In recent years, humanitarian innovations have improved the way the international community responds to disasters. The idea of innovation might seem a far cry from rehousing displaced communities or treating severely malnourished children, yet these activities have been transformed through a combination of new ways of thinking, new products and new processes.
When Steve Collins, a doctor and aid worker, was running a nutrition programme in Liberia in the late 1990s, he was well aware of the job at hand. Although only in his mid-30s, Collins was an expert in tackling malnutrition by establishing therapeutic feeding centres - large centres where malnourished patients were admitted for an average of 30 days. In Somalia in 1992, he was put in charge of the first adult feeding centres since the second world war, and published the results of his work in the prestigious journal Nature.
But a cholera outbreak among patients in Liberia challenged him to rethink this way of working. He said later: "It brought home to me the danger of bringing people together in feeding centres. There had to be a better way, I thought. I knew that this would come from engaging with people better, looking at their strengths, rather than trying to impose solutions on them."
And that is exactly what he did. Using the latest nutritional products, Collins and colleagues at Valid International developed a new means of treating malnutrition that proved five times more effective than conventional methods. Today, following extensive rollout and testing, community-based feeding therapy is at the forefront of efforts to deal with malnutrition around the world.
Collins's story is remarkable not only for what he achieved, but also for his recognition that "there had to be a better way" of doing things. Many operational relief workers have had this experience – but few have the time, space or resources to do anything about it. As a result, a lot of good ideas simply don't go anywhere.
There is also a tendency towards conservatism in humanitarian operations. There are many risks and ethical considerations associated with trying something new. And few people are as willing as Collins was to question their own expertise.
This isn't the only example of such operational innovation against the odds. Take the idea of giving cash to poor people instead of only giving food and other goods. This very simple idea was first employed in humanitarian operations in the 19th century. But "cash transfers" have only in the past decade become a credible, mainstream approach. Why did it take so long for the aid community to take hold of this simple idea?
Critics have argued that much of the resistance to cash transfers was down to the economic and political interests of donors. But there was also a widespread fear that those receiving the cash could not be trusted with the money they were given. The very idea of giving out cash required aid agencies to change their perceptions of their role and work.
These examples illustrate the numerous barriers to innovation – from the institutional to the psychological. These are not unique to the humanitarian sector, of course. Henry Ford famously quipped about the incremental attitudes around him: "If I had asked people for their ideas, they would have said a faster horse."
In the past few years – inspired by the efforts of pioneers like Collins and the take-up of cash transfers – innovation has gained greater credence in debates on aid performance, and is part of a growing movement. In everything from shelter to sanitation, people are exploring the possibilities of innovation. Much of this is in line with the conclusion of the tsunami evaluation in 2006: that aid agencies need to pay as much attention to how they do things as what they actually do.
This month sees the initial call of the Humanitarian Innovation Fund, the first fund of its kind. With start-up funds from the UK and Swedish governments, the aim is to develop pooled resources to catalyse new ways of thinking, new products, and new processes. The fund has resulted from work led by Alnap (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action), and is jointly managed with Elrha (Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance).
Through this, and efforts like it, we hope to see more processes like those led by Collins and his colleagues: innovations that are principled, evidence-based and which improve the lives of people affected by crises.
To make the most of the fund, there will need to be a collective attempt to root out those long-standing practices that we know can be done better. It will be vital to develop and test new ideas emerging from new collaborations – between agencies, with the private sector and with scientists and researchers. Most important, there will need to be a shift in attitude towards communities affected by disasters – from being passive recipients to active leaders of their own recovery.
The failures of international aid in Haiti and Pakistan, along with accelerating climate change and urbanisation, reinforce the point that business as usual is not an option. In a world facing increasing disasters and vulnerability, innovation in humanitarian aid may be one of the most important challenges we face.
This article was amended on 22 February 2011. In the quote attributed to Henry Ford, we originally wrote: "If I had asked people for their ideas, they would have said a five legged horse." This has now been corrected.