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 reorientationMost hazards, in a given environment, are predictableBetter 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 do’s” or “Never do’s”

Distinctive system-wide behaviours can emerge from simple rules followed by the elements

Rules of Boids:Rules of Boids:Don’t fly too closeDon’t fly too close

Aim for center of flockAim for center of flockFly in same directionFly in same direction

Match speedMatch speed

Rules of Agents:Rules of Agents:Keep moving Keep moving

Seek high groundSeek high groundKeep in touchKeep 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 secretariatEstablished relationship with member Dioceses, but new relationship with centreSecretariat provides development and relief technical support to member Diocesan development officesFunding not centralisedNational level political contacts, but not part of the NGO / Development networks

Example partner 4

Network of independent hospitals.Established relationshipLittle experience of disasters, but new department within secretariat recognises potential for role of hospitals as critical lifeline infrastructure in an earthquake prone areaLarge financial turnover derived from mix of funding and charges for servicesLocal and national relationships with Health ministry.