How do we create change within in the humantiarian ecosystem? Paula Gil Baizan works with humanitarian innovation and she has got a few interesting ideas. in this wide-ranging conversation with Meg Sattler.

This week's episode on Trumanitarian is a special treat. It's a conversation between Meg Sattler from Ground Truth Solutions and Paula Gil Baizan from NRC's innovation department. They have a conversation about system change, innovation, about giraffes and elephants, about humanitarian ancestors, and not least, how sci-fi can help us better understand our future. It's a fantastic conversation. it's fun, it's a fresh perspective, and I know you will enjoy it.

All right, well, shall we start?

I am... I've never been more ready in my life.

Great. [laughing] All right, well, thank you, Paula, for appearing on Trumanitarian.

It is my pleasure, Meg.

It's really great to have the opportunity to talk to you because we have been trying to talk for a while. And between kids and work and pets in life, our schedules haven't aligned. So this is a great privilege today. But I wanted to talk to you about humanitarian reform, which is something that we're both obviously quite passionate about. I wanted to step out, I guess, of the normal topics of humanitarian reform, like the Grand Bargain, and their commitments in the workstreams, and all the blah, blah, blah, and speak a bit more broadly, because you are an innovator, both in life and on your CV as Global Manager of Innovation and Digital at NRC, if I have that right?

Yes, correct.

Great. So I guess to kick us off, just kind of a broad question, which is sort of a big one. But do you think that the humanitarian sector is actually capable of innovation?

That is a very good question to start with. And I guess there's like, perhaps two ways of answering this question. Because when you say, I'm an innovator, I would say, Well, so are you, right? So anyone working in this sector, that has at least worked in a real sort of humanitarian crisis, is an innovator because at the at the smallest unit of business we have, so imagine an area office, innovation happens there all the time in every area of our work. We are innovating every day, because we come up with new ways of generating value for people. I think the problem is not at that level. And the problem is that very rarely, those very small sort of golden nuggets of change that we see at the area level, grow to the scale to truly transforming the sector. So I could also be answering your question in this way, and say, actually, if we're looking at it, from a more macro perspective, the humanitarian sector as a whole, capable of reinventing itself for innovation? I would probably have to say no. Because the forces that regulate us as a sector are more political than economical in that sense. So for a variety of reasons, they still seem to have a use for us in our current shape. So unless that changes anytime soon, I don't necessarily see innovation as that thing that is going to like bring about the change that we owe to the people that we're trying to serve.

And that... I guess that touches on an interesting leadership point, right? Because at the moment, it's a very interesting time for the sector. Mark Lowcock, our Emergency Relief Coordinator is obviously stepping back, there are a few question marks, and maybe, dare I say, some exciting question marks about the future of our leadership with the gap that will be left there. And, you know, no disrespect to Lowcock and his series of white male predecessors, but I have felt a bit of an energy shift recently, where I think... where there used to be an acceptance of a certain type of leadership as the norm and now sort of feels a bit like, you know, there is a collective disappointment, I would almost say, whenever that is actively perpetuated, but there is kind of a palpable excitement when someone different takes up a leadership role. And I guess you've been involved in a lot of discussions around humanitarian futures, I guess. And so, you know, given these systemic barriers that you've touched on, what do you think... you know, what is the humanitarian future and more so I guess who will be in it? Or who should be in it? Or who...Who do you think should be building a humanitarian future that that looks a bit different and maybe addresses some of these challenges that you've highlighted?

So women, obviously, to start with. So great that two women, like you and I, can be having this conversation, in this podcast in particular. I, um, I don't necessarily see a lot of spaces that allow two young women to be having conversations like this that matter. But to be honest, I don't know if it's like the exhaustion from COVID that I have or our fascination with like short term thinking in the sector or both, but I realised that in this past year, the question of the future has like exploded in the humanitarian sector, and the same time it's lost some of this like lustre for me. I think it clearly has something to do with who is producing intelligence about the future in the sector. And the actors, and the conversation is clearly North to North. And that is not very interesting, or actually very useful or meaningful for change. And I think also in the last year, I've seen the use of foresight being like co-opted to tell a particular version of the future that suits certain political agenda. So yes, more inclusive voices in the conversation would certainly change the tone, but I'm not entirely sure we're bringing about any meaningful change if the same people, mostly white men, that we always talk about, continue to hold the reins of what gets discussed as the future. So it's about setting the agenda of like what's in the guardrails of what can actually be discussed that I think that matters. And at that level, I don't see a lot of inclusivity. I see a lot of inclusivity at the bottom of like people talking about it, I don't see a lot of inclusivity around people who decide what gets to be built as part of those conversations.

