And I agree with her, we all agreed with her in the humanitarian sense, and we invested and it worked. It meant that we, instead of being overly reactive, we were strategizing on how to respond in advance and generating serious operational capacity that will allow us to maximise our impact in big emergencies and it it maximised organisational growth as well.
Lars Peter Nissen:So what are we talking about? We in 2005? What was the turnover?
Gareth Owen:Um, probably less than 100 million Of Save UK? Of Save UK. so less than 100 million Sterling. At its peak, it was four times that in the space of 12 years, so we've quadrupled in a little over a decade. So you can see the and if you and that was mirrored in terms of growth, across the whole, Save the Children movement worldwide, which doubled to into the billions.
Lars Peter Nissen:And what's your turnover today?
Gareth Owen:Last year's accounts, I think they're coming out. I think they've been published now about 240 million. So it's gone down. And that's a function of lots of lots of lots of peak aid in the UK, because we've seen peak government aid. And we've seen serious changes to how the British government, you know, handles its age budget. And so all agencies have seen their income from the state go down. So it peaked in about 2017 that's been going down ever since.
Lars Peter Nissen:And if we look at the whole Save family, what's the what's the
Gareth Owen:No, that's not had we've not seen that repeated around the world. I mean, you know, the US their their overall income has continued to grow. Despite lots of worries about how political changes might have might have affected the aid budget, in fact, without the US money, many of the world's humanitarian problems would be a lot worse because they are they are very much You know, the lead kind of always have been, but the UK has lost its its preeminence. You know, UK used to be one of the big, big humanitarian donors, and it isn't anymore. And that's had a profound effect on civil society here in the UK in recent years.
Lars Peter Nissen:And if you added up, it's more than a couple of... it is more than $2 billion.
Gareth Owen:Of Save the Children globally? Yeah. Yeah. So it's, and it's comparable, therefore with the other big, you know, the big the big six, in global INGOs.
Lars Peter Nissen:So you mentioned Ukraine before. And what I think is interesting here is, you go back to 2005, you start building up this scaling, you really grow, you grow, you grow. We now as a family, you have more than 2 billion in your possession. And then we have this massive crisis, which is challenging us in so many ways. Like, let's let's leave aside just for simplicity, the ripple effects that you can have across the world in terms of the food pipeline, but also in terms of attention being detracted from Yemen, from Pakistan floods from I mean, you almost can't mention all of the incredibly severe crisis we have that are not getting the attention that they should, because we are all looking at Ukraine. Yes. Right. But let's leave that aside. And just look at how are we doing in Ukraine? Right. So insane amounts of money has been raised. There is it the most successful fundraising campaign ever?
Gareth Owen:It depends how you define success In terms of money. In terms of money. It's getting up towards being that for for civil society organisations in the UK, because the big money comes in through the DEC the incredible generosity that we all saw from the British public, you know, that compassion that mobilisation of that compassion, as I've talked about. So the DEC appeal for Ukraine is getting is getting up towards the tsunami, which was kind of a one off. So we've seen that repeated, you know, a generation later, it's become the crisis that's had this kind of unique effect. Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:But I think the difference we have here is that it's so much harder for us to pretend that we're the centre of that operation, that we are really the the people helping in Ukraine, because it's clear that Ukrainian society, civil society, all of that society, is responding in an incredibly impressive way themselves. And we hear story after story. There's been a couple of studies lately coming out on on just how big the barriers are, for Ukrainians to access all of the money that your generous British public has as donated.
Gareth Owen:Well, that's what I'm talking about, you know, that is the effect of the neofeudal capitalist model that dominates aid that is the effectf of the regulation, surveillance and, and risk aversion because that's what happens, you get this kind of risk averse sector that loses its courage loses its political activism loses its boldness loses its outspokenness, and that's I've seen that chilling effect, you know, grow, and people worry about it. I mean, people worry about it at board level, they worry about it every level, but it's very, very, it's power. It's the exercising of power by a dominant system. And I think that's what people forget, in these kinds of debates about change, you know, power is in play here.
Lars Peter Nissen:Absolutely. But what's new about Ukraine?
Gareth Owen:Well, I think what's new about Ukraine? Firstly, it's a civil war, folks. Right. And it will, and we're applying a Western gaze on this
Lars Peter Nissen:It's an an international war actually.
