 Pryddiolion cysyllt yn gweithio ein bod yn gwyntlifio'r cyflwyngau neu'r cyflwyngau geoplitau, oedd y clynyddau, y cyflwyngau, y debyg, y dyfodol. Oedd yn 122 ymgyngor a'r hynny yw eich haffugiaid o'r eich cyflwyngau. Oedd yn 4 cyflwyngau a'r cyflwyngau o'r debyg a'r cyflwyngau. The outstanding statistic for me actually is the amount on average time that a person spends as a refugee, isn't two or three years as I initially thought. It's actually 17 years. So when you're dealing with human crisis, humanitarian crisis, you have a short-term problem in addressing it, you also have a longer-term problem. Yn y ffordd, y cyfnod bwysig, y ffarnig, y Gwyrdd, y Gwyrdd NGO'r ffyrdd yn gwasanaeth a bwysig, ffysylltiadau i'r teimlo'r cyfnodol, y gweithio cyfnodol, ac ychydigol y gallwn ymlaen arall. Rydw i'n rhan o'r panel sy'n gwneud. Peter Moorer, Ysgrifennidol Ysgrifennidol Cymru, y Ysgrifennidol Cymru. Yn gweithio'r gyflwyno, mae'n sefydlu Gweithiaf, Gweithio Gweithio, ..Andre Banger, CEO o Masqard USA. Imad Fakuri, Minister of Planning and International Cooperation.. ..for Jordan and Felipe Grendi.. ..to the UN High Commissioner of Refugees in Geneva. I'm going to start by going down the line. Peter, you can kick us off. Where do you see your role.. ..in addressing humanitarian crisis? And what do you see as the biggest challenge? Well, our role traditionally comes from what states has given us.. ..as a role in the Geneva Conventions. It's responding to humanitarian needs at the front line of conflict and violence. And this is where we want to be as close as possible to the front lines.. ..as close as possible to those causing violence.. ..in order to make them respect international humanitarian law.. ..but also as close as possible to the victims.. ..in order to stabilise life and livelihoods of those.. ..who are disrupted by war and violence. And that's the reason why in many of the conflicts of the world today.. ..we are in places where many others are not anymore.. ..or are not yet there. And I think this proximity is where we see our key role. Then, of course, we are part of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent movement. And here we try to work together to support.. ..to respond in a much broader way along migration routes.. ..to support national societies of the Red Cross and the Recrescent all over the world. Frank, as a corporate here, what do you see as your role? And where are you placed in terms of response time in a crisis? I think our role, sorry. We have a very clear objective. We want to leverage our skills. So, as a largest logistics company, we have now worked together with the UN for more than 10 years.. ..by deploying the natural disasters that are happening on the spot of volunteers. And we have 400 well-trained people in logistics.. ..and how you help in national disasters to send them in these places.. ..and to organise airports. Because what quite often happens is that there is a big flood of products.. ..but the airports are completely overwhelmed how you deal with that. How you manage a warehouse on the spot with products that are coming in with aid. And we send our people. We are doing that. We have a very clear principle. It has to leverage our skills. And on the other side, it has to give something back to our people.. ..inside of a company as well. If you see the feedback of our people around the world, how proud they are.. ..and many of the volunteers are coming from difficult areas.. ..so we are sending them in. And that's all volunteering. And they help really when people are in need. That's one thing. The other one is that we do the same. We train people in potential places where natural disasters are happening. At airports, with the government, how you should respond.. ..if your airport is broken down. What can you do? How you can manage the inbound flow? And that is what we call, you know, prepare airports.. ..and harbors for the disaster. And that is what we do in cooperation with the UN for a long time already. Heimath, Minister of Planning. Basically, I represent a country that neighbours an unprecedented conflict.. ..probably something we haven't seen since World War II. Which is the Syria crisis. So our role by extension is we are a country that tries historically.. ..and continues to do the right thing. We've kept the borders open. We received hundreds of thousands of refugees as a host country. And we really deal with the entirety of all the types of interventions.. ..that different people are going to represent here. Because the flow of people comes in. Obviously the real heroes are the refugees themselves primarily. I would then say our own citizens in a host country.. ..for their patience, their generosity.. ..for accepting, you know, to host all these people. And I'm going to try hopefully through this panel.. ..to convey what has been evolving, how we've been doing.. ..what are the lessons learned as a host country.. ..trying to deal with this type of a situation. Because obviously it's increasing, it's spreading. And I think we're doing quite innovative things.. ..in partnership with the UN, the donor countries.. ..the private sector, the international NGOs. We have done tremendously paradigm shift oriented actions.. ..in trying to do what we've done in dealing with this latest crisis.. ..that we've dealt with, which is not the first unfortunately.. ..given our geopolitical location. AJ? So I think what I'll go where, Frank, is at the end of the day.. ..our role isn't just to write a check. I think if you write a check, there is a limit to what that will do.. ..given the size of the crisis.. ..given the hundreds of millions of people who are impacted. What we try and do is use our technology and our people.. ..in a way that enables a self-sustaining solution. So let me give you an example. In their country and in Lebanon, since they're the most impacted.. ..with the Syrian refugee crisis, we worked with the food program.. ..to, instead of distributing aid in the form of physical grains.. ..a man cannot live by grains alone. You give them choice. You give them the same money on a card.. ..which only works in shops inside the refugee camp. Cannot be used to buy things that the World Food Programme.. ..does not want the money to be used for.. ..but can be used to buy eggs and vegetables and milk.. ..as well as grain. In fact, that increases the efficiency of the money.. ..by as much as 20-30%. We've done this now for 2 million refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. It's one thing I would like to add. Nothing to do with the question. I want to compliment him for his leadership and his government. They do a really good job in a very tough environment. We'll compare and contrast the European response with the Jordanians. But for now, let's just listen in from the UN. Well, I represent an organisation that has a fairly clear task. Ensure that refugees, many millions of them throughout the world.. ..are given international protection when they flee across border. That they are properly assisted.. ..and that we search together for solutions to their plight. And we do together with other similar work.. ..for internally displaced people. The total population of these two is 65 million estimated. It's a job that is somehow at the boundary between working with states. We are a United Nations organisation. So we