Humanitarian Responsibility in the Context of the Climate Crisis

The Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week (HNPW) takes place annually in Geneva, and serves as a platform for humanitarians and development professionals to meet and share their challenges and lessons learned from responding to crises around the world. This year’s event, which took place between the 3^rd and 7^th of February, was preoccupied with one challenge above all others: the climate crisis.

The Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week takes place annually in Geneva

This is not surprising. Greta Thunberg, Time’s Person of the Year for 2019, has focused global public attention onto the effects of human-made climate change to great effect, as other movements such as the Extinction Rebellion continue their actions to raise awareness and advocate for drastic action to tackle the biggest challenge of our time. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the fight against climate change the “battle for our lives” and pointed to the immediate need to cut emissions if we are to keep the global temperature from rising above 2C by 2030. Many climate scientists have warned that even if we were to halt all Co2 emissions tomorrow, we are still locked in for a 1.5 degree rise in global average temperatures. It is feared that the resulting increase in extreme weather events will lead to spiralling humanitarian need, with the IFRC’s Cost of Doing Nothing report putting the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance at 200 million – almost double the current number – by 2050.

Such a dramatic increase in humanitarian need is not something that the current system can handle. 2018’s State of the Humanitarian System report demonstrated that, despite a greater amount of funding than ever before, the humanitarian system was still only able to meet about 59% of global need. The massive shortfall in this case was largely as a result of the severe crises in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and other protracted conflict zones around the world, but looking to the future, the biggest threat to global peace and security will likely be the changing climate. The World Bank estimates that extreme weather events will result in 143 million more climate migrants by 2050. The ICRC, the arm of the Red Cross Movement that focuses on conflict, draws attention to the dual vulnerabilities of people in areas at risk of environmental degradation as a result of climate change, highlighting that worsening droughts, or more unpredictable weather patterns, can result in increasing competition for resources that can stoke intergroup tensions and lead to violence.

As Paul Knox-Clarke, author of the State of the Humanitarian System report, pointed out in an excellent session at the HNPW, the humanitarian system has historically been very good at responding to crises it is used to dealing with, and very bad at adapting to new challenges. The challenges associated with the climate crisis are likely to be on a scale that we have not previously seen. The mutually-reinforcing threats of environmental degradation, increased instability as a result of greater vulnerability to natural hazards, and rising intergroup tensions, will likely lead to longer-lasting humanitarian crises that have no clear political solutions.

It was clear at HNPW that systemic change to the humanitarian system would be required to meet the challenge of the climate crisis

The humanitarian system is already stretched beyond its limit, and more will be required of it as the effects of climate change become more pronounced.

What can we do to better prepare ourselves to respond to this new challenge?

Climate action must absolutely become a priority for all humanitarian actors. This starts with our own operations. Traditionally, the live-saving nature of humanitarian action meant that issues such as sustainability were a secondary concern – if flying around the world, shipping plastic tarpaulin to refugee camps, and burning natural gas for heating, cooking, and other basic services meant keeping communities affected by disasters or conflict alive, then they were necessary evils. But in the context of the climate crisis, such activities go against one of the core principles of humanitarian action; that any response will “do no harm” to the population it is trying to support. When, for example, it is estimated that the humanitarian sector spent about $1.2 billion on polluting fuel in camps, settlements, and on its fleets and offices in 2017 alone, we must ask if it can credibly be said that such actions are not having a detrimental effect on both the local environments being served and the global climate.

The Environment in Humanitarian Action Network session at HNPW showcased some promising developments for the sector. According to ongoing research from LSE, an increasing number of humanitarian organisations are developing environmental policies, and for the most-part UN agencies and their NGO counterparts are getting better at running their offices and HQ activities in a more sustainable way. However, we cannot yet be sure how well these policies are translating into effective activity at the field level. Humanitarian operations remain clunky, often inefficient, and reliant on transport and utilisation of potentially environmentally-damaging goods. Plastic is of great concern, and as the sector grapples with how to reduce the impact of its plastic usage during field operations (predominantly through the four-part plan to reduce the amount of plastic sent to operations, reuse and repurpose that which is sent, develop return-to-sender policies for unused material, and search for alternatives to non-biodegradable plastics), it must also be careful to ensure that the life-saving capacity of operations are not curtailed by an excessive focus on reducing carbon footprint or environmental impact.