Gareth Owen:Well, it's an international war, but it's also a civil war. And I think, you know, people forget, that is not, you know, it's not, it's not monochromatic in that it's nuanced. You know, there is there are many factors that, and I think what what I think it confirms is this kind of transition in the international order. You know, we the idea that, at the end of history, when I started my career, Western liberal order hegemony, liberal values in the world, you know, all that. We thought that was that we thought it arrived, I think Ukraine has shown us how wrong we were nearly 30 years later, we're back to an into Imperial, you know, kind of reality in the world, and everyone knows that. But what it means is that it sort of conditions for humanitarian action, the premise upon which we operate, is so vastly different in that context. And I think that's, that's, you know, that's the problem. We haven't, you know, the political alliances, the way we operate as humanitarian agencies. It's, we're applying the same old stuff in this highly regulated way. It's highly bureaucratic, bureaucratic, bureaucratized way, it doesn't work for Ukrainian civil society, and they're writing to express that, you know, very openly, you know, maybe it will be a bit provocative isn't a difference, that it's harder for us to hide how poorly it actually functions across the world. And secondly, that they don't need us as much as in some of the other contexts where we operate. I don't think that's provocative. I think that's self evident. You know, I think that's a challenge. You know, when when aid agencies faced into the prospect of, you know, a war and international war in Ukraine, and we say the children started operations out In 2014, out in the in the East when the first conflict first broke, so we were positioned within our team as Ukrainian, all rest of it. But I think you're absolutely right. We, I don't think I still don't think we in the West in the traditional kind of dominant humanitarian kind of model, understand what we're dealing with there. I don't think we understand the geopolitics, I don't think we understand the motives involved. I don't think we understand any of it. And so rather than stopping and going into the deep thinking, which is actually what we're going to do, through our humanitarian affairs team, we're going to start really thinking about this. Because otherwise, we're doomed to make the same mistakes. And that is what I think the risk of Ukraine is will do. And you're already seeing that, you know, in the letter that Ukraine is so sad, he's written, everyone reached for the tech report, the tsunami evaluation coalition report in the run up to Ukraine, so we must avoid all the mistakes that have been made in there. We're not avoiding any of them. Because we're stuck in a paradigm that sincerely wants to change, but doesn't yet know how to really enact that change. And that is, I think, the moment we're in, which is why it's so profound. So there'll be a legacy on the back of Ukraine. That's you've already mentioned, the indifference it's creating to mass extermination events in other parts of the world in this sort of political economy. But I think I think you're absolutely right, it's going to shine this very, very uncomfortable light on the inadequacies of a model that is proving itself to be at risk of being defunct.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I think, I think the fundamental question is whether the reputational risk created by our lack of performance in Ukraine, are perceived by us as being bigger than the financial risks that make us impose all of these control systems.
Gareth Owen:Yeah, I mean, ultimately, it comes down to what are we here for, and the modern crisis in the aid sector, which we've been experimenting with, in thinking terms, we've done a survey of international NGO leaders with Oxford University where, which points to this is a crisis of legitimacy. That is what we've been seeing building up, you know, the dominant model, the Western sponsored model is being critiqued in lots of different ways. And rightly so. I mean, how could it How could it not be at this stage? So we are, so that we must account for the new conditions, the new global political reality, the new reality of aid, the new realities of an austere world that only produces half the aid money, the world, if we don't account for that, by stopping and thinking about that very critically, we will just keep sleepwalking into these kinds of problems, and we won't actually find new pathways to change. So. So there's kind of we need a new philosophical renascence, almost for the modern era we're in and we're not there yet. But I think we will get there if we promote more critical reflection and a different kind of leadership and more ecosystemic version of leadership that recognises the network open reality of of our of our system, and is less about the closed boundaries of institutions and whether they are doing well.
Lars Peter Nissen:So you said we maybe 10-15 times in this intervention, right? And look at who we are. It is Gareth and Lars Peter.
Gareth Owen:Pale, male, stale.
Lars Peter Nissen:Exactly
Gareth Owen:Eurocentric, middle aged white men,
Lars Peter Nissen:We've spent our whole careers in this institutional framework. So I, I think my first reflection is it's I think it's a great chapter you've written I, I liked the fact that you, you write it while you're still working with Save the Children and not once you sit and collect your pension on your farm somewhere. Right. So I think that's the right thing to do. But I think we also agree that it's not enough for the..We are not enough. You and I are not I mean, so where is that shift in? Forget about the money, forget about localization in terms of getting money out. Let's just talk about who actually sets the tone here. I mean, your quote Shakespeare, you, you're an OBE for Christ's sake. I mean, I'm an an establishment guy right? Now that you bring it up, right? But what are you doing to democratise the shaping of the new humanitarian discourse that obviously we need? What are you doing to make sure that voices from outside this echo chamber are heard?