And do you think there's a solution to that? I know that that's another big question. But do you see any solutions or ways out of that from the work that you're doing? Or from the people you're working with? Or I guess, is there anything that gives you hope in that regard?

Yeah, loads. So diversity in leadership, obviously, would be like my first one. So can you imagine how different the sector would be if we would have people at the board level that came from different diverse backgrounds, but also that understood what TikTok is. Like, can you imagine the humanitarian sector if board members were able to understand things at that level? But I think, from like the work that I'm doing, I've started to explore whether the use of like humanitarian science fiction would be the key to produce like that change that we need. Because futures and foresight is very scientific, right, it's very academic. But if you take it to a different level, and you turn it into art, right, which is science fiction, well, then you can be independent, because there's not a report, it's art. So it operates under different rules. So could it be that if we produce our version of the future that is plural, driven by people, not by agencies, and then we plant those versions of the future at an unconscious level so that they can never be unseen, could could that change the way that kind of people leave the humanitarian sector? So yeah, that feels to me with with hope. There's always things to do as long as you're willing to step out of the boundary.

Yeah, that's... so I guess that's... it's interesting and relevant because I suppose 2O2O felt a bit like we were living in science fiction anyway. But it's an interesting point because I think another thing I wanted to ask you about was, you know, I agree that the humanitarian sector has kind of, not stagnated, but it just feels like, you know, it's such a big thing. And when you're looking at something like the humanitarian sector from a systems changing standpoint, it's almost like it's too big and it's too complicated and the structures around it are too rigid. And it definitely... while change obviously needs to come from within, I think something that we're not good, often, as a humanitarian community, is kind of looking for ideas from the outside. And I really liked this idea of looking to, you know, as you say, art or fields that are a lot more creative. Do you have any other ideas for where we should be looking for inspiration outside of the humanitarian sector as we know it today?

Well, I guess, one thing that has always saved us (and saving is like such a broad term)... but something that has allowed us to continue to survive as a sector is to see what's working elsewhere, right? And then we bring it in and we copy it. But what I'm hoping we could do is to not only see what's working, but what other people think are going... is going to be working in the future. Right? So we we are for example, right now, obsessed with that user-centred design. But in reality, the rest of the world has already moved. And we're looking at things like donut economics when... where like the centre of design is not the individual, but it's the community. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, look at the fringe. So yes, look at the things that that are working, that is great. But but those things have already reached the mainstream. Look at the fringe and see what are the things that are currently being explored in other areas, and come and see if these things can also bring about change for the sector as a whole. There's a bunch of things happening around design coming from the Black Lives Matter movement that I think are really interesting. There are lots of other things coming around the concept of, for example, innovation, and masculinity and femininity and how like a more feminine approach to innovation, regardless of who does it right, could benefit from embracing empathy, tolerance, long term vision, sustainability, intuition. So it's not a way of saying, Go out, look at the private sector, adopt everything, bring it in. What I'm trying to say is go out, look at the fringe of human activity, see what's what's interesting and bring it in. Because I think that's where we fall short. We are very rarely exploring outside of our boundaries. And I think we need we need to do that more.

It's such an interesting point. Because it's it's so true that if you look at history, and even at movements that are kind of taking place right now, they happen because of... you know, thinking on the fringe or thinking that is sometimes considered to be a little bit weird, or from a place that maybe you wouldn't expect it. And, you know, I do find it quite surprising that given... you know, even just some of the examples that you've mentioned, on this very short conversation so far, but also just so much that's happening this year in the world, you know, where we're seeing things like a young black poet being the best part about an inauguration ceremony or so many new ideas that are kind of starting to suddenly break into the mainstream. And yet, within the humanitarian sector, I find it interesting that there still seems to be this stranglehold on thought leadership by a certain demographic. So we've touched a bit on leadership more broadly, but... you know, I don't know whether you found this, but in the humanitarian Twittersphere, I'm sometimes surprised by the fact that there is still this idea that if there's a new article from, you know, Jeremy Konyndyk or Hugo Slim, and, you know, their points are very interesting and I don't mean any disrespect to them at all, but I'm surprised that they still tend to kind of dominate the conversation. And the reason I think that that's a bit dangerous, where, you know, some people may argue that whoever presents an idea, whether or not it's one that is being discussed in a lot of fringe places is good, because it gets a platform, I sort of worry that we're never going to break the mould of this certain subset of people or, you know, people who fit a specific demographic, being associated with this authority on humanitarian thoughts. And I'm wondering, you know, with this conversation on diversity and innovation, if you see anything sort of being able to break the mould on that? Or what people could more actively consider in their own sort of discussions, or programming or where they look to for inspiration to be able to break that cycle? Because I think otherwise, it just seems like it's going to perpetuate and it makes me feel like our sector is really lagging, almost, behind the rest of the world.

