A (3:10)

So how do you do that? Well, how do we, how do you deal with that?

B (3:13)

Well, we deal with it through extraordinarily committed programming. 2000 people working for us inside Syria, delivering health, protecting women and kids, doing some cash distribution, actually by very, very determined work in the neighboring states to help both refugees and host communities. So 1,500 of our staff working there and a real, I think rigor about what we call our outcomes and evidence framework being very clear about what we're doing, being very clear about our entry criteria for different places, which communities really need our help, and real dedication to building an evidence base that shows that ensures that our programming is of the highest quality. Now it's a very high risk environment. It's very, very tough. The world has lived with the fiction, if you like, for the last five years that this conflict was going to end and there's actually no sign of it ending. It may be freezing, but it's certainly not ending. And so it's been very, very challenging. And the final thing I'd say though, of course is that it's incumbent on us not to forget that the majority of the people we're helping are not in the Syria region. And so the visits I've been making to Niger, to Nigeria, to Tanzania, to Burundi, most recently last week to Kenya, to the Dadaab and Kakuma camps, are to make the point that IRC has to be focused on the places that are not in the headlines as well as the places that for obvious and in some ways right reasons are on the front pages.

A (4:35)

And so having been around to visit those other places where you work, as well as responding to the, you know, the highlighted the headline crisis of Syria, what's your assessment about the humanitarian system? Is it fit for purpose?

B (4:46)

Well, the first thing I would say is that it's a humanitarian sector, not a humanitarian system. And I'm not trying to be a pedant in saying that.

A (4:52)

What's the difference?

B (4:53)

Well, a sector is like the private sector or the NGO sector. It's a group of organizations, disparate organizations, that are working according to some common principles. In the private sector, the profit motive. In the humanitarian sector there is obviously the humanitarian principles that underpin our work. A system, the judicial system would be an example, or the HR system implies coordination. Well, it implies clear outcomes, shared evidence base, clear objectives, certain metrics of work, certain methods of coordination. I think that this distinction, for those of your most committed viewers and listeners, they can read my speech at Georgetown on 27 April, which went through this. But I do think there's an important point that the scale, nature, complexity of humanitarian need today demands that we move from a humanitarian sector of disparate but similarly motivated individuals and groups towards a system that has clear outcomes, clear accountabilities, clear evidence base that underpins it, clear cost effectiveness metrics. I think there's a real challenge, but a real prize. And in developing a humanitarian system that is adequate for the kind of problems.

A (6:01)

That exist today, how do you do that?

B (6:03)

I think that you have to lead from the top. So I've never been in a system where if the outcomes aren't clear and you can't measure your progress, then there's no way you're going to succeed.

A (6:12)

There's no humanitarian.

B (6:13)

Given that 43% of the world's extreme poor live in conflict and fragile states, the need for so called development and so called humanitarian actors to work together is overwhelming. And clear outcomes are absolutely key to this. On health for people caught up in emergencies and conflict, for education of kids displaced by conflict, for the protection of women kids, and I would also argue for the income of households displaced by conflict. Unless we agree clear outcomes for all actors working in those, for those people, with those people, we're not going to be able to make progress.

A (6:44)

But isn't a humanitarian outcome that someone doesn't die that you provide shelter for?

B (6:47)

Well, that's a great point. And our outcomes framework starts with stopping survival, stopping people dying. But you can't stop there when the average duration of a refugee displacement is 17 years. If you say, if I said to you you've been displaced from Washington D.C. and you're going to another country and we'll make sure you don't die in the next 17 years, you'd say, I want more than that. And it's not good enough to say that middle class people who are displaced by conflict have a right to more than survival. We should be saying that everyone does. So if you're a kid who's been displaced by conflict in Nigeria or Chad or Sierra Leone or anywhere else. You should have an education if you're a woman. You should have proper protection if you're a woman or a girl. The way I would put it is we've got to think about how to help people thrive, not just how to help people survive. And that is demanded not as a matter of theology, but as a matter of fact, that the 17 years average displacement of a refugee means survival is going to brew up more problems than it solves. And we've got to move beyond a survival mentality in thinking about an outcomes framework.

A (7:50)

So in a way you could have. The objectives of development are to create a kind of sustainable economy in countries so that that prevents conflict in the first place.