Gareth Owen:So I'm proud of the fact that say the children allows this kind of dissenting voice to that there is that and that is part of the process is a recognition that self awareness, I don't think there's anybody inside the big institutions who are happy with, you know, the state of affairs, I'm yet to see anyone who really believes that who sincerely. So I think they're, I think it's, I think, you know, I believe in the expressed desire for change. And so, my way of dealing with that, is that okay, well, it's the time of critique is sort of over the last decade, we've been criticising a sector that wasn't really that aware of this. And I think in the last three or four years, thanks to the loud voices on the periphery who, you know, who are, who are pointing this out, I think the awareness has been triggered, it's been triggered in different ways that are some that are kind of just kind of defensive others that are kind of enlightening and sort of insightful. And so when you see that start that start that start to shift, and you have to move from being just critical to offering, you know, new, new, new opportunity. And so the way I do that is to say, Look, I know why I'm here, I know, I collect my check each month, and it's to save kids, and they need saving, and they're out there. And big is, is beautiful in the humanitarian world when it comes to the scale of crisis. So we need to, we need to continue to do that. That's the day job. But we have to be systemic, we have to collaborate, that means actively embracing in the metropolis evade, where I sit at the apex of the problem inside one of the big institutions, we have to embrace the critique. And we have to bridge the peripheries. And we have to help in any way we can bring that peripheral view. So it's not just sort of protesting and shouting in echo chambers, bring it to the table there where decisions are made. Because I think that is possible. And I and you know, what we saw in surveying 50, chief executives, you know, over the last year, and producing the report that came out in July, and with Oxford is a sincerity of view, but also a sincerely expressed sense of stuckness. And the stuckness is to do with it being a different business model, the idea of operating from the periphery, and the support of the doing of others is a different dominant model. And it's also a different leadership culture. So we have to approach this in multiple ways, starting with saying to people who are who have a legitimate voice that's more legitimate than been ours, on the frontlines of aid, and help them and that's why we built the humanitarian Leadership Academy. It's why my own strategy, you know, for my department in the UK, is to let go of operationality, and let in much more systemic work at the edge of the outer edges of the system, so that we have more space to support those voices.
Lars Peter Nissen:Let's be concrete, right? You know, you talk about stuckness, we're talking about some of the the CEOs, some of the best paid more brightest, the best educated people in the world, being stuck is not good enough, they're there to unstick us. Now give us some concrete examples of how we get unstuck.
Gareth Owen:Well, I think, say that, in Save UK we have a very courageous CEO, who has, you know, who's been in the organisation for few years has come from a different role and organisation said, we have to let go of power, our strategy our guiding star is called is to is to shift is the shift to to locally-led action. That is, that is courageous, because it means because and the difficulty that is expressed by CEOs is they then have to walk into a boardroom and express the truth of that and say there's going to be a whole load of significant consequences, people's jobs, and all sorts of things have to change. And that's a big institutional effort to move in that direction. So I give a lot of credit to our chief executive for that. And I think there are others like that, but it is not. It's a 10 year job to make that shift.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, but also I've seen strategies from I don't know how many organisations that talk about collaboration, and blah, blah, when you look at what actually happens, you continue to see a subcontracting rather than a true partnership with others, right? The money is controlled so tightly, that power doesn't shift. And so it's great that we change the discourse. But if the practice doesn't exist, how do you how are you going to change that? In a sense, it's great. Your CEO says that. What about your internal auditor? What do they say?
Gareth Owen:Well, I think it is a political economy problem. It's a political problem, it only changes when the regulatory environment is willing to take more risk. I mean,
Lars Peter Nissen:So it's the donors fault?
