There are several fragile ad vulnerable countries which are passing through very difficult times due to a combination of factors. Often a large number of people in these countries are facing serious shortages of food and are unable to meet several other essential needs as well.
If development and even humanitarian assistance for such countries is suddenly stopped without even allowing adequate time for exploring alternatives, then this can have a very disruptive impact and a large number of human lives can be endangered.
Nevertheless the fact remains that several such stoppages have been taking place from time to time. Hence the question of whether such a blow can be avoided or at least softened becomes important.
In the wake of several such stoppages taking place in the recent past, the most notable examples perhaps being Afghanistan, Myanmar and some countries in the Sahel region, a recent research publication has sought to examine the implications of such stoppages, based on the available experiences of several countries as well as interviews with several stakeholders. This publication of the Norwegian Refugee Council brought out this year is titled ‘Weathering the Storm—why and how development finance actors should stay engaged during political crisis ’ and has been written by Lene Gronkgaer.
Apart from striving to answer this question this important publication also makes some more general comments regarding development and humanitarian assistance which have a wider relevance.
This publication takes a very clear stand by stating, “Humanitarian funding should be based on humanitarian needs alone, and must not be affected by political interests.”
While this should be quite clearly the precept to be followed, the reality today is different. As this publication notes on the basis of interviews, “Humanitarian activists in Afghanistan and Myanmar also said that donors at times used aid as a political tool, making funding decisions in response to policies of de facto authorities rather than the humanitarian needs on the ground.”
Another important point made in this research publication, based on extensive interviews, is that quite often humanitarian assistance, while it performs a very important role and even saves human lives in difficult conditions, remains confined year after year to the most basic and bare necessities instead of providing more durable kind of help. In the case of shelter, for example, year after year tents are provided instead of listening to the demand at the ground level for durable shelter and proper housing. Similarly in terms of meeting water needs year after year aid is given for water being brought in tankers or trucks, instead of arranging for proper water supply. There is need for more durable and sustainable development aid which should not be ignored.
As this study says, “The case studies revealed examples of short-term humanitarian interventions being used repeatedly to support the same people for years on end without helping people achieving longer-term outcomes.”
Now coming to the more basic question of this study relating to minimizing the harm or disruption caused by sudden stopping of development and sometimes even humanitarian aid to vulnerable countries, this study examines several instances of stoppage of such aid that are related to UCGs or unconstitutional changes in government. Whatever be the compulsions for such stoppages, noting the high costs of such stoppages for distressed people and communities this study argues that attempts should be made to minimize such disruptions.
One of the suggestions emanating from this study is for the donors to stay engaged after a UCG by using alternative funding modalities. Any possibility of disruption can also be minimized if the help from the outset is people-centered and not state-centered. Another suggestion, already pointed out, is to depoliticize aid. Diplomatic relations should continue to be maintained.
These and other suggestions should get sympathetic consideration keeping in view the need for avoiding disruptive impacts for already vulnerable people. As this study points, at the time of a pro-west government in Afghanistan, as much as 75% of the public spending was being done with foreign funds and so one can imagine the disruption caused, particularly in important sectors like education and health if and when such funds suddenly dry up, as happened to a large extent after the Taliban government took over.
Another important point noted in this study is that at times apart from stopping or suspending certain forms of aid, foreign exchange reserves and assets of the recipient country are also frozen, an extreme example being the freezing of as much as $9.5 billion of foreign exchange reserves of Afghanistan. This can clearly have a very adverse effect.
As avoiding such adverse and disruptive impacts on suffering and vulnerable people is very important, the findings and recommendations of this study should get wide ad sympathetic attention.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and A Day in 2071.