The push for greater sustainability in a complex post-disaster or conflict situation is always going to be a delicate balancing act. How can we lower our own environmental impact whilst retaining a high level of service to affected populations?

QSAND, a post-disaster shelter and settlements sustainability tool developed by BRE Trust and IFRC, attempts to help organisations tackle this challenge by providing a framework through which issues related to environmental, economic, and social sustainability can be considered. Making decisions that will protect affected people in the short-term, and support long-term livelihoods and health, can be difficult in the chaotic environment in which humanitarian organisations operate. However, as the sector is forced to evolve to meet the demands of the climate crisis, there appear to be a few key areas in which our efforts should be focused:

QSAND can help with decision-making related to these issues in shelter and settlements programmes

Mainstreaming Environment into Decision-Making Practices

By nature of the work that humanitarians do, sustainability is necessarily going to be a secondary concern in comparison to the vital live-saving activities that must take place. However, sustainability issues must be a core focus of humanitarian decision-making, alongside issues of efficiency, cost, and durability of materials and services provided. Environmental training should be provided to all humanitarian workers, so that such considerations can be evaluated in an informed way. Whilst it is good practice to have environmental focal points who can monitor an operation’s impact within organisations, it is increasingly important that all staff have a good understanding of the implications of the decisions they make on the surrounding natural environment.

The development of user-friendly, non-technical guidance can enable non-subject experts to make quick decisions that take environmental impact into consideration.

Collaboration with Outside Actors

The humanitarian system does not need to reinvent the wheel. Issues such as supply chain sustainability, operational efficiency, life cycle assessments of projects, and ethical sourcing have already been addressed in other sectors such as the construction industry. Working with organisations that have done this before can enable humanitarians to adapt the relevant tools and methodologies used in other sectors to their own use. BRE Trust are particularly interested in supporting this activity, using our expertise in sustainability certification, supply chain management, and life cycle assessment to support the push for greater environmental awareness in the humanitarian sector.

The academic sphere also provides a large, relatively untapped resource for humanitarians. Increasingly, the sectors are learning to work together on joint research projects and on impact measuring initiatives. Whilst often academics and practitioners work to different time scales and sometimes have different priorities for project outputs, there are many examples of successful projects that provide invaluable learning opportunities for the sector. BRE Trust is looking to help foster these relationships between organisations in the field and our network of university partners. One example of this is our collaboration with Loughborough University, focused  on the use of renewable energy solutions to build community energy resilience.

In addition, conservation organisations can provide a useful bridge between humanitarian aims and the protection of the natural environment. Some organisations, such as the World Wildlife Fund, already have disaster management programmes that work closely with the humanitarian sector in disaster response, and many others can provide input in balancing the need for a quick response with the imperative to protect the natural world.

Seeing Nature as an Ally

There is nothing better at regulating the natural environment than the natural environment itself. As discussed in another HNPW session, nature-based solutions to disasters can enhance humanitarian response. In the conversation, it was suggested that environmental conservation could be an element of anticipatory humanitarian action. The Global Mangrove Alliance noted that without mangroves, 38% more people globally would be at risk of flooding. Trees are amongst the most successful of flood deterrents; their leaves intercept rain water, which will often evaporate again before touching the ground, and their roots absorb water that enters the soil. And the protection of soil itself is also key to limiting the impact of natural hazards – good soil increases crop yields, protecting livelihoods and offering nutrition to affected populations.

