How climate change, urbanization are changing disaster aid

Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:14am EST

A girl walks in a World Food Programme (WFP) hot-food distribution centre in Mogadishu August 4, 2011, in this handout released by the African Union-United Nations Information Support Team to Reuters on August 5, 2011. REUTERS/African Union-United Nations Information Support Team/Stuart Price/Handout

A girl walks in a World Food Programme (WFP) hot-food distribution centre in Mogadishu August 4, 2011, in this handout released by the African Union-United Nations Information Support Team to Reuters on August 5, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/African Union-United Nations Information Support Team/Stuart Price/Handout

Related Topics

LONDON (AlertNet) - Picture this: a terrible drought forces you to abandon your meager plot of farmland, so you migrate to a city where the jobs are, only to end up living in a slum regularly submerged by floods.

It's a scenario that's going to become more and more familiar in coming years as climate change and rapid urbanization play an ever-greater role in shaping humanitarian crises, according to an AlertNet poll of the world's biggest aid organizations.

To adapt to the new reality, aid agencies will need to invest more in disaster prevention and learn a trick or two from the private sector about how to make more efficient use of limited resources, the survey of 41 relief organizations shows.

"The rising trend in the number of disasters over the past five years shows no sign of slowing down," said Gareth Owen, humanitarian director at Save the Children UK.

"Year on year, we are responding more frequently and on a larger scale to increasing numbers of disasters."

Asked to rank the factors most likely to intensify humanitarian needs, 28 of 41 aid agencies put the risk of more frequent and destructive climate-related floods, droughts and storms at the top.

This was followed by mass displacement due to climate change and environmental damage, urbanization, high and volatile food prices, and the expectation of more failing states.

With needs expected to grow and national budgets squeezed by the global financial crisis, some rich donor states are pressing the charities they fund to boost value for money in relief efforts.

One way to do that is to slash the overheads, bureaucracy and transaction costs of U.N. agencies that often lead aid operations, many of those polled said.

Other suggestions included investing in disaster-prone communities to make them more resilient and adopting the bottom-line approach of big business.

"We need to increase competition and create an aid 'market', where donors don't need a budget breakdown but rather a set of outcomes they will pay for based on how many are achieved," said Francesco Paganini, director of disaster response for World Relief.

Another U.S.-based agency echoed the need for a hard-nosed, performance-based approach.

"If our industry could find a way to create a compensation system that provides personal financial reward for results -- as is found in for-profit businesses -- it could radically alter the approach to delivering value to beneficiaries," said one program manager, who declined to be identified.

The survey by AlertNet (www.trust.org/alertnet), a global humanitarian news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation, targeted the world's biggest aid groups by spending and operational scope, excluding U.N. agencies.

The agencies included Oxfam, Save the Children, CARE, Danish Refugee Council, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Muslim Aid and World Vision, as well as the global Red Cross movement.

AlertNet asked experts to assess the future of humanitarian need, the challenges of delivering relief, spending and funding trends, and value for money in the international aid system.

IT HAS TO BE SEXY

More than half the agencies said focusing more on disaster risk reduction (DRR) -- everything from building more durable houses and schools in safer places to teaching children to swim -- would help the sector cope better in the long run.

Experts have long argued that it makes more economic sense to pour money into helping local governments and communities minimize their exposure to disasters than mopping up afterwards.

In its 2009 yearly "World Disasters Report," the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) said $1 spent on prevention saves $4 on emergency response.

But rallying donor interest is hard, some aid groups said.

"Funding for disaster risk reduction and disaster preparedness is not very 'sexy' for donors -- global, domestic and private," said Jouni Hemberg, director of international cooperation for FinnChurchAid.

For many donors, installing a city drainage system or devising a program to help coastal villagers cope with rising sea levels just doesn't sound as appealing as distributing food rations to 100,000 earthquake survivors or vaccinating 20,000 children in a refugee camp.

Lack of donor interest in risk reduction was reflected in the poll. Of the 23 agencies that disclosed what proportion of their annual spending goes to this activity, 16 said it was 10 percent or less.

However, 25 of the 41 said they planned to increase this kind of spending or would like to if the money could be found.

WHERE IS THE MONEY?

In 2010, governments gave $12.4 billion in humanitarian aid, almost three times as much as private contributions, which amounted to $4.3 billion, according to estimates from Global Humanitarian Assistance, a British-based aid monitoring group.

But 22 agencies forecast a drop in government funding for humanitarian aid over the next five years.

Of those, 10 expected private contributions would also decrease while 12 thought donations from individuals and companies would make up the shortfall.

The remaining 19 agencies predicted that governments would still provide the bulk of humanitarian funding as they do today.

Asked about the main challenges to effective delivery of aid, many agencies cited the exploitation of aid for political ends, increasingly complex disasters, squeezed government budgets and violence against aid workers.

Tackling these problems means raising public awareness about delivering aid according to the key humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality, and giving local communities more say in managing aid, some experts said.

Others argued the sector should rely less on government donors, and seek longer-term, more flexible funding.

But according to IFRC's Matthias Schmale, the best way to increase value for money was simple: "Provide more credible leadership through less marketing and spinning, and ensure actions match words."

(AlertNet is a humanitarian news service run by Thomson Reuters Foundation. Visit www.trust.org/alertnet)

(For more on the future of humanitarian aid, including info-graphics, videos, stories, blogs and full poll results, visit futureofaid.trust.org)

(Editing by Tim Large and Sonya Hepinstall)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
sealevel wrote:
Perhaps on should step back from the headlong rush to find a sexy way to fund the feel good solution and take a minute to look at the Plains States in the dirty ’30s. Could the solution be in learning conservation, growing sensible crops, not over grazing and so on. These not only worked but now we have an over producing grain and cattle region far superior to what it was. This has all happened before and the World did not end.

Jan 26, 2012 5:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
swampmusic wrote:
Humanitarian aid should be prioritized first for those humans alive and suffering now…TODAY. Not imaginary possible scenarios in 100 years. It is redundant to claim that there will be droughts, floods and cyclones in the future. Such things have always, and will always threaten civilizations around the world. Taking steps to offset such destruction is of course important but the perspective has become dangerously skewed. This kind of article just continues to undermine and divert money and resources away from REAL aid for REAL problems. How about malaria, aids, malnutrition, disease, poverty…?
Perspective anybody?

It’s sick.

Jan 26, 2012 7:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:
Average global temps have not increased as predicted by warmist fear mongers. Temps have almost been flat-lined since the highs in 1998.

As far as drought and “extreme” weather, of course the world never had any of this going on before the industrial revolution began about a century ago.

BTW Some parts of North Africa have been getting more rain for the last decade, and their are many, many natural ocean and solar cycles which will continue to change the earth as they always have.

Jan 26, 2012 7:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Photo

California's historic drought

With reservoirs at record lows, California is in the midst of the worst drought in decades.  Slideshow