work with states. We belong to states. But the mandate, the task, is very people-oriented. So often we have to somehow be between the two. But finally, I want to say, and colleagues have already mentioned that.. ..increasingly we see that in refugee crisis these are the ones we deal with mostly. Refugee crisis, humanitarian responses of the traditional kind. Where you have a humanitarian organisation going and asking for money.. ..from government and helping governments like Jordan bear the brunt of this crisis. Increasingly that model is insufficient. Crisis are too big, too long, as you pointed out. So we need to work with others. So increasingly I see a third role, if you wish, for my organisation. I suppose that we share this with ICIRS and others as catalysts.. ..to bring others in and to help craft new ways of working together.. ..to address this phenomena.. ..including in particular development actors and the private sector. It's interesting that in everything that you've all said here.. ..was the immediate response we've talked about. I know the Jordanian situation is slightly different here.. ..but it's all about the immediate crisis response.. ..whether it's the payment system, whether it's getting goods to a crisis.. ..and the logistics of getting the food and goods to a crisis. As we pointed out earlier, it's a 17-year problem for some of these refugees. So we'll talk about the inefficiencies, I think, Peter. You've said that the system we have is not enough. The setup that we have right now. Exactly because of the point you have just mentioned that Filippo has alluded to. I think we have seen a transformation of conflict environments. We have seen a transformation of the dynamics of natural disasters.. ..which become more frequent and impactful. We have seen conflicts which put ourselves in front of challenges.. ..which are bigger than what the traditional systems and approaches.. ..are used to do. As Filippo has said, the traditional model is a very simple one. As a humanitarian organisation, you collect money.. ..and you transform it in humanitarian goods and services for people. The kind of money we can collect and the kind of services.. ..we can transform into today is not sufficient. That's the reason why what we have seen over the last five years is.. ..and all the humanitarian organisations see themselves confronted with the same. Every month we do more in the critical crisis situations of the world.. ..and every month the situation at the end of the month is worse. The dynamics of conflicts or the dynamics of natural disasters.. ..are faster than what we are able to do. That's the reason why I think here all in Davos.. ..we are increasingly aware that we need to work together in a very different way. Where's the gap? Is the gap between manpower? Is it inability to raise enough finance to be able to create these things? Is it a logistic problem? Where is the gap? The gap is many-fold, but I think at the end of the day.. ..the traditional model is good to stabilise societies.. ..and to substitute social services.. ..when no social services are available to people. But this is not a model which is sustainable. That's the reason why more self-reliant.. ..more humanitarian assistance.. ..which puts victims into the centre in order to strengthen them.. ..to find a way out of the problems in which they are.. ..needs a completely different way of doing. And then we can compose the different elements of knowledge, skills.. ..that we have all from the private sector, from academia.. ..from new technologies, from traditional humanitarian organisation. We have to find new ways on strengthening communities.. ..and giving them back the power to help themselves. That's a very different way of humanitarianism. Ajay, come in here. I have two things to say. One is that I believe that.. ..if you want the full strength of the private sector.. ..to be devoted to making a substantial difference in this.. ..and to take on the resource issue.. ..what you have to do is to create a self-sustaining business model.. ..which may operate on a different level of profitability.. ..or may require patient capital of different types.. ..but you have to create that. Because otherwise it's like pushing water uphill. You're just not going to have enough water to get to the top of the hill. Are you saying humanitarian crisis response needs to be profitable as a business? I believe that if you do not do that at a lower level with patient capital.. ..you will find it really hard to get the resources that you need.. ..to take on a 17-year challenge for an average refugee. And so let me explain to you what I'm doing. For example, today we announced with George Soros.. ..something called Humanity Ventures.. ..which is money that he's going to put together.. ..with our technology and our skills, with data.. ..in an effort to incubate ideas that could have a long lead time.. ..and could be impactful over millions of people. You can't do that without patient capital.. ..in large numbers coming through. There's only so much money that governments and NGOs.. ..and publicly funded institutions can bring to bear. That's the first thing. The second thing is.. ..I think anybody who's going to be in a camp for 17 years.. ..not only have they been displaced from their home.. ..they've lost their dignity, they've lost their identity.. ..they have nothing left. So what you have to do is to find a way.. ..to create for them the basics of dignity and identity. One of the things we're working on.. ..is why should every refugee organisation.. ..have a different identity for the same refugee? If you could get an identity system.. ..that works across all of these.. ..and you give it to them one time.. ..so we're working with you and Ocha.. ..to create such an interoperable identity system.. ..that can work. We won't be the ones taking off your fingerprint.. ..or recording your material. The government will do that. The UNHCR will do that. But we'll help through technology, facilitate that. That to me is how you get a self-sustaining model.. ..of the right type that gets the full power.. ..of organisations like the ones here.. ..but also of commercial enterprises.. ..like Franks and Mine. Brexit. Let me add to that. I think there are three different.. ..probably different things. One is, like I said, in natural disasters.. ..we are sending in our people in kind somehow.. ..so we don't donate money, we offer people to help. That's one element. Then on the refugee crisis in Germany.. ..we have 13,000 volunteers.. ..who are helping refugees to get connected to the society. The third is, we announced yesterday.. ..a cooperation with Gavia Alliance.. ..where we have shared values. That this is business for us together with them. So there are different elements.. ..and I think the shared value concept.. ..is probably more for the sustainable long term.. ..because, as Ajay has just said, you know.. ..business has to make it sustainable for themselves.. ..to otherwise it will not work. On a short-term notice, national disasters.. ..volunteers fall fine all in kind. Absolutely. In a crisis of refugees.. ..volunteering on the spot, great. But for the long term, we have to have a business case somehow as well. That sounds a little bit strange, but it has to be because.. ..when the people are really committed in our organisation as