On the other hand, a failure to protect the environment can have far-reaching consequences. The reduction of natural resources as a result of environmental degradation can spark interethnic tensions in low-resource areas, leading to conflict. And violence is not limited to situations where different groups meet. New research demonstrates that environmental degradation can be a driving force behind rising rates of gender-based violence and sexual assault.

As the climate crisis shows, when we try to work against nature, we can fall foul of its wrath. Working with the natural world, we can develop better defences against hazards, and provide greater insulation against the underlying economic and social grievances that can trigger conflict between social groups.

Localisation

CRS' pilot project in Myanmar puts the local communities in the driving seat of their future. Photo Credit: CRS.

Lastly, and most importantly, in improving humanitarian sustainability, is localisation. Why send resources and personnel around the world when you have a local community looking to rebuild in the aftermath of a disaster or conflict?

The case for localisation is two-fold: first, it reduces the environmental impact of foreign aid staff travelling to far away places every time a disaster occurs, and secondly, it builds resilience and capacity to prepare and respond in communities that are likely to be affected by increasingly frequent and severe natural weather events. As the sector increasingly focuses on mainstreaming climate concerns into its programming, the role of local organisations and actors will necessarily grow to meet the challenge.

Catholic Relief Services’ (CRS)  new pilot project in Myanmar is a great example of this new way of looking at humanitarian response. In this project, CRS will be looking to build capacity within Karuna Mission Social Solidarity, a Myanmar-based NGO, to support families displaced by conflict as they are rehomed in new communities. The cash-based programming will allow the displaced people themselves to pay for the construction of their new homes, putting money into the local economy and strengthening relationships between the existing community and the beneficiaries. By engaging in training and capacity-building exercises with KMSS and local communities, CRS are providing at-risk populations with the skills they need to better prepare for, and respond to, future events that may cause disruption to their lives. In return, CRS can learn from the communities, who know far more about the local environment than international – or even national – actors, including how best to navigate local politics and interact with the local ecology.

Putting the affected people in the driving seat can help to improve not just the environmental sustainability of the operation, but also the economic and social sustainability of the communities that we are trying to help.

The new era of climate crisis is upon us, whether we like it or not. It is up to every sector of society, every organisation, and every individual to do what they can to tackle the new challenges that we face across the world. The humanitarian sector has its own role to play in ensuring that it is more responsible in its actions when considering its environmental impact. By doing so, we can get the best out of our own operations and give the best to the communities we serve. These are just some suggestions to push environmental action to the top of our agenda. There are many more. But whatever we decide to do, we must do it urgently. The time is now.

If you interested in learning more about QSAND and how the BRE Trust is supporting action for the environment in humanitarian action, visit the QSAND website or our Knowledge Hub. If you are interested in engaging with the networks dedicated to improving sustainability across the humanitarian sphere, visit the Environment in Humanitarian Action Network or the Environmental Community of Practice.

Poisoned Earth - Asbestos in Indonesia

The use of asbestos in buildings was banned in the UK in 1999. Originally touted as a useful, effective insulation material, it is now widely known that asbestos can have a very damaging effect on the human body. Particularly dangerous when breathed in, asbestos particles have been shown to cause respiratory infections, mesothelioma, and lung cancer. Despite subsequent efforts to manage asbestos filling in buildings, previous exposure to the substance still kills 4,500 people annually in the UK. Due to the usual long-term delay (from 15 – 60 years) of the development of symptoms following asbestos exposure, this remains a widespread health concern across the world. As of 2019, 66 countries globally have banned its use, and yet the WHO estimates 125 million people a year are still exposed to its effects.

And on a global level, we are not just dealing with pre-existing asbestos already in buildings. Countries such as Russia and Kazakhstan continue to export asbestos worldwide, mainly to developing countries engaging in large scale building projects. Notable consumers and users of asbestos include China, India, Thailand, and Indonesia.

