The People and the Powerful in the Age of Climate Apartheid

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, has warned of a “climate apartheid” if more is not done to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of climate change. Following the recent IPCC report that stressed the immediacy with which we must act in order to prevent an irreversible global temperature rise, giving just 12 years to avert a global crisis, Alston’s warnings assert that current actions taken by the UN are “patently inadequate” and will lead to a scenario where the rich pay to escape the worst consequences of a changing climate, "while the rest of the world is left to suffer".

The poorest are undoubtedly already suffering the worst consequences of climate change. Small island developing states (SIDS) are facing existential threats from rising sea levels. More than 1.3 billion people globally live in deteriorating agricultural land, leading to year-on-year poverty increases in areas set to suffer the most in the coming decades. In many cases, natural events are even used as a catalyst to further marginalise the poorest in society, as in the government-led enforced exile of families living in informal settlements in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan.

Perhaps the best example of this gulf of consequence between the rich and poor was seen in the Caribbean following Hurricanes Irma and Maria of late 2017. In Puerto Rico, devastated by Maria and “forgotten” by US and international aid agencies, the poverty-stricken population continues its limp towards recovery. Meanwhile, as early as April 2018, just 7 months after the two 1-in-100-year hurricanes, 5-star resorts across the Caribbean were boasting of their newly renovated and upgraded hotels, largely paid for by insurance money following the damage of the hurricane season and attracting more tourist money to line the pockets of their owners.

It may seem obvious that those with the resources to prepare for the worst will weather the storm better than those without. But it would appear that if you collect enough resources and garner enough power, you do not even have to pay to mitigate your own risks. Following Hurricane Harvey, which caused almost unprecedented damage to the state of Texas, big oil firms successfully lobbied for a $3.9 billion grant from the US government’s public funds for three storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities. The total cost of Harvey was estimated at $125 billion, with 13 million people affected and a dramatic rise in Texans claiming unemployment benefit due to job loss following the disaster, as well as the closure of several dozen schools for over a month while they waited for repairs. That same year, Exxon Mobil alone reported profits of $6.2 billion, and Chevron of $4 billion, which begs the question of why public funding was needed to cover the cost of a storm barrier that would not actually protect those living in the Harvey-affected area.

The potential cascade effects of not tackling the climate emergency are equally chilling. Worsening violence between farmer and herder groups in rural Nigeria as a result of land degradation is already sending shockwaves through the country and the wider world, and increasing evidence suggests that worsening climate conditions will increase the likelihood of outbreaks of identity-based violence (IBV) and conflict. Alongside climate vulnerability, those in poverty are also often the most likely to suffer the consequences of IBV. A less predictable climate also has detrimental health effects, leading to increasing droughts (which also disproportionately affect the poor), and greater chance of disease outbreak (which, you’ve guessed it, has a greater impact on poor people).

Income inequality has risen dramatically between 1980 and today, with the top 1% richest individuals in the world capturing twice as much growth as the bottom 50% since 1980. Those top 1% include the board members of Big Oil companies and the owners of luxury hotel chains like those in the Caribbean, who have their disaster risk reduction costs paid for by insurance companies, tourists, and taxpayers. The bottom 50%, numbering nearly 4 billion people, includes the one-third of the global population who live in what the UN terms “slum conditions” and are not only the most likely to face total destruction of their property in the event of an extreme natural event, but are also least-likely to own the land on which their house was built and therefore to be forcibly relocated after the dust settles. Forced migration in the context of economic instability is likely to result in rising identity-based tension that often spills over into violence.

So Big Oil keeps pumping unimpeded, directly contributing to the climate crisis which we all face, and the poor die.

Philip Alston’s report reinforces the growing “No Natural Disasters” movement, which aims to raise awareness of the human-made root causes of disasters. According to their website, “a hazard will only become a disaster should it impact the workings of a society or community”, and thus it is the decisions and make-up of the society that turn a natural hazard event into a disaster. Christian Aid explained the reality of “natural” disasters succinctly in a 2005 report: “In San Francisco, where tall buildings stand on rollers that move with the tremors, the last major earthquake caused the deaths of 62 people. In Turkey, an earthquake of similar magnitude killed 17,000”. Both are tragedies, but which would we qualify as a disaster?

How we plan our communities, how we build our structures, how we educate people on risks and vulnerabilities, how quickly and effectively we respond when a hazard occurs, and how we channel funding for disaster mitigation and response, drastically influences the outcome of any singular event. With the growing threat of climate change making life far more unpredictable and dangerous for every single one of us, we need to examine the role that we play in our own insecurity.

