1 Adapting the humanitarian system to new contexts, actors and challenges Problem statement Despiteimprovementsinthepastdecades,theinternationalhumanitariansystem1 hasnotkeptpacewiththerapidlychanginghumanitarianlandscape.Itsresponse model is outdated, largely based on the premise that the international system is the firstlineofresponse,withlimitedregardtolocalcapacities2andthecentralroleof affectedpeople.Thismodelcontinuestoberolledoutindifferenttypesofcrises, despite there being rapid growth in the number of local, national, and regional actors includingtheprivatesectorwiththecapacity,expertiseandresourcesto respond.Increasinglygovernments,localandnationalNGOs,andaffectedpeople are demanding to lead in meeting humanitarian needs. Whathasbecomeclearisthattheinternationalhumanitariansystemcannotboth rapidlyrespondtonewcrisesandcontinuetoservicesituationsofrecurrentand protracted need. With the increasing gap between needs and resources, the impact ofinnovation(suchasscaledupuseofmulti-sectorcashtransfers)andconstant confrontation with a set of new and intensified threats, the international humanitarian systemneedstoconsiderwhatismissioncriticalandwhatchangesarerequired includingwithinthecurrentarchitecturetobebetterpreparedforthenext10-15 years,inthechangingenvironmentofrisksrelatedtourbanization,foodinsecurity, climate change and other challenges. Opportunities for change TheemergingoutcomesoftheWHSregionalandthematicconsultationstodate havepointedtotheimportanceofensuringthattheinternationalhumanitarian systemisflexibleandagiletoadapttothenewgenerationofcrisesandmeetthe differentneedsindifferentcontexts.TheSummitprovidesanopportunityand platformtoexploreoptionsformovingawayfromthecurrentone-size-fits-all approachtoonethatismoreflexibletofitspecificcontextsandcapacitiesonthe groundinordertobuildco-operationandtrustamongstallactors.Thereareafew key aspects of the international humanitarian requiring adjustment: Theinternationalhumanitariansystemlargelyappliesaone-size-fitsall responsemodelthatassumesithavingaleadershipandcoordinationrole, withlimitedregardtothecapacityofthegovernmentandotheractors,and diverse contexts, especially in urban areas.The humanitarian sector is not based on the concept of subsidiarity (or, is not built around affected people truly being at the center of response) and not set 1 1he lnLernaLlonal humanlLarlan sysLem can be broadly deflned as Lhe neLwork of lnLernaLlonal humanlLarlan acLors who are funcLlonally connecLed Lhrough Lhe framework for coordlnaLlon esLabllshed by CA resoluLlon 46/182 and lLs subsequenL resoluLlons - whlch lncludes Lhe L8C, Lhe lASC, plannlng and flnanclng mechanlsms - and are gulded by a commlLmenL Lo Lhe guldlng prlnclples, humanlLarlan prlnclples, and lnLernaLlonal law.2 Such as C8Cs, naLlonal and local nCCs and local auLhorlLles. 2 up to complement or supplement local, national or regional efforts to address humanitarian needs.Humanitarian coordination structures are highly centralized and do not provide theopeningforregionalandcountry-levelcoordinationstructurestohave primacy,nordotheytakeintoaccountlocalorregionalspecificities,in particularsharedlanguageorculture.Theinternationalhumanitariansystem is perceived by some as built upon Western or Christian belief structures, not incorporatingdiversityoftraditionsorviewsonthecollectivehumanitarian endeavour.The humanitarian sector is not driven by rigorous data and analysis to support decision-making.Monitoringandresultsreportingaredrivenmoreby individualagenciesperformanceindeliveringgoodsandservicesthana holisticunderstandingofneedsandthecollectiveoutcomesofhumanitarian work over time.Thehumanitariansectorlacksmechanismsthatcanindependentlymonitor finance costs, flows and results and advise on where funding is most needed, andlacksanimpactevaluationfunctionthatisentirelyindependentfrom operational agencies. In the lead-up to the Summit, different organizations have made contributions to the debateonclassifyingtheworkhumanitariansdointodifferentoperatingcontexts