well.. ..otherwise they will tell me, Frank, you give me a budget.. ..and then you come and say, we have to do this and this and that.. ..and then you come back and say, how should we do that? It needs to be part of the corporate strategy. It has to be, yes. It has to be built into what you do.. ..so that your employees feel the power and the energy.. ..of the full organisation with it. I'm not saying we all don't do philanthropy.. ..when our company had its IPO, 12% of our stock.. ..was put into a foundation that's run independently.. ..because the way our stock has behaved.. ..the Mastercard Foundation today has a corpus of $12 billion. And that was put in by the owners of the company at that time. That happens too. But what I'm trying to say is, no matter how much money.. ..you put into philanthropy, you cannot get a 17-year problem.. ..for each refugee solved purely by relying on philanthropy. You have to create an identity method.. ..a method of giving them the dignity.. ..and a method of creating sustainable solutions. With the UNHCR, we are trying to find a solution in Kenya. By the way, refugees happen to go to the countries.. ..that can least afford to have them. Right? And so, most of the time. And so Kenya has 600,000 refugees.. ..in a country that cannot feed its own people. We are trying to work with them in certain refugee camps.. ..to take the idea of smart cities.. ..but not look at smart cities as delivering a pizza by a drone.. ..but caring about how water and education.. ..and food reaches people in its camps. But you have economic zones in Jordan. I mean, what we're not talking about here.. ..is the fact that you already have existing communities.. ..who actually don't want refugees. Look at Brexit. Look at Donald Trump. They're using this fear of refugees.. ..and of economic migrants, whatever it is in this situation. Actually, something needs to be done.. ..about the communities around them surely.. ..to make them accept, over a longer time period.. ..that these people are now here to stay. Come in and talk to us about what you're doing in Jordan. Well, all the interventions, as I mentioned, are appreciated.. ..but at the end of the day, the incremental.. ..and we're very grateful support that comes in.. ..from the private sector, from philanthropy, from CSR. We're the guys as a government holding it. We have to deal with the day-to-day reality.. ..of absorbing 180,000 Syrian boys and girls in our public schools. And no one is paying for that sufficiently. And having to take them through our public health care systems. And so on. So I want to try to reverse this a little bit. And we have to be cognizant of the fact.. ..that we're looking at the protracted nature of these conflicts. So let's use the case of Jordan. I think that's important to demonstrate to people. So we're a country of about 9.5 million people. 6.5 million Jordanians, 3 million non-Jordanians. And the Syria crisis breaks out. We have in total now 1.3 million Syrians.. ..half of which are registered with the refugees. That's basically as a ratio to the Jordanian population.. ..because we have other refugees from other nationalities.. ..is about 20%. Think of the equivalent of that.. ..would be 100 million going into the EU. And the EU is about 20 times richer in per capita income. Think that when the refugees get to Europe.. ..it costs 10 times to intervene.. ..then if you had to spend that money in Jordan.. ..immediately to deal with that reality. So I'm saying that there are trade-offs.. ..that we have to be very cognizant of. I think the principles we all agree to.. ..we have to be holistic. There has to be fair burden sharing. When a country does this, this is a global public good. It means I'm doing this, it's the right thing. But I'm doing this on behalf of the international community. And the international community has to step in.. ..and deal with that reality. To deal with what the shortages are, we need to be innovative. So what did we do? We basically, in this approach.. ..we worked very well to develop a response plan. Ones that bridged the short-term emergency humanitarian response. Because that's, yes, at the first time people come in. But then they're staying 17 years, 20 years. And I want to remind everyone.. ..Jordan has 2.8 million registered refugees with UNHCR.. ..historically now, humanitively.. ..and with UNRWA, which makes us the number one country in the world.. ..with a total number or as a percentage of our population. So you need to also start thinking.. ..if a country is going to absorb these refugees, what is its carrying capacity? How many waves before that did it handle? Does it have enough water? We're the second poorest country in water availability. What's my fiscal space as a government? Can I provide support for when the international system.. ..fails to sufficiently help us? I can, but at one point my debt to GDP today grew to 95%. By 20 percentage points. So I'm risking the stability of my economy.. ..because I'm not getting sufficient aid. I'm getting a lot more aid.. ..but it's not still sufficient to help us do that. So you really have to look at it from that comprehensive perspective. And your political capacity to take in these refugees.. ..beyond the financials and the economics. Filippo, come in here. I wanted to go back to the question that you asked about reactions. Hostility. And that political manipulation of the foreigner.. ..of the refugee, of the migrant.. ..is largely drives towards exclusion. The reaction is they're dangerous, they take away jobs. They bring in security, exclude them, marginalize them. Now, exclusion is bad. Exclusion is bad because it perpetuates the problem. And actually does create those issues. Does create insecurity, does create a burden.. ..confines in countries with less resources.. ..refugees to humanitarian assistance for 17 years. So I think that all that we're saying is that we must shift that paradigm. We must actually promote the idea of inclusion. Including of refugees. Now, this is very tricky because if populations are very big.. ..like in Jordan or in Kenya, as Jay said.. ..you have to make sure that the self-reliance that you promote for them. The inclusion in national services.. ..it's not just economic, by the way, it's inclusion in schools. It's inclusion in public services, in security. All that has a cost. And this is where we need to come to the support of states.. ..and communities that bear that burden. And this is where approaches that are not humanitarian.. ..in the traditional way, humanitarian assistance.. ..is still necessary in the initial phase. But at one point you need to come in with new approaches.. ..that look at jobs, that look at education.. ..that look at vocational training, skills training.. ..making people self-sufficient. And my last point is all this pending, of course.. ..the big elephant in the room that we haven't spoken about.. ..pending a political solution to the conflict.. ..that usually has caused the exodus of refugees.. ..if we're talking about the refugee crisis. So there's many factors that need to be brought together. But doesn't this go back to the point of AJ.. ..where he was saying actually you can't just expect governments.. ..or whoever it is, the corporate is just to keep pumping money in.. ..in order to facilitate this. If you make it into a business