Delays in the system dealing with humanitarian aid to Somalia and other areas of the world in need, will ultimately result in more famines, says a new study by British think tank Chatham House.
The study’s reasoning is that nongovernment organizations, (NGOs) and other concerned groups have spent heavily on early warning systems in the hope of preventing crises. Such systems, however, have failed to trigger a quick enough response from the international community in the face of these impending disasters.
The community instead waits for disaster to strike, reacting only when public pressure forces action.
The result is that most of the money poured into humanitarian aid is for counteractive measures rather than preventative. Less than 5 percent of all aid in 2009 was for prevention, according to the study.
Tens of thousands of lives in Somalia could have been saved if the world had reacted sooner to the very sophisticated and reliable early warnings, says Chatham. Data shows that the response to early warnings for Somalia was flat until the famine was declared. At that point, more funds were provided than in the previous seven months.
Decision makers in institutions lack accountability and have what Chatham describes as “perverse incentives,” a fear of flak for donating to a cause that may turn out to be not as urgent as predicted.
“At the organizational level, perverse incentives mean agencies are encouraged to compete for donor funds rather than cooperate to agree o joint response plans, resulting in turf wars and delay,” the report said.
Staff in institutions may send an email to a remote office to get a corporate decision, but Chatham labels this an “inappropriate medium for raising red flags” and a practice that contributes to inaction and a lack of accountability.
Power of the Media
Politicians place greater importance on foreign policy and domestic considerations than on humanitarian need.
Public support is important in determining whether a government will put money into a cause. If the public clamors for something, the government will give it to them, the study found.
One interviewee told Chatham that after the media covered a certain emergency, the minister’s office called in with instructions to find “something to spend 10 million on by the afternoon.”
Recognizing the power of the media, NGOs use it as a tool to influence donors, or the so-called “CNN effect.” It’s unreliable because there is no guarantee that a crisis will make the headlines.
Research in the United States found that disasters get different coverage depending on their newsworthiness and that affects how much funding they get.
The downside to the CNN effect is that it cannot be used in the early stages since the images of suffering used to get public sympathy will not exist yet.
One NGO said in the report that it was really difficult to convince a reporter to travel to Niger before the dead cattle and cracked earth, prior to the 2010 food crisis.
Political decisions are not usually straightforward. Politicians will consider whether crises are newsworthy and what, if any, the consequences are for inaction.
“If they cannot be blamed, delay may be a more attractive option, as it avoids the potential cost of public anger over transfers in the absence of a visible crisis, while providing an opportunity for future political reward should the crisis materialize and they can be seen to act,” says Chatham.
Joint plans and an emphasis on cooperating with each other, instead of competing, will help agencies prevent famines, says Chatham. Funding decisions have to stop being political.
The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
Friends Read Free