Now, that is such an interesting point. I was talking to a colleague the other day, and I was just saying that it's so depressing, at times, how non-inspiring some leadership figures in the sector can be. It's very rare to, like, find someone that you're like, Oh, my God, this is so inspiring. When I grow up, I want to be like them. So I guess it comes from the fact that, as I was saying before, like, we cannot forget that we are political in nature, the powers that like resources are political. So it's no wonder that those political forces that have not necessarily been truly transformed, by what happening in the world, they still hold power, right, in the shape. And they're actually trying to perpetuate that, because that's the source of their power. It's not surprising to me that then the voices that we hear are voices that are not necessarily challenging those power structures at all. So any advice? Well, first of all see it, because like, once you see it, it's really hard to unsee it, right? And then the second one would be, go and talk to real people. And it's not to say that the people you mentioned are not real, but if they're in Geneva, they are not real people. And this is coming from someone who is in Geneva. So the most interesting part of my work is to talk to the people in Iran, who are trying to figure out how to communicate better with people, or the woman in Afghanistan was trying to figure out how to use technology better to engage women, or the person in Bangladesh, who's trying to come up with a way of protecting property or land and property rights for refugees. Like, go and talk to those people, amplify those voices, and stop amplifying the voices of the people that are constantly sitting in their home office and sending out guidance and reports. That would be like my desperate cry for transformation, if I had one.

Yeah, it's a great one. And I think it's so interesting that as much as... I mean, it's so frustrating now that there is so much rhetoric around doing that (you know, I mean, even a Ground Truth, we try and do that in some small way), but I feel like there is just so much talk about that at the Geneva level that it almost makes it worse. Because it's almost just like, there's so much window dressing around, you know, actually giving people... you know, moving aside, I guess, to create the space for someone else to be heard, in our sector, that it sort of makes it feel like it's going to be a long way off, even though it really shouldn't be given the type of work that we're doing. One question that I have, I guess, linked to everything that we've said so far is COVID and its role as a disrupter. I suppose a lot of innovation has come about because there has been some sort of major disruption and people have had to cope, there's already been quite a lot of discussion in humanitarian circles about, you know, is this going to finally force us to stop the endless rhetoric around localization and actually just have to do it? Because the reality is that a lot of international people from Geneva can't fly around the world so easily anymore. Do you think that COVID will help or hinder our ability as a sector to innovate and reform and move forward and break some of these trends?

I don't know. Because I've been thinking, if I could be in a room full of donors, and they were asking me like, What can we do to improve innovation? What would I say? And I think what I would say is like, Stop fueling our obsession with product innovation. Like, I don't, I don't think we need any more apps, or any, like, improved pipes, like those things are great. But what I would like to see is some real investment in business model innovation, you see? And that's where it never gets touched. Like, it's very rare that you would see an organisation saying like, you know what, guys, we have realised that this model of us arriving somewhere and then giving stuff to people doesn't work anymore, regardless of whether that stuff is a food parcel attempt, or a cash grant, like giving stuff to people as a business model is obsolete. So we're gonna use like our innovation powers to transform our business model to totally reinvent what we think aid should be. I don't see a lot of that happening. I see a lot of the Give Directlys saying that there are so modern because they're giving money directly to people, but they still operate as a pipeline. I don't see anyone moving away from business [inaudible]. If COVID is going to give us the opportunity to innovate on the business model, I think there's still some hope for like the fundamental, sort of, reason why you and I started to work in this sector, which was to like, actually try and do something for people that were less lucky in the place in which they were born. If COVID does not create space for us to do that, to innovate on like the fundamentals of the sector, and challenge like the deeply seated sort of assumptions, then we'll end up with a lot of like cool apps, but I don't think that's going to lead to a lot of change, unfortunately.

