Q&A: Finding the nexus between development and humanitarian aid

The past couple of years have seen a number of major upheavals around the world, from a series of coups in Africa to the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, continued conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, and, most recently, Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine. All this is against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has served to widen inequalities and expose structural vulnerabilities in already fragile countries.

Recent forecasts by the World Bank suggest that growth rates of fragile and conflict-affected countries will be 7.5% lower than pre-pandemic levels by 2023, below prospects in low- and middle-income countries at large.

Amid growing risks to fragility, conflict, and violence, or FCV, the World Bank’s biennial Fragility Forum in March was used as a platform to exchange innovative ideas and knowledge to boost development approaches in FCV settings.

To help low-income countries respond to COVID-19 and bolster resilient recovery, the bank also recently announced a $93 billion replenishment package of concessional and grant resources through its International Development Association, the largest such amount mobilized in IDA’s six-decade long history.

One of the themes at the Fragility Forum was the nexus between development and humanitarian aid, with the need to balance immediate humanitarian needs with long-term development goals, said Axel van Trotsenburg, managing director of operations at the World Bank. Speaking to Devex, he elaborated on the current issues faced by FCV settings and his key takeaways from the forum.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

How important are events such as the Fragility Forum in today’s world?

Events to discuss challenges and share knowledge on FCVs are essential. I’m happy that the WBG convenes these kinds of events. These days we need to remain aware that while times are tough, they can be even tougher for a lot of countries. We need to keep the focus on developing countries — and particularly on fragile states. Why is that? Because it is in these situations where you see the largest increases in poverty, you see fragility rising and you see violence also going up.

Alongside COVID, we are now looking at 13 months of disastrous events in fragile states, with a whole series of coups from Myanmar to Sudan, Mali, Chad, and Burkina Faso. We’ve seen a president being killed in Haiti and we have also seen, of course, Afghanistan and now Ukraine — bringing to dramatic attention that fragility is not limited to low-income countries.

Solving fragility is not easy, and precisely because of that we need to brainstorm. I feel that the Fragility Forum is a great way to share our experiences and talk about what we can do. This is necessary for the simple fact that we know that in the next 10 years, half of the extreme poor will be in fragile countries. If we want to do something on poverty, we’ve got to focus on this.

What were some of your key takeaways from the forum?

An important takeaway is the challenge of the nexus of humanitarian aid with development. When you talk about fragility, the risk is that the whole problem gets reduced to the humanitarian or first response part. That is urgently needed, but wherever we can, we should not lose sight of the development challenges these countries still have in the medium and long term.

There is a good consensus that we need to do humanitarian support, but how do you bring that longer-term element into the engagement in FCV situations?

For example, take education: we need to keep in mind that every year that kids cannot go to school, as in the pandemic, they lose a chunk of their earning power — and girls are being disproportionately disadvantaged by this. Another example is in Afghanistan — at the same time as supporting humanitarian efforts, can we also look at how to help farmers — such as helping distribute seeds so they have a fighting chance to have a harvest? Here we are working with [Food and Agriculture Organization] on seed distribution. These are the types of things we have to think of: We cannot forget these core development issues.

How do you put the focus on those longer-term issues rather than the immediate humanitarian issues, and what is the World Bank doing to aid this?

An important thing is that prioritization toward poorer countries matters. When you look at the World Bank lending over the last two decades, there is a general trend in our operational response toward Africa: 20 years ago, we had 15% of our total operations going to Africa; last year, it was 45%, which constitutes $30 billion.

We have also been ramping up total commitments from IDA to fragile states. In 2020 it was $10 billion, and then in 2021, it was $14 billion. So you see an enormous concentration of resources going to these fragile countries.

We are trying to keep the Sustainable Development Goals very much alive, including the climate agenda — so in that sense, what we are trying to do is meet the dual test of crisis response and green, inclusive, and resilient development. The test of crisis response has to be fast, forceful, and with volume because these times of crisis require a very strong response. At the same time, as a development organization, we need to stay laser-focused on the basics of development, including climate.

Also, to help with issues, I have to say that over the last couple of years, we have strengthened our partnerships with U.N. agencies such as the World Food Programme, UNICEF,  the UNHCR, as well as groups like the International Committee for the Red Cross, just to name a few, to bring consolidated support to FCV situations.

What would be your call to action ahead of Fragility Forums of the future?

My main message to all — not only in fragile but also in developing countries — is to stay engaged. We all need to stay engaged on the multilateral level, and the bilateral level as well. I think there are many challenges, but we can do great work together. This should not be just for the moment, but for the long haul.

Nobody should pretend we have all the solutions because if it was that easy we wouldn’t be sitting here. What we need to do is ensure that we are looking at how we can join forces, be complementary, and do more together, but also learn from good experiences or where things could have been done better.