WEF proposes 'new vulnerability and protection business model'

From the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Humanitarian Assistance:

The first requirement of this new business model is a comprehensive risk framework. We often find ourselves having to engage in an enterprise of risk management with incomplete information about how things will unfold. Such uncertainties are only being exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. We must plan to be ready for events for which we cannot plan.
The second requirement is to rework the balance between crisis response and the upstream and downstream issues of prevention and recovery. More resources are needed both to reduce risk in the first place, and reduce the risk of relapse after a crisis occurs.

The default mode of the current humanitarian model in general is external assistance; the default mode of a new vulnerability and protection model should be self-reliance. The third requirement of this new model is to enhance the capacities, readiness and resilience of exposed societies so they can better handle extreme events. Ensuring that civil society and local communities are involved will not only make response efforts faster, but more efficient as their involvement will make it possible to identify and meet the diverse needs of various groups in affected communities, groups differentiated, for example, by gender, age, and social class.

The fourth requirement is to engage the private sector more fully, not just as a source of donations but also as a source of key skills and technologies, during and after crises. We commend the World Economic Forum’s initiative on the private sector in humanitarian relief as well as other efforts to incentivise appropriate and beneficial private-sector investments in risky regions.

The fifth requirement of the business model is to link the humanitarian concern to broader development issues, strengthening social safety nets and supporting resilience. This requirement will necessitate unprecedented collaboration between humanitarian and development actors and interests.

Finally, as cross-border challenges will grow, regional organisations backed by the UN will need to be able to mediate and mitigate these problems as they arise.

Download the full report.

Resilient global institutions

A new report, 'Confronting the Long Crisis of Globalisation: Risk, Resilience and International Order', by Alex Evans and David Stevens of Global Dashboard for the Brookings Institute, has been highlighted by the Economist:

The 2010s, it is sometimes said, will be an age of scarcity. The warning signs of change are said to be the food-price spike of 2007-08, the bid by China and others to grab access to oil, iron ore and farmland and the global recession. The main problems of scarcity are water and food shortages, demographic change and state failure. How will that change politics?

...what is needed is not merely institutional tinkering but a different frame of mind. Governments, they say, should think more in terms of reducing risk and increasing resilience to shocks than about boosting sovereign power. This is because they think power may not be the best way for states to defend themselves against a new kind of threat: the sort that comes not from other states but networks of states and non-state actors, or from the unintended consequences of global flows of finance, technology and so on.

The report's conclusions are summarised in a blog post by Alex:

Creating new analytical mechanisms for creating shared awareness about shared risks. E.g. the IPCC provides crucial analysis of the problem of climate change – but there’s no equivalent on the solution.

Improving the ‘bandwidth’ of the G20. E.g. by strengthening Sherpa mechanisms, and building links between the G20 and formal institutions, thus improving the range of policy options going to heads.

Setting up a ‘red team’ in the international system that has the job of exploring risks and challenging policymakers on whether enough is being done to manage them – similar to the Defense Research Advanced Projects Agency in the US, which has the job of “preventing surprise”.

Changing how governments organize and deliver foreign policy. We argue that all governments will need to spend more money on managing global risks, and do more to integrate the different elements of foreign policy (aid, diplomacy, military).

Read more on Global Dashboard.

Global Dashboard: window of opportunity on scarcity issues starts to close

Alex Evans from the Global Dashboard has commented in a recent post on the lack of political initiatives to take preventive action regarding food (and resources in general) scarcity. The window of opportunity presented them by the credit crunch and the global downturn starts to close with rising oil prices.

As we are barely climbing out from the worst recession since 1930, oil prices have reached mid 2007 levels already. Together with that, food prices have followed suit:

As I’ve argued in numerous previous posts, we were never out of the woods on the food / fuel pincer movement; it was the collapse in prices following the credit crunch that was the blip, not the price spike that preceded it. And what’s most frustrating now is the extent to which policymakers have frittered away the chance we had to get onto a more secure footing.

[...] Now, on top of all of that, it looks like policymakers are also in the process of fudging the one policy process that could manage oil scarcity and climate change at the same time: the Copenhagen talks on the UNFCCC post-2012 commitment period.

The problem, of course, is that once prices for oil and food rise beyond a certain level, we all go back into kneejerk / panic mode – and try talking about the need for cooperative long term frameworks then. Sigh. #Fail.

ReliefWeb: The impact of the economic crisis on food security - impacts and lessons learned

Reliefweb notified the release of the 10th progress report by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation on The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009.

This report highlights the fact that, even before the food crisis and the economic crisis, the number of hungry people had been increasing slowly but steadily. With the onset of these crises, however, the number of hungry people in the world increased sharply.