effectively.. ..you make it profitable, then you can say to these people.. ..in these individual countries, in the communities.. ..okay, you're going to take them in. There's going to be a period of transition.. ..but actually effectively it will pay for itself. Is that what you're saying? I, I, I, sorry, AJ, just one more point. I don't know about that. I don't know if humanitarian assistance can become a business completely. It can adopt business models, for sure. And I think that the people, the, it's for the refugees.. ..is for those that suffer from the consequences.. ..that it has to become a self-reliant scheme. You see what I mean? It will always have a cost. It will always have a cost in the end. But we need to address that cost towards long-term and self-reliance.. ..and not short-term humanitarian dependence. What cost? Do you mean financial cost? Also, yeah. Look, you've got the context of running it like a business.. ..doesn't mean that you're going to make profits out of it.. ..in the way you would normally make profits. But you did say profitable. You did say make it profitable. Why do I say that? Because otherwise, if you want me to keep pumping in losses.. ..into doing something, there is a point of time.. ..when any publicly owned shareholder health corporation.. ..will begin to pull back. That's not what you want. You want my technology and my energy.. ..and my passion fully applied to this. You want my people not to leave their humanity.. ..at the door when they come to work. But you can break even doing that. You can have a sense of feeling good. You could lose money less so. So I'll give you an example. Different context, not humanitarian, but connected. Three or four years ago, I worked with a number of people.. ..who were in this room actually.. ..to get going on financial inclusion as a commitment. We made a commitment to reach 500 million people.. ..with our partners by 2020. We had 250 million people. In a way, we've opened those accounts. Guess what, I lose money on all of them. We're trying to get people to use them. That's the real.. ..actually, that's when you really win. When they use the account. I'm trying to get governments to put their social benefits.. ..into those so people are incentive to use them. The world food program example was one where that worked. In many others, it doesn't work as well. So don't for a minute believe that I'm saying.. ..that I'm going to make returns on this.. ..the way I make return on capital or another business. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying watch out for this lack of trust.. ..between the corporate sector and such a conversation. Because people think that the corporate sector.. ..only does stuff when people make a lot of money. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying you make me lose money every day.. ..there's only so much you'll get. And then you're back to the philanthropy, the check writing. And those are very important.. ..but they're not the ultimate solution. Because the gap between what we need to solve this crisis.. ..and what we have is not a small gap. It's in a trillion plus dollars. You cannot find a trillion dollars.. ..with any amount of philanthropy in the world. You will not get it. Pisa, come in here. What I feel very much that this discussion is really spot on.. ..but what we miss still is really a solid development.. ..on what the two models are.. ..and what the interaction between those two models are.. ..that we are discussing about. We seem all to agree that the sort of traditional model.. ..does its job to a certain extent. The philanthropic public policy financing.. ..of humanitarian assistance and protection work. That's fine. But you have developed a new model and that's.. ..of course also both representatives from the private sector.. ..have developed this new model. And I think this is a model which is insufficiently understood.. ..politically still contested.. ..because whenever you talk about the business model.. ..there is this suspicion that you want to make money out of the suffering of people. And we have to explain that this is not the case.. ..and we have to find a completely different narrative.. ..which allows us to have political support for those two models coexisting.. ..but also interacting in order to have better impact. Who does that? Who does the PR on that? I may say one point because we were just standing over the last couple of months.. ..on the grey zone between those two models.. ..in trying to promote and having promoted now a humanitarian impact bond. The first reaction from politicians was.. ..you can't make money out of a crisis. We can't support that. But I think then by explaining, by modelling.. ..by trying to approach you can raise private capital to front load money.. ..into humanitarian assistance work which is impactful.. ..which has a long term dimension.. ..and which is of interest to the business community.. ..as well as to the humanitarian and first and foremost to the victims. Why can't you make money out of a crisis? You didn't cause the crisis. It's a way of getting sustainable funding in. Why are you so afraid of actually making it a viable investment? Because of doing good. The refugees already suffered enough.. ..or the person who's been impacted has already suffered enough. If they're the ones paying for you to make the profit, that's a bad model. But the money's coming in. If the people wouldn't invest otherwise, the money's coming in. So you need another way to get the money through. How? It could be from the different sources that are in there. For example, let's take the example of the World Food Programme. The retailer who was selling that grain and vegetables.. ..is also incurring the benefit of that payment. Not having to handle cash, gets the electronic payment, gets the money done.. ..they share a part of that cost. For as I'm concerned, if that reduces the cost of the World Food Programme.. ..that's a good thing. So I believe if you ask the consumer who's already an impacted refugee.. ..to end up and you portray them as being the end-impacted individual.. ..from whom we are making money, that's what adds to the trust deficit. That's not the way it should be. It should be done in a form that allows you to ensure.. ..that the impact to them is de minimis.. ..while at the same time the benefits are given to them. Can I add one point to this? Because I think this is a very important issue. The point is that if you make the victims pay.. ..although maybe this is a bit of a simplistic approach.. ..to what the more complex issue you are raising.. ..but if you make the victims pay, then it's only those who can pay that get help. And I think we need to respect the fact that in these type of situations.. ..you have to help everybody. You cannot make a distinction. It's not a competition for resources. Everybody, even those that are not skilled.. ..that are not able to pay, to contribute financially.. ..have to get assistance. So I think that universality of humanitarian assistance.. ..is one principle that needs to be presented. Are you saying it has to be a more broad solution? It can't be country by country. It has to be a global solution that everybody buys into. And nobody can be penalised by these new models. Otherwise you develop another problem by trying to solve one. But let me come in here. And