B (7:59)

But the objectives of development are to tackle poverty, to be fair.

A (8:01)

In the same way, if the result of that is it creates a kind of thriving, stable economy, then you kind of hopefully fend off conflict. But if it all falls apart and you end up with conflict, then here is the humanitarian system at the other end, waiting with similar objectives to create a situation.

B (8:19)

Yeah, I wouldn't draw such a stark description or disjunction between reaction and strategy. Reaction in the humanitarian response in the humanitarian sector and strategy in the development sector. And I'll tell you why. Think about the situation in East Africa. At the moment you've got Kenya raising major questions about its hosting of 600,000 refugees. You've then got Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda saying, well, hang on, if Kenya is going to remove all its refugees, well, they're not, they're not all, they can't all come to us. And we already know. Tanzania says we've already got 250,000 refugees from Burundi. Ethiopia says we're a major refugee hosting country. So I would say a more effective humanitarian system will be both preventative and reactive. It will be both strategic and responsive. And you start with outcomes that are limited in number. And I do think health, education, protection and income are the four keys. You then say evidence based programming. We've said in irc, all of our programmes, evidence based or evidence generating by 2020, you then say cost effectiveness, not just cost efficiency. We want to drive our dollars into those programs that are going to make most difference to the outcome. And fourthly, and finally, we've got to have a systematic R and D drive in this sector so that we're actually innovating in a way that achieves the breakthroughs that are important.

A (9:39)

Let's think a little bit about the work that you guys have done on the ground with Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Cash transfers. It's something that CGD has worked on in the past as well. We put out a report with ODI last year about scaling up cash transfers in humanitarian situations. We've also just put put out work that looks at the cost of humanitarian response that aid agencies spend over a period of time and says, well, if you take that money and you kind of create an endowment and almost a voucher system for refugees so that they could then take that to countries that they might settle in and that makes them economic in inverted commas, economically attractive to those countries. These are ideas that are talking about not more resources, but better resources necessary. Not more aid if you like, but better aid.

B (10:26)

What are your kind of more aid, not better. Better aid, not more aid is certainly an IRC mantra.

A (10:32)

You and us both.

B (10:34)

Look, I think CGG's done some great work on cash transfers. Actually our senior Vice President for Europe was on your cash transfer panel, Jane Waterman, and I think it was an important report. It spoke to CGD's in some ways unique role. I mean obviously you're able to speak truth to power in an informed and clear way and I think that's really valuable. But I think that there's real scope for joining action oriented scholarship with field understanding and insight and that's hopefully what we can bring from our respective work. We're an implementing agency that tries to think hard and you're a think tank that really tries to take seriously the situation on the ground. That's a good combination.

A (11:14)

You just came back from Dadabra at a tcamp. I went there a couple of years ago as a BBC reporter. We were there covering the story of the polio outbreak in the Horn of Africa. But I got to see Dadaab for myself. A hopeless place where people have lived all their lives. Some of them they've never known anywhere else. Now Kenya says it wants to close it down because it thinks there are security concerns. What should happen?

B (11:37)

Well, I think that the most important thing is to take seriously the frustration that exists in Kenya at this 25 year, quote unquote, temporary response to the Somalia crisis. If it had happened in your country or, you know, we both live in the US now, you know that in advanced Western democracies people would have been furious that a temporary solution was 25 years in lasting. Secondly, I think we've got to say that international commitments in respect of refugees mustn't be violated. That the Kenyan government haven't said this so but the media has chattered about forced repatriation. That would just not be acceptable, obviously. But we do need a win win. We need to get a deal for the Kenyans, the local people and for the refugees that gives them both hope. Because don't forget outside Dadaab, the health and education indicators are actually worse than inside. And so we've got to be concerned about the thriving of the Somali refugees in Dada, but also about the Kenyans who are outside. And I think that if we pit them against each other then it really is a terrible zero sum game. And I think the discussion we've just had with the President of the World bank and his commitment to try and bring the different perspective of the World Bank, a development perspective of an economic kind into play is really valuable.

A (12:58)

Now, many people listening to this or watching this will know that your own political story ended when you lost the leadership of the British Labour Party to your brother Ed.

B (13:07)

What you. I mean it was all going so well and now you had to bring.

A (13:12)

It up, didn't I?

B (13:12)

I think. I'm sorry.