Of particular importance is the widespread use of asbestos in Indonesia. This is because Indonesia is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, with an average of nearly 400 significant disasters befalling the country annually since 1990. The Indonesian government spends an average of $300 - $500 million a year on post-disaster reconstruction and recovery, following earthquakes, cyclones, flood events, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and tsunamis. That’s a lot of reconstruction. And that’s a lot of asbestos usage.

As the practice of asbestos management in the UK demonstrates, for the most-part, if asbestos is securely contained within the shell of a building, it is relatively safe. But if it starts to break down, for example when a building is demolished, then asbestos particles become very dangerous indeed. Therefore, the removal of asbestos is a highly specialised job that is tightly regulated. This is all well and good in a routine demolition project, as risks can be managed and precautions taken. However, when a building fitted with asbestos collapses due to a disaster, or when damaged buildings are bulldozed to make way for quick redevelopment of post-disaster shelter, as happened in Indonesia following the Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami in 2018, asbestos particles are released and contaminate the surrounding earth, air, and lungs of those sifting through the wreckage.

This poses a dual problem for humanitarian organisations responding to the disaster. Firstly, it directly impacts the capacity of humanitarian actors to respond. As mentioned, regulations for the handling and removal of asbestos are extensive, and many humanitarian organisations lack the personnel capable of undertaking these procedures. Even if they had such personnel, most of the asbestos guidance assumes that the material is still in the building, not seeping into the ground, water supply, and contaminating the air around the disaster area. As a result, many of the first-responders found themselves in a dangerous position in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami. Unprepared, and without appropriate hazmat clothing, many were concerned that they had been exposed to the deadly particles. As agencies became aware of this concern, it was clear that certain international humanitarian personnel were to be prevented from travelling to the affected area. Most humanitarian insurance policies, which can support staff in the cases of kidnap or attack, simply refuse to cover the risk of asbestos exposure. Such a lack of coverage raised serious concerns around the capacity of response operations to continue in Sulawesi and poses serious challenges to the continued presence of humanitarian responders in disaster areas where asbestos is present.

The second, and far more impactful, issue, is that of the threat to the affected population themselves. Globally, the estimated annual death rate due to asbestos exposure is around 200,000. In Indonesia, the impacts of exposure are still poorly understood, and many communities are at high risk of developing health complications as a result of the continued use of asbestos in pre- and post-disaster construction. Whilst local NGOs are working with communities to raise awareness of the issue, and in some cases win compensation for the dangerous practices of the government, there are still a significant number of people living in toxic buildings.

There is considerable debate in humanitarian circles around how best to quantify deaths as a result of disasters. For example, following the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the resulting displacement and lack of clean water supplies brought about largely by the destruction of infrastructure across the country led to the first cholera outbreak on the island in over a century. Should the 8,183 confirmed deaths from this outbreak be included in the death statistics for the earthquake itself? In the US, many of the first responders that were on the scene of the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11^th 2001 have since fallen ill or died as a result of what is referred to as World Trade Center illness (likely also mostly as a result of asbestos exposure). Are they further victims of the Al Qaeda attackers? And how many people in Indonesia and across the world that have been inadvertently exposed to asbestos poisoning as buildings collapse in disaster situations, who either have or will in the future develop severe respiratory problems, can claim they were victims of a natural event that occurred decades previously?

We know the risks of asbestos. In the West, its maintenance and removal has become a routine, if still difficult and relatively dangerous, activity. But as the global humanitarian system wrestles with the complicated and incredibly high-stakes challenge it poses, we must focus our attention on the affected communities and individuals now rebuilding their lives in a toxic environment. A session at this year’s Humanitarian Networks and Partnerships Week was dedicated to discussing the challenge of asbestos in humanitarian action, and this should be the start of a real investigation into the solutions to a global challenge.

Until an answer is reached, we must do our best to educate ourselves and others about the dangers of asbestos exposure around the world. And we must do what we can to support those victims of disasters or conflict, now striving to rebuild their lives on top of poisoned ground.