I think the issue is not the question of.. ..can you make it profitable or not? Or can you make people pay for it? I think the issue is what we're trying now to innovate.. ..in Jordan with many partners around the world.. ..which is can I look at the refugee crisis.. ..and turn it into an economic development opportunity? So what did we do? And that's important for people to understand. First, most people think of refugees as refugee camps. In the case of Jordan with the Syrian refugees.. ..90% are outside the camps. They're all across our towns and villages. They're already spread out. By dealing.. ..when people come and visit refugee camps and they say.. ..'Thank you, you're doing a great job with UNHCR' and so on.. ..but that's only 10% of the challenge. So what have we been trying to do differently in that? We actually went as government first and lobbied very hard.. ..that development financing in the World Bank.. ..I'm classified as a middle-income country. So I get a certain rate on development loans. Given that I'm getting.. I'm neighbouring a crisis.. ..I'm doing the right thing.. ..could they give us reduced loans that allows me to do development? And we launched, based on that initiative, it took us a year and a half.. ..of Jordan arguing with the international community. It's such a common sense thing. Make the loans that I'm doing development projects in host communities.. ..that help my own citizens.. ..but at the same time that can also carry some of the burden of the refugees.. ..who are living in these host communities, make it cheaper. And we did. We did this finally two years late into the process. And we launched a concessionary financing facility of the World Bank.. ..which got adopted in September. And we did the first time ever that this international rating system.. ..of middle-income, upper-income, low.. ..does not matter. If you're a neighbouring crisis.. ..let the money follow the refugees in the same way we do in climate change.. ..let the money follow the carbon in essence. Another innovation we started to do is we pushed and negotiated with the EU.. ..could you give us simplified rules of origin to give us free trade access to the EU? If we use our development zones, employ partly refugees in them.. ..and the rest of Jordanian labour, these manufactured products.. ..could they get an advantage given the burden we are doing? And we did. We negotiated. It took us seven months. We've done an incredible thing. And now we're trying to call on the private sector, the international private sector.. ..to think of not of CSR. Come establish manufacturing facility. Employ Jordanians and Syrian refugees in these development zones all across the country. Make money out of it, but help us sustain a self-reliance to refugees.. ..who then would have jobs they can then pay for themselves, lower the burden.. ..and sustain the reality that this is going to take a long time. And these are.. Sorry, one final comment. And we've also pushed UNHCR.. ..instead of importing things outside the economy. Give them cash, so they buy stuff from the domestic economy. Only 3% is cash, it's all good. Instead of the international finance, sorry, NGOs bringing so many outsiders.. ..employ locals, you know, help us carry the burden.. ..by being that innovative and thinking of the wider economy. What he's saying is you have to move your lens away from the traditional way.. ..into this other way, which is not easy and it's complicated. And by the way, there's no silver bullet. There'll be 20 different things to be done. That's basically what it's going to be. It's interesting that a middle income, as you described yourself, country.. ..can get themselves organised this and yet richer nations. I'm using Europe as an example here.. ..actually can't get themselves together to organise some things. But the EMDM debate here is an interesting one. But the other thing here that occurs to me is that.. ..you have to accept then that they're going to stay. In order to start facilitating, creating this kind of structure.. ..you have to openly accept that they are going to remain. And I think we have a problem there too. Can I maybe.. Please, and Frank, I know you're going to jump in as well. I want to give other colleagues, but I'll come back. Better please to comment on this, but not necessarily. Because we're talking here about protracted situations. The traditional approach that we all think needs to be overcome.. ..is to say the refugees, therefore humanitarian assistance forever. This is a model that after five to seven, eight years, exhaust itself. Now we need to shift to another one because we know that unfortunately.. ..lack of political solutions causes protracted situations. But this doesn't mean that these people have to stay forever. In fact, this model is very good for refugee situations.. ..because investment in self-reliance, investment in education.. ..investment in skills prepares them for when they go back to the country. So actually it has a double effect that it relieves the burden.. ..on the host country or to go to another place. So it has multiple benefits that I think needs to be felt. OK. I want to stop because I want to get some questions from the audience as well. But a couple of times we've used the word trust. AJ, I know you mentioned it too. So do the NGOs trust the corporates here to come up with a more feasible.. ..financially viable solution to a longer-term crisis? Is the trust there? Trust comes through concrete action. And I think with regard to what we have done at ICRC over the last five years.. ..is intensifying those areas of practical cooperation.. ..which establishes trust. And where the ones see what the interest of both sides.. ..is in establishing such a cooperation. So we have expanded concrete cooperation.. ..and finding solutions to concrete problems. And this is the basis on where we can then find understandings.. ..on broader systems and how to interlink those broader systems. Do we need greater communication? I think there is not trust from the beginning. Trust comes through concrete action.. ..and finding the common interest that in working together.. ..we find better solutions. And I think it needs leadership. That's what we are discussing here in Davos. It needs finding those practical solutions.. ..and finding the common interest from the private sector. And the organisation needs to.. I think trust comes from transparency what we are doing. So our corporate social responsibility is a core part of our strategy. You can find that on our websites. Any partner and some are more sceptical at the beginning.. ..and usually if it turns around then we have start working. Because then they see this is not only just.. ..they want to do something for the brand or what so.. ..they really have interest in helping. And what I think is important is.. ..you should think when we help.. ..it has to be sustainable later on for the country. That's the reason why it has to be a business model. If it's not a business model, it's not sustainable. And then you walk away or the people who donate money.. ..forget that because it's already three years.. ..and they don't donate and then it's not sustainable. And I think that's very important that we have to set up things.. ..which are sustainable. That's the reason why we talk about shared value. It is not necessary