A (13:13)

Time's pressing and here he is. No, if you'd won and say you'd become Prime Minister, how would you handle the Syrian crisis differently?

B (13:23)

Well, I try not to sit there thinking, you know, playing, pressing the rewind button or the action replay button. But let me tell you how I would try. Let me try. I think it's a perfectly religion question. How would I have liked the current government or any government to have responded to this is fine. And I think that what I would say about the uk. Are you asking about the UK or governments generally?

A (13:44)

Let's say the uk.

B (13:45)

So I think that you've got to give credit on one aspect to the. There are three parts to the story. One, the humanitarian response in the region. The UK has done really well. The cross party commitment to high levels of development spending, to high quality spending. Now the UK government is saying 50% of its overseas aid is going to go into fragile states. Exemplary, really serious leadership from the UK on the international aid front, DFID Department for International Development was created by the government I was part of in 97. It's an outstanding development and humanitarian player. Secondly, on the refugee resettlement side, a much less strong UK story. The government committed to take 5,000 Syrians a year. That's six per parliamentary constituency. I know that six Syrians was not going to overwhelm the constituency of South Shields that I was representing, so I would have liked to have seen them do more on that. The third element obviously is what's the politics around bringing the war to an end, the question of what's the credible, legitimate proposal for the sharing of political power among the diverse communities of Syria now, the Balkanized and disrupted communities of Syria, that has been the missing link. And my criticism on the diplomatic front would be that while there's been a lot of talk of transition from Assad, there's been very little talk about what is a transition to.

A (15:15)

So, one last question. Seeing as you are talking about the uk, you're talking about the uk, and you went along with it, in a few weeks, the UK will vote on whether to leave the eu. How would a Brexit vote impact Britain's ability to operate as a global development leader?

B (15:32)

Well, I think that my views on this are passionate and public, so I can repeat them here, although I do have to say that I'm speaking in a personal capacity, because irc, obviously, as a charity, doesn't take a position on this. I think that the UK's membership of the EU has been a great example of how the EU is a force multiplier for British values and interests and development. But development is a great example of it, because in 1997, when we created DFID, the EU's overseas aid policy was not a good advertisement for the EU. We created DfID, it became a leader in development policy. It's brought that expertise into the European fold. The European humanitarian and overseas aid policy, through Echo, or the European Commission, and the Development Commission has become a true world leader as well. And it's a great example of how you can multiply not just British money, but British influence by being part of something wider. And I have this very, very strong view that the world. As the world becomes more connected, there are two things that become essential. One, you don't break your links with your local connections, and secondly, you maintain your global connections. And what's happening in the Brexit debate is that those who are arguing for us to leave say we can choose the globe over Europe. And my response to that is, no, that's an utterly stupid thing to say. You engage with Europe as part of engaging with the globe. And I think it's a very, very important debate, not just for the future of Britain, frankly, but for the future of a global system. Because I said in a speech in London that the world is divided between firefighters and arsonists. And for centuries, Britain has been a firefighter. We've always tried to check the abuse of power. We've checked the growth of continental power. Brexit would be an act of arson on the international system. And this is no time to have arson on the international system, given the massive challenges that we're facing around the world. And so I think it's really important that the debate proceeds. But I do emphasize it's a personal view. IRC has to remain neutral. But I hope and trust that British people will do the right thing.

A (17:41)

Final question. Are you optimistic about the world?

B (17:44)

Look, you can't go to dadaab, as I did last week, and look at the statistics and be anything other than depressed. But you can't go to dadaab and meet the kids and be anything other than inspired. And I wish I could claim that that aphorism was mine. It was actually taken from a group of filmmakers who went to Congo three years ago and said more or less the same thing about statistics and people. And I think it's important to not be Panglossian. The growth of multiple inequalities, indignities, instabilities, insecurities around the world makes one fearful for one's children and grandchildren. But the resources of the world to tackle those problems are greater than ever before. And that's what's got to keep us all going.

A (18:29)

David Miliband, it's been a pleasure to have you on the CGD podcast. Thank you for joining us.

B (18:33)

Thank you very much.

A (18:33)

Don't forget, you can find out much more about all of CGD's work on our website, cgdev.org I'm Rajesh Merchandani. Thanks for joining me for this edition of the podcast and join me for the next one.