Yeah, I fully agree. And also agree that, you know, I've worked in the innovation space for a while and it's amazing how many of those, quote unquote, innovations you still see and how much they still actually get supported by things, you know, like humanitarian innovation bodies, or, you know, donors or whatever it it may be. But I guess... you know, given what you've just said about something like, you know, the idea that you might give something directly, and that that would be revolutionary. And the fact that, you know, a lot of these humanitarian reforms that do have a lot of innovation potential... I mean, you know, cash is still one really at a kind of systemic level that is, I think, a game changing thing but it's not being used in the way that it's living up to its full potential, because it does enable a degree of letting go that I think a lot of agencies aren't quite ready for. And how do you see that then working with the way that innovation or systems change is perceived in our humanitarian sector now? Because arguably, you have the kind of... you have snippets of change that are then essentially controlled in the same way that aid is controlled, right, by big UN agency. So say you have innovation being perpetuated within an organisation like WFP or Vision or UNICEF, or you know, not to not to name call, they're just examples, but do you think that those agencies changing and focusing on innovation is going to make some of these changes that we want to see or should they actually sort of take this opportunity to say this isn't for us and maybe step down somewhat?

But it's such a hard question to answer and I can only answer it like at a at personal level? (Well, I've been answering everything at a personal level.) But for me, the the word, sort of, innovation is not something I use on my day to day work. I don't think I own enough Patagonia outfits to like claim the term. So I try to make people understand that it's just basically a way of looking at old problems in... from a different perspective. Now, if we focus on problems, right, then the whole perspective of what innovation should be in the sector should be shifting. So if we stop this obsession with like finding better solutions for people, and we we start to invest more in trying to understand like, what are the big, big problems that need to be solved, so that we understand the problem really, really well, I think that in itself would bring about change. But I don't think innovation is going to fix the sector at all. I think what innovation can do is inject the sector with the ideas that it needs to fix itself. So imagine if innovation was used to make humanitarians understand that decisions that they made need to be taken through the filter of a long term vision, right? So this perspective of being a good ancestor. So imagine if innovation was the part of the sector that said, All right, leadership, and people who are working in programmes directly with people, every decision you make, make it as if you were being held responsible as an ancestor to like the rest of your family. Would people still be making the same decisions? Or would they be willing to take on more like long term choices? I'm hoping that that's what innovation can do. Now, big agencies, like big corporations are always trying to chase profit. So innovation is a way of keeping your business relevant to make sure that you have a good return on investment. So I don't want to come across as naive. Like, I can see that we're like at the front end of the of the profit making. It's just that there needs to be some ethics in the way in which we engage with how we chase profit. And innovation is ripe for that conversation to happen.

Yeah, it's a really... It's really tough, I suppose, because you can see that, you know, a lot of these efforts are very well-meaning but then you do see some of them sort of creep into territory where it just seems like there's a hot new thing and big agencies want to chase that because that's where the money is going to come from, which I guess is as you say, how markets kind of work but it's it's sort of a sinister market in a way. Maybe just to take us up a notch, again, to a sort of broader question, I'm really interested to hear, and you've touched on a lot of them already, I would say, but in your opinion, is there a humanitarian elephant in the room at the moment? And and what is it?

I would say we have like a whole circus, perhaps [laughing]. But if I had to choose, like the biggest elephant, I would say that the people we serve have zero power over what they get. I think that is the biggest one. And it's also the saddest one because it's the one that people use all the time when they want to talk about the future and things that need to change. So it's been trampled on so much that even using it makes my stomach turn, right? People at the centre business, it's been used so much, but I think that's the ultimate like hush hush in the sector, that people cannot actually decide whether they want to get a cash grant from me or you. They cannot do that. And until they can do that, which I think slowly and slowly is going to like, start to become a reality, it's going to be really hard for us to give up some of, like, the bad sort of habits we have that keep keep us like in a comfy sort of comfortable place. I think that's probably an elephant. Now, if I was talking about a giraffe, I would say the giraffe in the room, is the fact that our leadership is perhaps not as inspiring as it should be. Right? So I would like to see a lot more voices talking about diversity and inclusion in the sector, I'd like to see more voices talking about why it's important to invest in young people in the places that we work, I'd like to see more voices saying that they're actually a little bit tired with this, like North sort of conversations that we have about the future. And it's not to say that we don't have great people working like in our institutions right now. It's just that, I'm guessing that also at that level, the space that they have to operate differently is pretty limited. So I guess... yeah, I'm calling for courage in leadership. I think that'd be really inspiring for someone like me.

Yeah, for sure. I mean, I can only, unfortunately, agree with the the elephant and the euro-... and the giraffe. I mean, on the elephant front, we, obviously as Ground Truth, we consistently, year after year, you know, just through very basic processes, to ask people what they think. You know, it's confirmed year after year that all of this rhetoric around people at the centre is just not working. It doesn't mean anything for people who are the recipients of aid as we know it now. And I guess that... you know, that coupled with maybe a leadership that, I would agree, is globally, it's not always that inspiring and it doesn't give you a lot of scope for hope, because you sort of see evidence constantly that there's a lot of waffle and then it's not necessarily leading where it should be. But I guess, because of that, I wondered whether there was anything that you were excited about this year, or you know, what does give you hope for how we might be able to turn things around?