for disaster recovery.. ..because that's an immediate issue. Volunteering is fine, donation is fine. We don't have to be paid for that. But if it's sustainable longer term.. ..and it has to be a shared value project where we have benefits.. ..the country has benefits, the partner who is doing that.. ..is an NGO does that. Otherwise, it will not be sustainable. But if the NGO goes away, we go away.. ..or the government loses the interest. And I want to ask you about trusting the governments here to respond to.. ..but I want to take some questions from the studio audience too. John Stoddinski, if I share it with Blackstone.. ..I'm going to have a quick question. Thank you. Very important discussion. This could probably last for about three or four hours. It seems to me you need to segment this discussion between.. ..situations which have a geopolitical origin.. ..versus situations that have a natural disaster.. ..either earthquake or flood or whatever. And they're very different. But one of the things that we're not talking about here at all.. ..and I think one of the reasons why Jordan.. ..has been so unique in handling the refugee crisis is.. ..as I would say, it's about leadership, it's about culture. The King and Queen of Jordan are a class act.. ..in terms of their humanitarian ethos. There's no question about that. And let me say I was not asked to make that comment.. ..that's totally coming from my own. Because I've been to Jordan, I've been to Syria and I've seen this.. ..and they're doing it because it's just deep.. ..sort of humanitarian ethos. And it's very genuine. But as we go around the world over 100, 150 countries.. ..and all of you know, and I'm looking at Mastercard here.. ..we all know that every country, in some cases.. ..the fish rots from the head, in other cases.. ..there's great leadership at the top. So we have this.. ..no one's really talked about the role of the leadership in the country.. ..in a transparent way. No one's talked about the transparency of communication. Because one of the things about these crises is.. ..the first one to two weeks, or even one to two days.. ..there's one set of issues. Meds en son frontier, the Red Cross, other people. Then after about a week it's a question of food and water and disease. Then there's another phase. Then there's a third phase that has to do with medical advice.. ..vaccines, public storage and all of that.. ..getting sort of discombobulated. So there's a total lack of communication there. And I wonder, as I sit and look at this group.. ..were do you have threads of a network? You've got global diplomatic networks. You've got Swiss ambassadors all over the world. You've got American ambassadors all over the world. You have British ambassadors all over the world. You have Chinese ambassadors all over the world. So why can't the international diplomatic corps.. ..play a bigger role here? Because the thing that's lacking in all these crises.. ..is short-term leadership and what I call disaster or crisis management. Because from the outside there's no perception of crisis management. But you also have an ability now.. ..and we've seen this that people can raise an enormous millions of dollars.. ..within two or three days around the world. You saw that in the earthquake in Bengal. I'd love the reaction to it because I worry.. ..that if you remember all the people that gave money to Bengal.. ..one or two or three weeks later.. ..people still had not had food delivered. So there was a whole question of logistics. Which I understand that. I've raised about ten issues. I don't mean to be difficult. But I'm just worried that there are some fundamentals here. We're talking about some basic operating and management logistics. Some leadership issues. Who's ultimately on first base here? Who's responsible for communication? And ultimately this has to be about money. And we didn't talk about the power of social media. It's not just about corporations. Social media today can raise an enormous amount of money.. ..in a very short period of time. Because people, particularly the millennial generation.. ..and the generation Z, they're extremely generous. Even if they're each giving five or ten dollars.. ..or a dollar.. ..that can have a big impact in a very short period of time. Start with the government response.. ..because we do have a very specific example there. Sure. I think this is very much a question of leadership.. ..and a nationally-owned process. And my advice, I think what we've learned over the many decades in Jordan.. ..because you know our geopolitical location.. ..it's been 60, 70 years that we've been always receiving floods of refugees. It's not the first time. And it's very much a question of.. ..there is something in the Jordanian genetic code.. ..that has been built over the years. People say, let's visit Jordan, the very hospitable. And it's true, not just for tourists, the very hospitable. And I think that's a reality with all humility, I say it.. ..that we've had to deal with what happens around us. We're all coming. But what I'm trying to say, and it comes back to the trust.. ..and it bridges the leadership. My advice in these situations, and I think this works very well.. ..you have to have a framework. The government has to co-ordinate the players. Because this is where you get the breakdown. You get multiple people doing different things.. ..that are not a priority. So in Jordan, we did a government-led plan.. ..called a response plan that bridges humanitarian.. ..and long-term development, what we call resilience plans. It's based on vulnerability assessments. So we said what are the needs of refugees inside camps, outside camps.. ..in what are the needs of our own host communities.. ..absorbing the refugees and what does the government need.. ..to continue providing public services? Those plans were put together in a joint approach. The NGOs, the UN agencies, the donors.. ..we sat in task forces for months. We developed them, we prioritized them. But the government led the process.. ..and we asked everyone to stick to that framework. I think that's very critical. So you don't waste resources and you meet the must-do activities.. ..under all the things you need to do to get the trust.. ..and to divide the roles of everyone correctly. Very quickly, just to address John's point about the fact.. ..that there's a different response to a geopolitical crisis.. ..versus something perhaps like an earthquake. Would that matter in your case? Would all those processes.. No, I think that framework works correctly across the board. That's important. It shouldn't matter. You should have a model. Can I just add the point here? Of course Jordan is a very ideal case, as you said.. ..or a very positive case where you have a lot of things coming together.. ..contributing to make it a good response. Remember, a lot of the problems we have to deal with.. ..be they refugees displaced, natural disasters.. ..are in countries where the government is either not able.. ..or may I say not willing.. ..or sometimes is even the cause of the problem. So there is where the challenge is very big. And this is where the challenge of the model that we have discussed.. ..becomes really very very difficult.. ..because those approaches that we are ready to learn.. ..with trust from the business communities and others.. ..need to also be