As a result of the global economic crisis, developing countries are facing declines in remittances, export earnings, foreign direct investment and foreign aid, leading to loss of employment and income. This loss of income is compounded by food prices that are still relatively high in the local markets of many poor countries. As a result, poor households have been forced to eat fewer meals and less-nutritious food, cut back on health and education expenses, and sell their assets.

Despite the financial constraints faced by governments around the world, agricultural investment and safety nets remain key parts of an effective response to reduce food insecurity both now and in the future.

IDS: access knowledge (no, not your own) for free!

The Institute for Development Studies celebrates the 40th birthday of its Bulletin by giving everybody free access to all their issues (for a limited period of 40 days).

Flagging up some interseting issues:

• The September 2009 issue on the impact of the global financial crisis on developing countries
  
• The July 2009 issue on combating chronic malnutrition in India
• The September 2008 issue on climate change adaptation (and the poor)

Reuters: WB warns for negative effects of economic crisis on health and education

In line with forecasts brought up in previous blog entries, the World Bank warns for potentially 'disastrous' effects on health and education projects in the developing world, Reuters reports. Especially the social aspect of the global economic crisis has been ignored in most African countries, Marwan Muasher, the World Bank's senior vice president for external affairs, said to Reuters.

Developing countries, initially shielded from the direct impact, are now being hurt by "second and third waves" of the financial crisis, which is coming on the heels of a damaging upward spiral of food and fuel costs, he said.
In particular, this was being felt in a drop of remittances, reduced investment in health, education and infrastructure projects and the inability to find credit, Muasher said.
"Health and education are the first areas to be dropped by governments in poor countries when budget deficits are high. This will have disastrous consequences in the long term."

All this could be prevented, according to Muasher, if 0.7% of all stimulus plans would go to the support of the school and health projects currently at risk.

Reuters/Guardian: Record budget shortfall for UN aid agencies

Thanks to Michael Bear for highlighting a Reuters news release and a Guardian analysis on the Humanitarian Relief blog.

Reuters reports that both the global economic downturn and the drastic increase in needs in Pakistan have contributed to a record funding gap of $4.8 billion.

Yet some 43 million people need assistance this year, up from 28 million in 2008.
While there have been no large natural disasters so far in 2009, the global downturn has amplified needs in impoverished countries, and especially in those in protracted crisis such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

This situation is not likely to improve, as the 2009 contributions of the major donor countries had already been set before the economic crisis had hit them.
However, the main problem is one of political will rather than lack of money. As Conor Foley in his Guardian analysis points out,

It would cost around 1% of the money thrown at western banks in the last six months to bridge the current humanitarian deficit. Yet politicians will continue to play a game of cynical brinkmanship over where the money should come from, confident that it will be the UN itself that gets blamed for the resulting deaths and human misery.

For more figures on how the economic crisis has affected other humanitarian organisations, see another blog entry by Michael Bear.

UNAIDS: Global economic crisis expected to disrupt HIV prevention and treatment programmes

A new report from UNAIDS and the World Bank, released on July, 6th, indicates that in 22 countries in Africa, Europe and Central Asia, the Caribbean, and Asia and Pacific, HIV prevention and treatment programmes may face disruption this year.

Reports from agency staff in 71 countries indicate that eight countries are already facing shortages of antiretroviral drugs or other disruptions. Together, these countries are home to more than 60% of people worldwide receiving AIDS treatment.

However, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the extent to which these programmes will be affected, as the effects of the crisis are still to impact most of the governments’ budgets that support AIDS treatment. In particular North Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and most of Asia appear to be less vulnerable to the economic crisis’ impact.

According to the report,

much is at risk: increased mortality and morbidity, unplanned interruptions or
curtailed access to treatment, with increased risk of HIV transmission, higher
future financial costs, increased burden on health systems and reversal of
economic and social development gains.

The report recommends the following actions:

Use existing funding better―especially in countries facing cuts in their national AIDS response budgets, governments and aid agencies should provide technical support to reallocate resources from low- to high-impact prevention and treatment programmes. All countries should seek ways to make programmes more efficient and more cost-effective.

Address urgent funding gaps―countries with a high reliance on external funding for HIV should strengthen collaboration between national authorities and major international funders to identify and address impending cash-flow interruptions and arrange bridge financing as necessary to avoid cash-flow interruptions.

Monitor risks of programme interruption―a simple warning system could be established to anticipate and minimize treatment interruptions. A key component of such a system would be to carry out regular surveys to identify “vulnerable” countries and provide tailor-made financial and policy assistance.

Plan for an uncertain environment―the uncertainty that many respondents note calls for contingency planning: contingency plans could consider changes that could be made to ensure continued access to treatment and realistic expansion plans, and to maintain the most effective, highest priority prevention activities under alternative potential funding scenarios. The report recommends that resource mobilization strategies include sources of finance that can be sustained over the long term.