Humanitarian needs vs. resources: How do we fill the gap?

When Kristalina Georgieva first came to the European Commission in 2010, the budget for humanitarian action was at 840 million euros ($933.2 million). When she left last year, the funding has shot up to 1.4 billion euros. And yet no one, not even the former ECHO chief, who now sits as vice president in charge of the commission’s budget and human resources, could claim that this is adequate to meet the requirements of the world’s humanitarian crises today, from those introduced by conflict as in the case of the Central African Republic to those resulting from huge natural disasters such as the ongoing relief work in quake-hit Nepal. In its coordinated appeals alone, the United Nations is appealing for $18.85 billion for its response plans this year. This does not yet include crises that could turn up at any time of the day this year, the unforeseen ones that no one can anticipate. “It is a fact that shock comes without prior notice, and there comes the aspect of being prepared,” Georgieva told Devex amid the European Development Days in Brussels, Belgium, last week. Spotlight on protracted crises So the world needs to get better at being quick to respond. Some donors, such as the EU, have already put in place mechanisms that would allow them to commit money and identify the best-placed organizations within 24 hours of a disaster. But that can only do so much. In an increasingly fast-growing world frequented by disasters with heightened intensity, the international community needs to start finding more ways of raising resources, using them efficiently and making sure that the support given isn’t just benefiting crises that get more media mileage, according to the seasoned humanitarian official. “We feel it is always easier to raise money for a crisis that is on front page, that is on the 6 o’clock news, but it is difficult to raise money for those that are unseen, that are invisibly suffering,” she shared. Case in point: protracted crises such as in the Central African Republic. “We’re asking … should we use the [International Development Assistance] facility of the World Bank in the most strategic way in these kinds of protracted crises? Should others follow the experience we have in the EU in dedicating predictable amount of money for forgotten crises? [Or] within EU, should we in a more predictable manner provide development funding for use in protracted crises, [but] executed by humanitarian organizations, because they are [already] there?” she pointed out. Linking development and humanitarian aid These will just be some of the questions the high-level panel on humanitarian financing appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in May will be tackling in the next few months, as they come up with recommendations for the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016, which would hopefully be welcomed by all stakeholders. But Georgieva, who will be co-chairing the panel with Sultan Nazrin Shah of Malaysia, notes the panel is already looking at the idea of how to systematically and effectively link humanitarian and development funding, an idea she suggested last year in an interview with Devex President and Editor-in-Chief Raj Kumar. “What we are looking at is how to build on the comparative strengths of the humanitarian and development community in a systematic manner,” she said. “The humanitarians are faster and they have higher tolerance for risk. They work in environments that are more dangerous. The development community has longer term funding available, money that is there year after year after year. And they have more experience in putting together more sustainable programs that can deliver better results.” The EU already has some experience in this. In northern Mali, humanitarian partners implement projects relating to education, sanitation and water supply using development money. In the Ivory Coast, humanitarian partners helped rebuild the country’s social services, which they later turned over to the government as part of a partnership for transition program. But these are very “ad hoc” in nature, and Georgieva said what they can do at the panel is look into these experiences and practices to guide their discussions. Would everyone be open to the idea? It’s too early to tell. But the senior official believes that both sectors are increasingly recognizing the need to “bridge” this link. “My impression is … [there is a] great deal of recognition that the world has changed and that fragility in the world has increased — and that has dramatic consequences for people affected,” she said. “But it also has brought new risks, including for the more developed countries … and that new approaches are paramount. They are a necessity. And what is the point of protecting our turf … if what happens in front of our eyes is decades of development being [lost] because of an earthquake or conflict?” Bring in more players But of course, raising more money is still on top of the agenda. And here, Georgieva banks on donors honoring their 0.7 percent aid commitments, on those wealthy donors that can still boost their assistance, and on emerging economies to bring more to the table. With “more wealth comes more responsibility” she quipped. But she also raised the possibility of tapping frozen assets or money that is not working for anyone, as well as creating more incentives for the private sector to raise more donations. “So we’re coming up with a long list of ideas, and the goal is to narrow it down to those we think have the biggest impact and the chance to be adopted,” she said. And then, the panel will “go around” and talk to people — and “we would be happy to use Devex as a platform” — to validate these ideas. In addition, the panel would continue to advocate, in whatever capacity, for the realization of these ideas. “Once you give your heart to the work of humanitarians, it is forever,” she said. She however emphasized the importance of transparency in all these discussions. “What I learned is that there will always be a risk that some people, some disasters, will draw more resources. And we may end up helping some people two or three times, and others not at all. So it is very important to track where the money comes from, and where it is going, and use this to improve the impact of assistance,” she noted. Check out more insights and analysis for global development leaders like you, and sign up as an Executive Member to receive the information you need for your organization to thrive.