adapted to a situation where it will be messy. Very messy. Well, I just wanted to emphasise here.. ..while I understand that in cases that you question.. ..there is always a possibility to do better amongst many of the actors.. ..to have a clearer framework and the Jordanian ministers have mentioned it. My main problem in most of the crisis is today.. ..is not the crowded environment where we are.. ..may be undercoordinated. My problem is the absence of humanitarian actors.. ..in some of the most protracted crises of the world.. ..and the deliberate objection of belligerence.. ..to let humanitarian actors help the civilian populations.. ..by the country themselves. ..and non-state actors. This is the real problem. That's where the implosion of fragile societies happens. That's where the big population movements come from. That's what is pondering the bills of the international community. That's where the real problems are. So it's not the sophistication of co-ordination models. Again, I agree that we can do better. But it's at the end of the day.. ..the unwillingness to have humanitarian laws and principles.. ..and practices and frameworks.. ..which have been agreed upon for 150 years.. ..by the international community.. ..really implemented in some of the most fragile context. So, to go to John's point where he said, you know, days after a crisis.. ..the measures, the things, the food, the facilities.. ..whatever it is, the water, haven't got through to them. Is that down to the country themselves? Or is that down to the time it takes the co-ordination dysfunction.. ..perhaps between organisations? Like, do all the NGOs the immediate response talk? Do they know exactly what's going on? Is that co-ordinated? Or do we need someone overseeing that first? At the field level, co-ordination does work pretty well. Pretty well? Is that good enough? Amongst those who are dear, co-ordination works. The problem again is where nobody is there. And that's the real problem.. ..and where you have objective obstacles.. ..to get into a situation.. ..where the most.. ..where the civilian population is most affected. OK, I'm going to cut this down then. I'm going to narrow it to an area where we've got a crisis.. ..and we don't have the problem of governments saying.. ..hey, you can't come in and help us. Let's talk about Europe. Let's narrow it down. Would a situation that AJ was talking about.. ..the kind of model, self-sustaining model that you're talking about.. ..if you had something like that in place already.. ..in anticipation of a crisis? ..fyrdd y refugees? We can't stop wars. We can't stop displaced people. We can't stop conflicts. We can only react to what happens. Would that work in a country where you can get access? You can get facilities? That's not a problem. Will it work? I think you're mixing up two issues of political and social acceptance.. ..with the ability to get it done in a country that has infrastructure. The second one's not a problem. But you can only operate there if you're welcome. You can't operate there if you're not welcome. But if you can make it self-sustaining, if you can make it self-financing.. ..then I think you have a message then to an unwilling population.. ..particularly in Europe where populism is a problem.. ..that, guys, we can help these people without actually hurting ourselves. Although I would say that the circumstances.. ..I don't live in Europe any longer.. ..but the circumstances in Europe go beyond just the financial cost.. ..of looking after the refugees. It goes to a very deep social challenge.. ..that Europeans feel about the issue. So what I'm trying to say is that I think financially is one angle.. ..what we are proposing is not a panacea.. ..for all the different circumstances.. ..in different countries around the world. I think the European situation is much more complicated.. ..than just the financial circumstance. And if I may add in answering your question.. ..of course the European situation I fully agree with Ajay.. ..is complex. You have many factors. Political factors, social factors, cultural factors. You also have a financial factor. Assisting refugees in Europe is tremendously.. ..well, it's tremendously expensive. Partly because Europe has built very sophisticated asylum system. They cost money. So there is an element there. I think that one thing that we have perhaps overlooked.. ..including ourselves over the decades.. ..is that we dealt with Europe just by in normative terms. We thought that Europe could benefit from our advice.. ..in terms of how they receive people.. ..judge whether they were refugees or not, etc. But then those that were refugees, we left them with Europe. Because we thought Europe has the resources to absorb them. We now realise that perhaps that process.. ..of refugee integration in Europe.. ..was not as good and successful as it should be. And the backlash that you see now.. ..which in part is also the result of failed integration.. ..one or two generations later.. ..is something that needs a lot more attention. We are not tremendously competent in that area.. ..but I think that we need to make an effort.. ..to work with European governments in that direction. I think the challenge with the refugee problem is.. ..first of all, that we put it completely out of proportion. We call that the biggest crisis since whatever. It is not a crisis. It is one and a half or two million refugees.. ..who are coming for Europe in a region of 500 million people. What you have to do is, and we do that as a company.. ..you have to get the people in contact with your own employees. So whenever you talk to our employees and I do that.. ..before they have met refugees, they say, oh! After they have met them, they say, these are the same people as we are. They are very nice people. And then you say, what is the problem? But this is with whom I know. The others might be a problem. We put these kinds of things very often completely out of proportion. It's not a problem for Germany to digest one and a half million refugees. It's not a problem. It's not true that this is a problem. What we have to learn is to deal with that. That's the reason why we are helping the civil servants. We still have to give it to the government.. ..to do the administrative stuff. We give empty capacity of our warehouses.. ..so that they can build refugee camps in these places. We give money to our volunteers.. ..our money to help them to do something on the spot. So you can overcome these chances. And whenever I talk to the people who have done that, they say.. ..it's not such a big problem like I read in the newspapers. And I think we have to be clear. This problem of the refugees in Europe is completely out of proportion. The refugee problem in Jordan or in Syria and whatsoever.. ..that's the real problem, but not what's real. And we have to say that. Otherwise, people really believe that this is the biggest problem Europe has faced.. ..for a long, long time. And that's not true. Well, the way we dealt with it made it into a far bigger crisis.. ..than perhaps it needed to be, too. But would those people say the same thing after the Berlin attacks? Because we haven't actually addressed the terrorism angle here.. ..which is also part of the circle of fear that leads to communities.. ..being quite fearful of the refugees? What's the first thing we can do to make this better? Because I think what we've done here is talk a lot about the problems.. ..and I want to end on a more optimistic note. And Peter, you said it. Look, we've got something here.. ..that's addressing it. It's not enough. We need to push forward. What do we need? Because we have a great example, but for many reasons.. ..the model doesn't fit. Can the media help to go to John's? But I realised we actually didn't get any more questions in. I'm so sorry. That's terrible. So I know you wanted to. And before I say anything.. ..please tell me it's a positive thing. I'm trying to finish on a positive note there. Claude Bigle, Swiss Parliament. The question would be isn't the definition of a refugee today.. ..a bit obsolete based on the Geneva Convention in 1952.. ..it's somebody who is personally persecuted. The reality today is a mixed bag of persecuted bombs.. ..which is not personal, economic.. ..looking for better opportunities, sometimes climatic. I was asking whether there is a chain.. ..to modify the definition, to have a broader. I was told the political climate in most of the countries in Europe.. ..is not there, but I'd like to hear proposals.. ..of having a definition of the refugee.. ..which corresponds to the reality today and the second. Believe as well that we could act preventively. We should invest in the countries of origin. And I'd like to have your views on how much can we invest.. ..can we do it together probably more multilaterally.. ..than everybody isolated? And what is the minimum critical mass in order to have an impact? And really make sure that people looking for better perspectives.. ..choose to stay where they are. OK, so we've got two things there. We've got economic migrants, which is clearly a problem. And then you've got a situation where you invest in a country. I guess you have to assume after the war ends.. ..to enable the people that you're talking about.. ..to be able to go back to their homes. You can't assume that, I guess. Flippo, talk about it. I just wanted to answer.. ..since I think the first question addresses me directly.. ..on the refugee convention. I think the refugee convention is a very interesting document. If you read it, it's 65 years old.. ..but it's quite valid still. The fundamental principle is that refugees are people whom.. ..if you send back home forcibly risk their lives. This is not true for all people on the move. It is true for refugees. Because they flee, of course, in 1951 the focus was on persecution. This was Cold War, so it was persecution. It was an instrument in that context. I think over the years UNHCR and states have interpreted very widely.. ..in a very dynamic way the convention. Today most of those that we call refugees are people fleeing conflict. Persecution is an aspect but not the primary one. So the interpretation can be quite wide and quite stretched.. ..but I think one has to maintain that notion. That refugees need international protection.. ..because they don't enjoy anymore for that period of time.. ..the protection of their own state. That is still valid. If you erode that, you won't get any better.. ..in the present political climate. I have to wrap up. I want to get back to what I asked you in the beginning.. ..and they said what's your role in this. In light of the discussion we've had, the challenges we've talked about.. ..how you go about tackling it.. ..can you think of a way that you can do this better? That you could all do this better, whether it's government.. ..public sector, the NGOs. Just a sentence. How can you be better in your role? What's needed here? Is it communication, rated trust? What is it? If I may, one sentence I would recognise today that.. ..my own organisation will not be able to survive.. ..on a single humanitarian model. Basically what I would aspire is that we are able to work.. ..in different models. We have discussed them today. We improve what we have done well in the past.. ..and there is room for improvement everywhere. But then we become skilled in developing this model.. ..that we have discussed today.. ..which is a more long-term, self-reliant.. ..a different way of responding to a different type of humanitarian crisis.. ..and we should be able to work to levels. I think that's the challenge for many humanitarian organisations.. ..but it's doable. Frank? To be honest, I think we have found a pretty good model.. ..how we select what we should do.. ..and that has helped us. There is always an opportunity for improvement. I think we have not leveraged our capabilities to extend.. ..which would be possible in very different areas. So my objective would be that we even do more in leveraging.. ..what we are good at to a broader, to more opportunities somehow. I think my message is very simple. Invest in the demonstration models that can be successful. Reward those models so that others can learn from them. In the Jordan case, I think we have done incredibly pioneering things.. ..with all our partners, the UN, the donors, the private sector.. ..every day we are innovating something. Put the spotlight on it, reward it, invest in it.. ..preventively, that's important. It will indicate then the incentive system for other countries.. ..what they need to do. If they see that Jordan got more aid because they did the right thing.. ..they'll be better positioned to behave better.. ..because at the end of the day, the crisis is going to hit them.. ..the refugees are going to cross the border and it's going to happen. So there's the right way to deal with that.. ..and the wrong way to deal with that. And it's an incentive structure that's needed. AJ? I'd say the first thing I would.. ..second what he just said about the narrative and the tangibility.. ..of things getting done. I think our real challenge is our own capacity building. I get bound by the limits of our own imagination. Because this is not something that we did for a living.. ..till a few years ago. And now we have good people, number of them are sitting here.. ..who are involved with all this. We are bound by the limits of our own imagination. We go to these organisations and say.. ..here we could do this together. What about the five things we haven't thought of? And to me that requires a different way of investing in our people.. ..and of allowing their.. ..almost the wrong word to use.. ..but I want their animal spirits to come into this space.. ..as much as they go to making money for the company. Then I think we can get a whole new scale of operation. And my final point would be that.. ..again using refugees as the lens there. You know refugees are foreigners. Often coming in large numbers, often troublesome. To accept them, to give them that protection that I spoke about.. ..required beyond the tangible and effort of solidarity. And we, you know, we the governments.. ..red cross movement NGOs, the traditional model.. ..we know we've spoken about this for so long. We need other partners. Because partnering with private sector.. ..partnering with development, the world back.. ..the big financial institutions.. ..not only brings the model.. ..helps us with the model that we've spoken about.. ..but is a multiplier of solidarity. That, in today's world, is gold. That's an upbeat entrance. It is. I'm very happy with that. Without a government. Thank you, your panel. Well done. Thank you.