Chapter #1 – The Humanitarian Industrial Foundation

The New Paradigm for an increasingly Climate Turbulent Time To Increase the Economic Response & Repair & Agility Capacity.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

10 Reasons to promote the Humanitarian Industrial Foundation Paradigm:

(1) At over $ 100 Billion Plus, the Humanitarian Industrial Market exceeds the financial size of most industrial Markets. Most years the various humanitarian crises of multiple nature exceed the 100 Billion $ cost level. The true total size of this market is difficult measure because one must add the cost of losses which are not insured including food, vaccines, care of displaced population and so on. The cost of insured CAT Loses alone, in 2017, is estimated by Swiss Re to exceed $ 95 Billions not included the cost covered by Captive Insurance Companies. This $ 95 B is the cash value that Insurance Companies will engage, in 2018 alone, for Industrial work performed in the following 3 years or so. For reference purposes the Gates Foundation initial Capital is well in excess of $ 80 B. The yearly budget the US AID Agency is $ 19 B and the yearly budget of the World Bank is $ 2.5 B.

(2) Only 1/2 of the cash collected is spent on the Crisis. In many cases the actual spending over 3 years barely achieves 1/2 of collected resources in the month following the crisis.

(3) The yearly financial return on the capital of the large Foundations exceeds the yearly expenditures. In many cases new donations increase the Financial Surplus.

(4) Little or No Governance today. Corporations are kept in line by the constant independent third party supervision of the Tax authorities and the Stock Market watchdogs. Statistically, in the USA funds, criminally appropriated in a Crisis exceeds 20 %, for a statistical average of 10 % in non crisis context. Making more Laws will slow down the Humanitarian response, which means less money can be spent, which means more surplus left over. We propose to use a non intrusive real time (daily – no delays) 21st CENTURY COMPLEX COMPLIANCE PROCESS with AI to flag discrepancies. This is described elsewhere.

(5) No Syndication / No Synergies of Foundations / NGOs responding to the crisis. Every Humanitarian actor is working pretty much on its own. There is no structured attempt to syndicate various Tech sources to rebuild complex systems or services. The lack of established Governance particularly on site is making syndication very difficult.

(6) Little or no cooperation or JV on site between Foundations and NGOs and Tech Corporations to implement complex systems. This is aggravated by differing Governance standards and the Non Profit vs Profit status of the participants. Many large Corporation (even some Banks) have their own Foundations operating independently in one-off humanitarian projects and rarely joining with other like Foundations to structure a complex system. We Propose to structure a New Project Management Process to fully integrate Foundations and Tech Corporations. This is described elsewhere.

(7) Large Humanitarian Crises are Complex and require rebuilding Infrastructures. Lessons Learned from the response to the 2018 Puerto-Rico storm destruction is a case in point. Local authorities are financially weak and disorganized (because of the crisis) and cannot supervise long term project and permitting (standards) which are absolutely necessary.

(8) NGOs response is disjointed and colored by particular agendas. In some cases well meaning NGOs buy migrants from Criminal Gangs fueling further the slave trade. In other cases Criminal Terror Groups Join in with plenty of cash and no questions asked. Government agencies are overwhelmed and tend to kick everybody out. The Governance / Compliance Process we propose will mitigate this problem.

(9) Humanitarian Foundation Management must increase the depth of Technology and Infrastructure project expertise. TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IS REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED. With the deep pockets of the Foundation, President Kennedy NASA-like research can be funded.

(10) We Recommend an Integrated dual Global Organizational Approach :

  • A TECH FOOTPRINT in USA to take advantage of the speed and adaptability of US Tech Corp and the innovative vision of US Foundations.
  • A GLOBAL MANAGEMENT FOOTPRINT in Switzerland to take advantage of the UN Agencies, The Red Cross and Effective Neutrality.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL US

Dr. Michael Nesterenko
M.nesterenko@globalprojectengineering.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *