Partner capacity building and complexity: can minimum rules help?

Strategic implications…? Most disaster response is conducted by local communities themselves TEC recommendation for a fundamental reorientation Most hazards, in a given environment, are predictable Better response requires better preparedness

Desired Outcome Effective and timely relief responses being carried out and long term Environmentally Sustainable Disaster Risk Reduction programmes established in communities which are vulnerable to disaster as a result of the capacity development and resourcing of at least 50 national Tearfund partners in 26 countries

THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS I think you should be more explicit here in step two.

Emergence from minimum rules In complex systems, simple rules governing interactions of parts lead to system-wide properties behaviours Rules are not necessarily of the written down variety, but coded and followed in the sense that behaviours conform to them Enabling constraints - the sufficient rules that shape the behaviour of elements of a system, and provide scope and freedom to allow for the emergence of system-wide properties Include Must dos or Never dos

Distinctive system-wide behaviours can emerge from simple rules followed by the elements Rules of Boids: Dont fly too close Aim for center of flock Fly in same direction Match speed

Rules of Agents: Keep moving Seek high ground Keep in touch US Marines

Is it possible to develop minimum rules to lead to innovative emergence around how Tearfund interacts with its partners in different contexts? What would the rules be? How to best implement them? How to frame them as part of a strategic framework?

Example partner 1 Relatively large national partner NGO. Established relationship of over 30 years. Turnover of more than $10million / year Experience of previous disaster responses Networked into national platforms

Example partner 2 Small local NGO. New relationship just forming Turnover around $50,000 / year Little previous experience of disasters, but high levels of enthusiasm and strong commitment to disaster work Networked locally, but not nationally

Example partner 3 National Church denomination secretariat Established relationship with member Dioceses, but new relationship with centre Secretariat provides development and relief technical support to member Diocesan development offices Funding not centralised National level political contacts, but not part of the NGO / Development networks

Example partner 4 Network of independent hospitals. Established relationship Little experience of disasters, but new department within secretariat recognises potential for role of hospitals as critical lifeline infrastructure in an earthquake prone area Large financial turnover derived from mix of funding and charges for services Local and national relationships with Health ministry.