In any case, I think @Ursula L’s argument, about the emotional side-effects, is even more cogent. I still think it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that we should continue with SAR as we do now, but I do think that the case against it, as it is presented now, is often overly simplistic.

In all aid, but especially in emergencies, it comes down to limited resources: money, time, runway space, fuel, etc.

Let’s hope that we are getting better at the trade-offs between uses of those resources over time, and not just better at either papering over or ineffectually complaining about those trade-offs.

“How can you write critically about organisations that you hope to be employed by later? Is e.g. your article about the logistics in Haiti a sober assessment, or a partisan defense of those organisations? And how can you write critically about logistics practices that you have helped create in the first place? We don’t know, but at least help us by making explicit where your position could possibly influence what you say.”

I really do not want to figure out for every article that I write what these people (some of whom I know and admire, BTW) might see as a possible conflict of interest; hence this general disclaimer.

In any case, it is good practice to verify what you read before you act on it; so I don’t mind a general presupposition that I am biased, if that makes people read what I write in a critical mindset.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by BiteTheDust: Latest job opportunities in logistics (February 28, 2010) http://bit.ly/9MBIQ7...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael_Keizer: Humourless links for March 1. http://bit.ly/a5yqzU...

Yes, the claims made are always a bit funny; to use value chain terminology: each of the actors claims to be the value driver for all of the value added. I am sure that if you add up all the ‘beneficiaries’ (a word that I thoroughly dislike, by the way) claimed to have been assisted by all aid organisations, you would end up with an assisted population the size of a much larger country.

I think you make a couple of very astute observations here in one short sentence:
- Whether you are a 2PL/3PL provider or working in 1PL is a matter of perspective: the US Navy might be a 2PL provider from the point of view of WFP, but is working 1PL from its own perspective.
- 2PL/3PL providers can very well be aid organisations. A good example is how WFP is ‘provider of last resort’ in the logistics cluster, and hence can be a 3PL provider for other aid organisations — and actually already often is, even without getting into the ‘last resort’ situation. This is something that I will write about in more detail in the next article in the series.
- The whole supply chain is part of the value chain and serves to add ‘value’ to our activities, i.e. enable better aid to the people who need it. This comes back to what I wrote before about systems thinking, and is something that we sadly lose track of at times.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by BiteTheDust: RT @Michael_Keizer: New post: Why third-party logistics is part of the future of global health and aid http://bit.ly/aERxAC #humlog…

One way to start would be by pointing us to relevant literature; and perhaps even by giving a summary of these findings. You would be very welcome to do so in a featured post instead of the comments section if you would prefer so.