Gareth Owen:Well, their partner is everywhere, everyone, everyone who's in incumbent in the status quo has to has to look inwardly first and say, how courageous am I? How willing am I to be different? You know, it is possible. But I think the reason I sort of agitate from within is is from sort of moral is a moral position, you know, and it's to remind people about the point is social activism, you know, to change things. It's not to, you know, we're not here to do well as, as organisations financially, we're here to make change in a world and it's much needed. So if we're not willing to contend with all that differently, as we enter our second centuries of existence, then these questions of our legitimacy become very, very fair and very real and very pertinent and very urgent. So there's a paradox in systemic change, which is you have to be both patient and urgent. I've stayed at Save the Children for 21 years, because I've had the space to space to argue differently. No one's ever said to me, you know, stop, stop this. No one said, there'll be moments where people said, Are you sure this not a distraction? But I think there's there's a growing recognition that we need to change leadership mindsets, we need to change philosophically, the kind of premises that we use, and that's a thinking exercise. And if we do that, then we will see the next generation it won't be the incumbents, it will be future generations of leaders who who will acknowledge that, you know, this era of the corporatization of aid You know, served its purpose at a time, but it's time came to an end.
Lars Peter Nissen:And I probably think that the question is whether you can achieve that transformation within the current institutional setup, we have, I think, the incentive structures and the very business model underpinning a house like, like the one we're sitting in here in London, will, you know, the willingness is there, the individual courage is there. But I also know that gravity sets in over time.
Gareth Owen:And that's why the voices outside are so important, because the closer you get to sort of gravitational centre of the system, the more the, the effect is felt. And so, disruption and innovation and change and collaboration is easier at the outer edge. And that's why I'm proud of the role we've played in creating the Humanitarian Leadership Academy and supporting the founding of the START network in supporting your organisation in supporting ELHRA. It's always been a, you know, a both and for us, yes, we have to do the day job of saving children, that we have agency for that we have scale for that we have a history of that, but it is not where we are going to centre, our efforts going forward, we're making a radical shift. Now, radical shifts are rare. There's a lot of people who, for all the reasons you cite, talk about it has to be an incremental, it's it's incremental change, not revolution. But I think you actually need to sponsor both, you know, I think the, when I talk to people, who are the most visceral, most vociferous in their criticism, you know, from our networks, and all sorts of angles, whether that's about coloniality, white saviourism, my role in that, as an incumbent, any of the any of the modern critiques, you know, when you when you dig into that, they want more radical change. And my question to them is, okay, well, you're dealing with power. So recognise that it's about power in the way we're talking, and contend with power on, and that's kind of the Shakespeare reference contend with power, it's not going to become this suddenly enlightened kind of change, you're going to have to, it's gonna have to be a struggle, and we're gonna have to summon that struggle in lots of different ways. And I think that's where, perhaps fear and anxiety in modern modernity play a part, you know, people have been conditioned, and this conditioning effect of the near feudal model, you know, regulate, survey punish is so pervasive, you know, unless we can rebel, and mobilise collectively, collaboratively politically against that, I don't think we will get where we need to go. And rightly, you know, these questions of legitimacy of international NGOs will continue.
Lars Peter Nissen:Maybe here at the end, let's go back to the tension between the humanitarian realist and the humanitarian heart, the institution, and the individual. Throughout your chapter in the book, you talk a lot about the influence that individual CEOs coming in, have on the organisation. And if you allow me to paraphrase, it's basically lawyers and bankers running Save the Children,
Gareth Owen:Well, lawyers and bankers run the modern world, in case anyone hadn't noticed. And all big civil society organisations are a product of the Zeitgeist. Right. I mean, so that's that we were in the times we're in.
Lars Peter Nissen:interesting that you highlight that as a significant sort of explanation of how Save has developed, is these individuals, very skilled people coming in with this background conditioned in this way? That that really shapes institution?
Gareth Owen:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:And here's Gareth, in the middle of this, who I know to be a very committed humanitarian. And the question I had when I had done reading the chapter is how much space is there left for Garrett's humanitarian heart,
Gareth Owen:Lots. And that's the great joy of Save the Children. And that's why I stayed here for 21 years, many, many people know me as a sort of, you know, old fashioned Dunantist, loggie aid worker bootstraps up dinosaur, right? And they say, why have you stayed? I said, well, because a big institution is influential. And if you can, if you can, and of course, the debate is always can you change the Masters House with the Masters tools, right? Or do you need to be on the outside? And is that where you ferment? This is a radical change. My view has always been do both try both? And I haven't, no one has ever once in 21 years said to me, don't try. Don't try and don't stop thinking. We take away your permission to be this way. If they had done that I would have left and they haven't. And so the great joy of working here is that, you know, once you've once you get to sort of two decades plus in an institution, you you can see the legacy that of space that you've had, and that's that's been a great joy. So that's why I stay but my humanitarian heart beats evermore evermore loudly in terms of my concern for these issues. While I'm writing more about it in this way, we're producing these kinds of critical reflections. It's why I write my own books. You know, because I think the soul and the political activism that lies at the heart of what we've been about for a 100 years plus in the West, is is at risk unless we really, really stop and think.
