At Start Network, we often describe ourselves a ‘systems change’ organisation. But that begs a fundamental question — what do we actually mean by systems change and what might this look like in the humanitarian sector?
More challenging still is the next question — how will change happen? I think it’s safe to say that if you ask 10 different people these questions, you will get 10 different answers.
Perhaps then we should start with the question of why systems change is needed. On this question, I suspect there might be more of a consensus — albeit with a range of answers still, including that:
- the needs of people affected by crisis or living with the risk of crises are routinely not met equitably or with dignity (when they are met at all)
- there is currently very limited structural accountability, design and delivery roles, primary feedback loops or most importantly choice for and to the people who are the most directly affected
- colonialism and racism remain pervasive within the sectors structures, processes and mindsets
- we expect the number of natural and manmade crises and crisis risks to increase dramatically and become more unpredictable due to climate change and as a result of an increasingly globalised, interconnected world and the system needs to be able to respond to this uncertainty
- to date, there has been an over-investment in international actors and under investment in local actors, making crisis response less relevant, slower, more costly and less resilient than it needs to be
- funding still favours response over more cost effective forms of early action for predictable crises
And there are countless other reasons that could be listed.
At a recent discussion amongst Start Network hubs — networks of Start Network members in different countries — some fundamental questions emerged about systems change such as:
· When we talk about systems change, do we mean a process of incremental change or something more fundamental?
· How quickly can change happen? Is this change necessarily slow?
· When we see the widespread disruption and the dissatisfaction today is that an indication of readiness for change?
· Have we been building slowly to a tipping point of more rapid / disruptive change? Where are we now in this process?
· How do you prepare for and maintain the benefits of disruptive change?
· How do you maintain or increase the capability to safeguard people at risk while simultaneously re-building how the sector works?
But let’s start by diving into that first question: Will incremental change address the problems highlighted above?
One way of thinking about incremental change is as a way of optimising an existing system. If we think about motorised transport as an example, it would be reasonable to say that we have optimised fossil fuel based vehicles and their supporting infrastructure (such as fueling stations) through a process of incremental change. A process that has resulted in much safer, cleaner transport today than fifty years ago, but unfortunately this is no where near enough to address the problems of climate change. For the next shift to a battery or hydrogen-based transport system, we can’t optimise our way to a solution. We need a complete system change with a simultaneous investment in new technology, new charging infrastructure and a change in consumer mindsets. That is not necessarily a rapid change (as we can clearly see) but neither is it an incremental change to the old system. It is one that has required deliberate investment and testing of completely new ways of doing things outside of the existing market.
I would argue that the problems identified with the humanitarian system are in the same category. There needs to be simultaneous investment in local humanitarian systems and in structurally different accountability and funding mechanisms, coupled with an orderly withdrawal of investment in international agencies who need a fundamental change in mindset about their role in this newly emerging system. These changes won’t evolve through tweaks to the current system; they need to be designed and invested in as a deliberate system change in parallel to the existing system.
If this is true, then it requires a fundamental shift in how resources are invested and still leaves many questions to be answered about how this happens, how this is done safely and who are the legitimate architects of this new infrastructure.
Furthermore, we should be asking fundamental questions of ongoing processes such as the Grand Bargain 2.0 process. Are these grabbing the opportunity to co-create a fundamentally new system or are they optimising one that is no longer fit for purpose?
This post originally appeared on Medium.com on August 3rd 2021
Comments