People are increasingly aware of the threat that climate change poses. The global School Strike for Climate movement, the Extinction Rebellion protests, and movements such as #NoNaturalDisasters, all serve to educate and empower ordinary people to make a change.

It was the power of ordinary people that ended apartheid in South Africa after decades of destructive and inhumane leadership that served only the interests of the powerful.

The power of ordinary people can do the same for the climate apartheid.

Oxfam, Amnesty, and a Collective Crisis of Conscience

The recent Charity Commission report into Oxfam’s mismanagement of serious sexual misconduct by its staff in Haiti highlighted a "culture of poor behaviour" in one of the UK’s leading humanitarian organisations. This poor behaviour included covering up allegations of abuse and a failure to adequately investigate claims that Haiti country-director Roland van Hauwermeiren had been using prostitutes as young as 12 years old throughout Oxfam’s response to the 2010 earthquake. In response to the report, the UK government has now given Oxfam three weeks to clean up its act, or to risk losing hundreds of millions of pounds of funding in programmes.

This catastrophic failure of safeguarding procedures calls into question not just Oxfam’s policies and processes, but those of the entire international humanitarian sector. Arriving on the heels of an independent report undertaken into the “toxic” workplace culture of Amnesty International following the suicide of two employees in 2018,  and the Save the Children sexual harassment scandal in which 1 in 5 staff members reported workplace harassment or discrimination in the previous three years, this report added fuel to the fire of a burgeoning distrust of the humanitarian sector more generally. For a system that aims to uphold human rights and international law, such failures do more than damage an individual’s or organisation’s reputation; they threaten the whole system’s capacity to function.

The Overseas Development Institute hosted an event on the 11^th of June 2019, coincidentally the day of the release of the Charity Commission report on Oxfam, in which the future of the humanitarian system was discussed. Representatives from several big players in the humanitarian sphere, including Mercy Corps, Solidarités International, and Christian Aid, were to debate the merits of merging International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) in order to streamline international aid. The conversation quickly transitioned towards the wider issue of legitimacy in the humanitarian sphere.  

As these recent damning reports against massive global organisations such as Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Save the Children highlight, a scandal in one place can severely damage effectiveness across the entire programme. In the wake of the scandal, Oxfam immediately saw a drop of 7,000 regular public donors, whilst Save the Children saw revenues drop from £406m in 2017 to £303m in 2018. But more than any one organisation, this issue weakens trust in the entire system.

Large INGOs are no strangers to controversy, alternately being accused of cultural imperialism and promoting neoliberalism in developing countries, all whilst impeding development in local actors by preventing growth of local economies and skills. Meanwhile, ODA and government-led agencies are contributing to the politicisation of aid, detracting from the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality that supposedly guide the sector. As a result, developing countries are increasingly turning their backs on the international humanitarian system.

But it doesn’t need to be like this.

In large part, the current crisis in the sector has been caused by the hubris of some of the big “celebrity” INGOs, whose focus has drifted away from the beneficiaries of humanitarian aid towards their own reputations. This, they might argue, is out of necessity. Oxfam executives might look to justify ignoring allegations of sexual misconduct if the revelation that they were true would prevent the continuation of the other good work being done in the country. For an organisation that requires access to a community of people in need, a good reputation is everything. But a good reputation cannot come at the cost of the principle of “do no harm”. When humanitarian agencies are covering up the exploitation and abuse of local populations, or managers are pushing workers to breaking point in order to achieve results, we must acknowledge that the ends no longer justify the means.

As Nasra Ismail, Acting Director of a Somalian NGO Consortium, pointed out in the debate at ODI, some of the brightest NGOs, that produce the best results, are largely invisible in the field. She argues that for the most part, this is because effective INGOs work extensively through local networks and smaller NGOs that are already embedded in the communities they serve. These individuals and groups are far better equipped to deal with the unique complications of their own situation, especially when guided by the backing and technical knowledge of an effective global partner.

Localisation of humanitarian action has the dual benefit of improving the actual work itself – by reinforcing local skills, building on local knowledge, and allowing international actors to learn from traditional and local methods – and reducing the power imbalance between international and local people that can breed misconduct. A strong, well-vetted partnership empowers community members to lead their own response and reduces the capacity for international aid workers to exert undue influence over the affected population. Having multiple organisations involved in the process also limits the opportunity to cover up a case of abuse or exploitation, as was the case with Oxfam in Haiti, because partner agencies can provide oversight of each other’s actions.

The humanitarian system must always make sure that humans are put first in its priorities. Competition for funding, positive headlines, and goodwill has led some of the larger NGOs to lose their way in this regard.

As with many issues facing humanitarian crises globally, the answer is local.