Lars Peter Nissen:So you're talking about ethics and and moral drivers and how does that fit with the issues that came out a couple of years ago around sexual harassment here at headquarters here in Save?
Gareth Owen:How does it fit, I think it's when you lose sight of who you are when you lose sight. And don't spend time thinking about your ethics and the values base that guides your organisation, when you've lost sight of that, culturally, and when you've lost sight of the heritage of that your institution is then very vulnerable to external forces that may arrive powerful forces might come into your organisation, and if they're not putting on the organisations shirt that's valued, if they're not wearing the badge. Because it's so it's, you know, it's so alive in the institution as a culture, then they can impose whatever they like. And I think for many staff, it Save the Children, the pain of what we went through, is a very, very serious, you know, trauma that sits with those of us who went through it, because we saw what was causing it. And it's and when you don't have vibrant debate and vibrant space within an organisation for critical reflection, then it's easy for people to impose a different culture on you.
Lars Peter Nissen:But Gareth you have again and again, stress that you feel like you have that culture here that you have had the space to do that, but but still, right here. On these floors, you you had a serious sexual harassment issue going on, right?
Gareth Owen:Yes. And you know, all of us who were around at the time, all of us in senior leadership roles, ask ourselves the same questions everyone else asked around that. Did we know about that? Could we have done more about that? What didn't we do? You know, that that is that is, you know, going on, constantly in Save the Children. And the good thing is, the organisation is radically different now. And again, great credit to the current CEO, the previous CEO came in after that period, bringing kindness in back into the organisation bringing the values, creating a space for people like me, who had kind of survived that period, who probably should have done more all the rest of it. To bring forward this kind of agenda of heritage of culture of ethics of critical reflection, it's created a much safer and much more thoughtful and much kinder organisation. But as our previous CEO, not the current one said, Your kindness doesn't, you can have kindness and ambition. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. But in order for that to be true, and I guess that's what I'm saying my chapter, you must spend as much time on the thinking and the ethics as you do on on the turnover.
Lars Peter Nissen:Now, if we go back to the 25, year old Gareth, knowing what you know, today, would you still make the same choices? Would you still go into an organisation like this? Would you still serve scale and big aid the way you have? Or would you have picked a different positioning for yourself?
Gareth Owen:Great question. Honestly, and I'm not avoiding it, I think I would have made the same choices. I have not regretted a single day at Save the Children, it has been a journey. It has been a painful journey, it has been a struggle, it has never sat well with me big aid and the corporatization of aid, it's my humanitarian heart has never really grown accustomed to that. And perhaps that's why I've been successful as a humanitarian director, I've never entirely succumbed to that. And where I'm happy is that, you know, I've been able to strategize with permission by the organisation to, to keep the humanitarian heart beating. And that's This is a wise organisation, though, that is the those were the that was the political reality, the political economy, reality of the times. I've been with six CEOs at Save the Children, not one of them has said change. In fact, you know, I remember Jasmine, saying to me, when she confirmed me as the Humanitarian Director. You know, this, we are what we are. And your job is to fight, fight the good course. So if I ever catch you asking for permission, instead of forgiveness, you won't have understood your job. So I've had permission to be this way throughout my time. And I'm very grateful to say for that. So there's a wisdom and a recognition in that that I think is very, very important to cite, because it was talking about, you know, you do represent the beating heart. I spent a lot of time with our public support. I know how valued the humanitarian you know, history and heritage of Save the Chuldren is to our supporters, and, and we maintain it. So it's operating within, you know, authentically, which is kind of the story and I think space to think about that, that reflecting and doing you know, you must think before you do it used to it's sort of a reversal of what most people are used to in aid right? Think spend time thinking and then do in the right way.
Lars Peter Nissen:Gareth Owen, thank you so much for coming on Trumanitarian. Thank you for having the courage to write these things and take a difficult and painful debate actually, it's painful because it's the challenges the the experience and the work that we have done over the years. And what I like about it is that Do you you do it while you're still in the game, you don't sit on the sideline and, and reflect on how terrible things are. And you don't apologise, in a sense of, I think it is a very realist perspective you, you you provide and and I really appreciate that because there are some difficult choices to be made. And we have to have this blunt, honest debate about and to move forward. So, thank you.
Gareth Owen:My absolute pleasure. Thank you so much.