Yeah, conversations like this give me a lot of hope. To be able to, like, have a very honest conversation about what are the things that we're doing and why are we doing them: I think that's the beginning of change, for sure. I don't want to be involved in any more conversations that talk about platitudes, or that ignore like the true facts because we're paying lip service. I don't want to do that in 2O21. I'm a bit tired of that. But another thing that really inspires me, like, in my current job with NRC, is like all of the talent that is out there. Like I have conversations with brilliant people every day. And these are people that are are committed to doing things differently, and are people that understand the places they work in because most of the times they are from that place or they come from a place nearby. And for me that means a lot because I... (I play this game sometimes) but I grew up in Mexico, as in, like, it's different to be talking about the plight of humanity and like how terrible things are in other places when when it's actually like the people you went to school with, or like your parents. So I think being able to like, understand that there's a lot of commitment out there, and a lot of knowledge and expertise actually fills me with a lot of hope. And I use every day I have in my job to protect these people so that they can do the best that they can so that they can try different ways of operating, but also to like, amplify their voices. So that one day, those people would be like the leaders that we need. And I think there's space to do that in 2O21. I don't think there would be space to do that, maybe, in 2O18. But there's space to do that now. So I'm taking every opportunity I can to do that. And that fills me with hope in an otherwise very boring COVID existence.

Yeah, it's great to, to hear that. And do you also feel that maybe there will be a tipping point at which a lot of the voices that are, to an extent, silent in the sector now will kind of force their way in? Because I feel a bit like that something quite exciting about the way that the world is going, generally, is that you know, because of (whether it's TikTok, as you mentioned before, or a lot of different structural processes in global politics and pop culture and media consumption), that people just sort of find their way into these conversations now and movements happen. And Black Lives Matter was definitely a great example of that. Do you see a humanitarian version of that?

It would be cool, no? I guess it could totally happen, but I don't know. I think this people that would have this opinion, they're usually working. As in, like, they're not recording podcasts like you and me, Meg. They're actually, like, trying to figure out how to engage with the municipalities and like working with the community. So I think we need to find a way of actually creating meaningful space for these people to contribute from... like, meeting them where they are. So this thing of like, Oh, yes, like, give up your seats in a conference and all of that, yes, I think that is that is great. But like, meet people where they are so that their... like, their voice can actually be heard. And I don't know, like, if you're listening to this podcast, and you have something interesting to say, go out, write it, people will retweet it. I think that's basically the best way to go. Don't wait for people to make space where you make your own space.

A brilliant thought to almost end on now that we've covered giraffes and circuses and TikTok and ancestors and a lot of things that maybe you wouldn't normally hear on a humanitarian podcast, is there anything else that you wanted to leave us with? Any final wisdom that you might have?

I don't think I have any final wisdom. I think... what I'd like to say is, look at other processes that have worked, right? There is hope, in terms of like how we can do things better. I refuse to believe that everything's dark and dingy, but I think there's also quite a lot of work to be done. So this like congratulatory sort of festivals that we tend to have in the humanitarian sector, celebrating our achievements are great. But I would also almost like us to be holding more failure festivals, so that we can like optimise from the things that we've tried to change and then didn't work out. But I don't know if that's wisdom, or more like a desperate cry for help. Because I truly believe that we should be doing better. And we have all the resources to do better. It's just that we have to break free from what we think and feel is comfortable. So, yeah.

That was definitely wisdom. And I think it's all down, I mean, to me, it's an accountability issue. I think true accountability doesn't exist in our sector and we're very uncomfortable with that, because we're a sector of well-intentioned people who are trying to do good in the world and I think there is a real lack, within that, of any real, you know, stringent reflection of is this working or not. So I fully agree on that on the fail fests and maybe I'll see you at one of those soon, but I will let you get back to work. But thank you so much for all of this. And I think it's been a very interesting chat, it was great to finally get the time to do it and to sit down and have a virtual cup of tea with you. And yeah, thanks again so much.

Thank you. It's been lovely to have this chat with you. [Trumanitarian theme plays]

I think it was fine. I didn't know how long it was meant to be.

Last Peter is gonna have to edit.

No, you were great. You were like the best that he's ever had?

I don't think so, he's had very, like, solid white males.

I mean, we could have... we could have like a monthly chat, like a...

We should do like a reverse podcast. So we take the same questions, but now I ask you the questions. That's where we should be pitching.

We're not going to do that now. [laughing] But we can do that.