withdifferentrequirementsincludingthe4CsmodelintroducedbyALNAP3.The upcoming Global Forum for Improving Humanitarian Action will also use a range ofindicativecontextsthatreflectacombinationofthecrisiscontextandlocal capacity,asabasisfordiscussiontotestarangeofspecificpropositionsfor adapting the international system to different contexts. This paper builds on that line ofanalysisandproposesasetof5differentcontextsinwhichthehumanitarian system operates today, but which may require a more tailored and adapted business modelatitsdifferentlevels(HQorinternational,regionalandnational)inorderto bettermeettheneedsofaffectedpeopleandworkincomplementarywayswith national and local actors: Recurrentrapidandslow-onsetdisasters(addressingchronicvulnerability and poverty);Protracted crises in conflict-affected states;Conflict/high-risk environments;Catastrophic,rapidonsetshocksforacountryorregion(primarilynatural hazard); andNew and emerging large-scale global crises and threats (pandemics, nuclear, cyber). Awiderangeoffactorsshapeeachcontext,includingtherole,capacityand willingness of governments, the capacity of national and local civil society, the scope and longevity of the crises, the roots of the crises and capacities and vulnerabilities oftheaffectedpopulation,andotherfactors,suchasrapidurbanization,climate changeandincreasedconnectivity.Theconstellationofactorsinvolvedinthe 3 8amallngam, 8, and MlLchell, !., 8espondlng Lo Changlng needs? Challenges and CpporLunlLles for PumanlLarlan AcLlon", november 2014. 3 response and the ways they operate with each other are also significant contributing factors. Inadaptingtheinternationalhumanitariansystem,itisalsoimportanttoexplorein whatphaseofthecrisistheinternationalhumanitariansystemismostcritical,and whereitcanaddthemostvalue,suchasincertainsectors,orincertainfunctions such as in advocacy or acting as a broker among various actors. In order to remain relevantandcontinueaddingvalueinthischanginglandscape,itwillbecome increasinglyessentialforinternationalactors(andtheinternationalsystem)to becomemoreagileandflexiblemakingbetteruseoftechnologicaltoolsand analysis of the context and capacities available to adapt the approach and footprint to meet affected peoples needs in each crisis. Possible recommendations Shift the system from being supply-driven to demand-driven. Shift the focus from evaluatingdeliveryperformanceofindividualagenciestounderstandingand trackingtheoutcomesforaffectedpeople.Developresultsframeworkswith indicatorsbasedonoutcomesindifferentcontexts.Anindependentimpact evaluation group could be established to monitor this;Regionalizepreparednessandresponsethroughdevolvingdecision-makingon coordination,gapfillingandfinancingtotheregionallevel,informedbylocal, nationalandregionalcapacities.EmpoweredregionalIASC-typestructures, could be one way of doing this; Operationalizecontext-specificitywithintheinternationalsystembyaligning institutionsaroundthedifferentmixofexpertiseandrolesrequiredindifferent contexts. This would entail analysing the current shortcomings of the international systemindifferentcontextsandunderstandingwhereitcouldaddthemost value, and introducing structural changes in the UNs architecture; Create a predictable platform for the international humanitarian system to engage with actors in other sectors such as defense, scientific, and others to prepare the system for emerging global threats (pandemics, cyber, nuclear, etc!). Discussion questions Whatisneededtoensurethatinternationalhumanitarianactorsworkinamore complementary manner with other local, national and regional actors? Whatarethenecessarychangestothecurrentinternationalhumanitarian architecture for more context-specific and flexible humanitarian responses? Whataretheparticularconsequencesofthesechangesintermsofdecision-making processes and coordination mechanisms? Consideringfuturerisks,whatarethetypesofcontextsandsituationswhere international humanitarian actors should pay most attention?