Toespraak minister Ploumen op Nederlandse humanitaire top

Toespraak | 12-02-2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

Last autumn I was in northern Iraq. There I visited Syrian and Iraqi refugee camps. I’ve seen a lot of refugee camps in my time, but it’s something I never get used to. Time and again I am overwhelmed by their sheer size. Especially when I consider that every person in there, every woman, every man, every child, has their own tragic story of loss. I heard one such story from a woman who until recently had been working as a local government official. She had a good income, a roof over her head and a happy life with her family. Until she heard shouting in the middle of the night: 'Get out of here, now, IS is coming!' And so there she was with her children, having lost almost everything, crammed together with other refugees in an old gym building. And there are many more like her. Ordinary people, like us, with an ordinary life, like us, and an ordinary job, like us, who suddenly become refugees. Not because they want to, but because they have no choice.

At the moment there are no fewer than four 'L3' emergencies in the world – the UN classification for the biggest and most serious humanitarian crises. There are now more refugees than at any time since the Second World War. Many of them depend on emergency aid to survive. But there’s a shortage of funds to help them – a shortage that has tripled in the last decade. So the Netherlands has decided to donate 570 million euros extra up to 2017. We are one of the world’s top ten humanitarian donors. In many ways, aid is working well, and all of you here today are doing a fantastic job. But it isn’t enough. The current humanitarian system can’t cope with the immense scale and complexity of the current crises. That’s why we’re here today: to think about the future of the humanitarian system.

That system needs to be more effective. I believe there are three ways to achieve this. First, we need to strengthen the role and responsibilities of governments that are willing to protect people against the risks and consequences of disasters. We must invest more in the disaster management capacity of these local and national authorities. In some countries – like Syria – this is impossible, because there the government is part of the problem. But neighbours like Jordan and Lebanon are willing and able to play a major role. Let us help them, as much as possible, to do so.

At the same time, civil society is an important ally, especially in countries where governments cannot protect their own people. NGOs get to places others can’t reach, and so their work can be incredibly valuable. In war-torn countries they are often the glue that binds society together. So I’m very pleased about the new partnerships between Dutch NGOs in South Sudan and northern Iraq, for instance, where large-scale projects are starting this year.

The bigger the role of local authorities and organisations, the more complex – and crucial – it becomes to coordinate aid properly. This requires rapid decision-making, and effective and inclusive cooperation between all concerned. All too often there are parallel coordination systems: international and national. After Typhoon Haiyan had raged over the Philippines, the UN set to work with skill and zeal, but without taking enough account of the capacity already present in the country. We saw only recently how big that capacity is now, with the impressive local response to Typhoon Hagupit. Last year the UN resolved to work towards a context-specific approach that would look at the capacity of local government and local players. I think that’s a step in the right direction.

Second, it’s important to stimulate the local economy in crisis areas. More and more aid organisations have stopped providing their own supplies of food and other goods. Instead they get them from local businesses. And increasingly, disaster victims aren’t given food packages, but cash or vouchers. This system is already widespread in Syria and Lebanon. Besides being much cheaper and reducing logistical coordination, it allows local markets to recover. Upsetting such markets by introducing free food is disastrous for local shopkeepers. What’s more, cash and vouchers give individuals more choice. People can decide what to buy and where to buy it. In any event, there should be a greater focus on promoting refugees’ economic self-reliance. It should be easier for businesses to buy goods and services from refugees. At the same time, refugees should get more help with entering the market, for instance through training.

Not just local businesses, but multinationals, too, are working more and more with emergency aid organisations in disaster areas. Unilever has been printing information about Ebola on their soap packaging, Vodafone set up a free mobile network after Typhoon Haiyan and IKEA is designing flat-pack shelters for refugee camps. I believe that such partnerships are part of the future of humanitarian aid. Because they benefit both the business community and emergency aid organisations. And even more important: they help people in need.

Third, the aid sector needs to innovate. Humanitarian organisations spend less than one per cent of their budgets on research and development. Businesses, on the other hand, often spend six to eight times as much. You can see why: donors want to see their money spent on saving lives – other types of spending are seen to be a waste. But that means there’s a lot of room for improvement in the working methods of humanitarian organisations. All kinds of new technologies are being ignored or underused. Take one of the biggest problems facing emergency aid: the lack of reliable information about disaster areas. There are huge opportunities in the rapidly-developing field of big data. Tweets, Facebook messages, text messages and satellite images from the disaster area can help create real-time crisis maps. Maps that contain all kinds of relevant information about the disaster area: the locations of evacuation centres, roads, hospitals and victims. And there are so many more good ideas, like text messages informing people about Ebola. A machine that makes new bricks from earthquake rubble. Or solar-powered lamps like the WakaWaka Light. These are truly valuable inventions. Having such a lamp in a dark toilet in a refugee camp could mean the difference between safety and rape. But ideas like these haven’t yet broken through. They aren’t being tested enough, and applied on a larger scale. On the one hand that’s understandable: at a time of crisis you’d rather not be experimenting. On the other hand, this means that no true innovations or enhancements are being made. It all takes far too long. The need is great, and speed is of the essence.

Innovation is important. But let me be clear: I’m not talking about innovation for its own sake. I’m talking about innovation that makes aid more effective. That doesn’t happen by itself. We must first go back to the key question: what do refugees and disaster victims really need? And then we must be prepared, above all, to share innovative ideas. And here, too, coordination between organisations needs to be strengthened. In a few weeks’ time, for example, I’ll be hosting a meeting in The Hague about the use of big data to provide aid in a more targeted and effective way. At that meeting, UN organisations, donors, NGOs, businesses and universities will brainstorm to see how they can work together better in this field.

But of course the other thing we need is simply more money. And here I firmly believe the answer lies in the market. Last autumn, for instance, I urged the World Bank to issue catastrophe bonds in the event of pandemics like Q fever, SARS and Ebola. This approach has been used before in big natural disasters. If there are no tsunamis, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in a given period, investors get their deposit back with interest. If a disaster does occur, they guarantee to foot the bill. So when an epidemic occurs, sufficient funds are instantly available. Governments – especially in developing countries – usually don’t have the financial resources to cope in the wake of a disaster. The catastrophe bond system involves the capital markets and international financial institutions, making them part of the solution.

These are some approaches for the short term. But I hope that today we will also have the courage to look at the long term. In the future, I believe true innovation lies in making emergency aid redundant. Experiments of this type are already under way. In India, for example there are projects that allow people to insure themselves against crop failure. It works like this. After a set number of days of drought or rain, the affected state receives a pay-out. The government then distributes the money among the population at risk. They can then arm themselves against impending disaster, for instance by reinforcing their houses or arranging transport to higher ground. This prevents people falling victim to disasters, making emergency aid unnecessary. The challenge now is to run these experiments on a larger scale. In this area we are working closely with the International Finance Corporation. Of course, there will always be disasters that no one foresees. It’s the sad truth. And insuring against wars is a lot harder than against drought. But still, I believe working to make yourself redundant would be the real innovation in emergency aid.

The World Humanitarian Summit is a good moment to set a new course together. Aid needs to be faster and more efficient. I see a greater role and responsibility for governments and business. And innovation is the way forward. Good intentions are not enough. Dare to think differently, out-of-the-box. Don’t shy away from painful discussions. Let’s not only try to catch up. Let’s blaze a new trail!

Thank you.