In recent years, so much has changed in global development. But one thing, it seems, has not — humanitarian cowboys are still in the ring, and the sector is unsure how long they should be kept there.
Also in today’s edition: The coming end of the Gaza pier, and the case for debt-for-nature swaps
This isn’t their last rodeo
Fred Spielberg says he isn’t a humanitarian cowboy, though he has been called one.
This is a preview of Newswire
Sign up to this newsletter for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development, in your inbox daily.
Anyone who’s spent time in the sector knows this particular brand of aid worker: white, male, armed with a threadbare passport and an unwavering confidence in his ability to fix a situation. One report describes the culture as one of “heroism and risk-taking;” another speaks of “charismatic figures” with a “track record of getting things done.’’
But Spielberg, who now works as a humanitarian response and preparedness consultant, has a slightly less generous take — his descriptors include “independent, arrogant, macho, culturally insensitive, short-term mentality, and generally a loose cannon in the field.”
Though a lot has changed in the development world — including the push to localize programs, funding, and decision-making — one thing has not. Humanitarian cowboys are still ingrained in the humanitarian sector, along with the mentality that’s kept them there.
“Even though there is more local staff filling certain roles, often the top senior roles, the sort of so-called experts, are still the white expats that are going from one mission to another, and that still exists — more in some organizations than others,” author Gemma Houldey tells my colleague Lauren Evans.
For some, that’s a good thing. In many cases, humanitarian cowboys bring social capital, expertise, and a tolerance for nearly impossible situations. For others, it contributes to the very worst of aid: for example, the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the aid industry.
“We have a great tendency to turn things into a zero-sum game. And I don’t think it’s right,” says Lars Peter Nissen, CEO of the humanitarian assessment organization ACAPS. “We need to find a way of talking about that ambiguity that we find in these situations. There’s not just one answer to this.”
Read: Hold your horses! Are humanitarian cowboys a relic of the past? (Pro)
+ Starting Monday, join us for a week of premium content featuring events, insider articles and analyses, and funding reports on the key forces shaping global development, including AI application in report writing and applying for grants, deep dives into development funding, and localization — exclusively for Devex Pro members.
Not yet gone Pro? We’re offering you $100 off an annual membership! Sign up now to access our Pro Week coverage as well as Pro content for a full year.
Shore you won’t stay?
After operating for just over 20 days, the United States’ $230 million pier off the coast of Gaza — an attempt to bring aid to the war-affected territory — will soon become history. It marks an end to a project that has raised eyebrows among humanitarians, many of whom felt the pier was more of a distraction than a solution.
“When I read about the pier, my reaction was: really?” Deepmala Mahla, chief humanitarian officer at CARE, told Devex when the project was first announced in March. “First air drops, and now a floating pier, all when we have hundreds and thousands of food and other required material just miles away from the border, all ready to get in?”
The news was cemented on Wednesday, when the deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, told reporters the pier — which the military had always intended to be temporary — had “achieved its intended effect to surge a very high volume of aid into Gaza.” Aid will now flow from Cyprus to Ashdod, Israel, on U.S. vessels, and then be trucked through the northern border of Gaza into the besieged territory, Cooper said.
The announcement came over a month after humanitarian groups stopped distributing supplies that arrived by sea due to security concerns, according to reporting from the Associated Press. Cooper said the military had moved nearly 20 million pounds of aid into Gaza — a figure that a USAID spokesperson later said was enough to feed 450,000 people for one month.
Even so, U.S. President Joe Biden said he was “disappointed” by the operation at a press conference last week.
“I was hopeful that would be more successful,” said the president.
On Tuesday, Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder did not specify exactly when the pier would be dismantled. But after a seemingly endless array of technical, security, and weather-related challenges, Ryder told reporters that the pier “will conclude its mission soon.”
“Today, the [Department of Defense] announced the conclusion of the maritime pier, but our work is ongoing to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said a USAID spokesperson in a statement Wednesday night. “The needs in Gaza remain staggering — with nearly the entire population in need of food assistance and with the vast majority lacking access to clean water for months. We urgently need a ceasefire to be able to surge assistance and have the hostages released.”
Background reading: Aid groups doubt Biden's pier will solve Gaza's problems (Pro)
+ On Monday, as part of our Pro Week coverage, join us for a conversation with Ben Rhodes, a foremost U.S. foreign policy expert and former deputy national security adviser, to get high-level insight into what the upcoming U.S. election means for global development. Save your spot now.
Connecting the dots
Three of the biggest global health funders are joining forces to create a $300 million research partnership — one that will dig into the interplay of climate change, malnutrition, infectious disease, and antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries.
It’s the first time the Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation have worked together, and an attempt to break down the silos that in the past have placed barriers around each research area. That might include looking at how extreme weather events cause food insecurity and malnutrition, for example, or how rising temperatures lead to a spike in mosquito breeding and malaria.
“There's something really powerful about coming together and finding [solutions] on common areas of concern for all of us and that we can help drive progress, but also mobilize others to join us and to make progress faster,” Wellcome’s Chief Strategy Officer Beth Thompson tells Devex contributor Helen Morgan.
Thompson mentioned that the partnership will focus on seeking affordable solutions to challenges related to climate change and health, and scaling equitable access to the tools and technologies that already exist. To do that, Thompson added, the project will need the input of partners in low- and middle-income countries, though specific researchers and institutions have not been lined up yet.
Read: How a $300M global health partnership will work
+ For the latest insider reporting on global health, be sure to sign up to Devex CheckUp, a free, Thursday newsletter — and get today’s edition in your inbox soon.
No monkeying around
Rwanda is often referred to as the Switzerland of Africa. With its rolling hills, lush landscapes, and wealth of natural resources, the country is rich with beauty — though, less so when it comes to Rwanda’s national debt.
But by coupling those two things, Rwanda might see a profitable way forward.
“Given Rwanda’s increasing debt coupled with its commitment to environmental preservation, a debt-for-nature swap could alleviate a portion of Rwanda’s externally held debt while enabling resources to be directed toward meeting the country’s priorities for environmental conservation,” writes Michelle DeFreese, a development expert based in New Caledonia, in a recent opinion piece for Devex.
Rwanda’s debt-to-gross national income ratio, DeFreese explains, has steadily increased in recent years — a sign of the country’s ability to repay its debts. At the same time, the government has announced a series of new commitments to protect national parks and forested areas, including an expansion of Volcanoes National Park to the tune of $255 million.
“A 23% expansion of the park area would provide an extended buffer zone to reduce human-wildlife conflicts, increase carbon sequestration, and provide a larger habitat for the park’s growing population of mountain gorillas — while increasing climate resilience,” DeFreese writes. And a debt-for-nature swap, she posits, could be used to pay for it.
Opinion: How a debt-for-nature swap could be used for Rwanda’s parks
In other news
Following a four-day visit, United Nations and European Union aid officials called for urgent international support to address Haiti's humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by widespread gang violence. [UN News]
Libya and Tunisia have called on Europe to boost aid in addressing the migration crisis as 28 African and European nations meet in Tripoli to discuss solutions. [Al Jazeera]
Mukhtar Babayev, president-designate of the COP 29 U.N. climate summit in Azerbaijan, urged world leaders to urgently prioritize a new international financial aid goal for climate-vulnerable nations. [AP News]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Elissa Miolene
Elissa Miolene reports on USAID and the U.S. government at Devex. She previously covered education at The San Jose Mercury News, and has written for outlets like The Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Washingtonian magazine, among others. Before shifting to journalism, Elissa led communications for humanitarian agencies in the United States, East Africa, and South Asia.
