In Defence of the Truth - A Weapon Against Tyranny

Four years ago, Donald Trump became President. His campaign was one that revelled in the counterfactual, following arguably his first foray into mainstream politics with his racist claims that Barrack Obama was not an American citizen. Overnight, the world became familiar with the phrase that has defined not just his administration, but the global context that we currently find ourselves in. “Fake news” is king. Mainstream news media has been consistently attacked by governments around the world. Social media has allowed for the propagation of disinformation as effectively at it has democratised access to real facts.

Fake news as a concept gained popularity around 2016 and was quickly adopted by Donald Trump in his unhinged rants aimed at media outlets such as CNN, Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and basically anyone else who said something he did not like. In 2017, he shut down a CNN reporter’s question by asserting “you are fake news”. In 2018, he even hosted the “Fake News Awards”, where again, CNN featured heavily. On the 28^th May 2020, a CNN reporter was arrested by armed police whilst reporting on the Minneapolis protests that emerged in response to the murder of George Floyd in cold blood by a Minnesota police officer. Several other journalists have been targeted in the days since. This escalation was far from without warning, but it adds a new dimension to the violence targeted at African-Americans that suggests there will be an even less apologetic, more openly antagonistic police response to these protests than to the last major unrest in 2014/15.

George Floyd and his murderer Derek Chauvin. Photos: NY Times.

Coming just weeks after heavily-armed white militia entered the Michigan state capitol in protest against coronavirus lockdown measures, the murder of George Floyd understandably has led to a public outcry. How does a group of white men wielding assault rifles and wearing combat fatigues get to go home to their families after occupying a state building, whilst an unarmed black father of two, suspected of forgery (after allegedly using forged documents and a counterfeit $20 note to order food at a deli) is condemned to die with a knee on his throat? 6 years after the death of Eric Garner, which helped spur the Black Lives Matter Movement, another black man died at the hands of a white policer officer after uttering the final words “I can’t breathe”. They are two of many. The outrage felt by millions over this systemic racism and brutality has spilled out into protests before, but the Trump administration's complete disregard for the concerns of protestors, and Trumps tacit support for white supremacist groups in his rhetoric has given rise to a new anger that his government will be incapable of quelling.

Armed white protestors pictured in Michigan a few weeks ago, protesting the coronavirus lockdown, seen wielding assault rifles, some displaying confederate flags and even swastikas. Considered less dangerous than an unarmed black man accused of forging a check. Currently at home with their families. 

Protests broke out almost immediately across Minnesota, and with the announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against the four officers involved (Derek Chauvin has now been arrested in response to the outcry), these protests continued to gather steam and riots broke out. In this moment of crisis, President Donald Trump appeared to take to Twitter to advocate for the use of lethal force to restore order, stating “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. Aside from the obviously sinister undertones of that statement, and the similarly racist use of the term “thugs” to describe the protestors, Twitter determined that this tweet in particular breached their rules because it glorified violence - a finding that it is impossible to deny. However, this, along with another spat about Trump’s fake claims regarding mail-in ballots that Twitter pointed out were untrue and required fact-checking, has led the President to sign an executive order attempting to prevent Twitter from adding these warnings to his absurd and dangerous tweets. Pointing out that basically everything the President tweets to the world is untrue is, according to Trump, an attack on his free speech.

Some of the Tweets that Twitter deemed in violation of their rules

This coming from the administration that has just arrested a CNN reporter for covering a major news story that portrays the police and government in a bad light.

Lie in order to spread doubt over the democratic process for the upcoming election. Lie to demonise a rightly angry population. Lie to protect your power, and lie to allow the lying to continue. Accuse those who are trying to bring the truth to light of being “fake news”, and then incite violence against them. These are the actions of man who is eroding democracy. These are the actions of a fascist and a dictator.

How can we hold governments to account, when we do not know what the facts are?

We have access to more information that at any point in human history, which means we also have access to more disinformation than ever before. Increasingly, authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies alike are leaning on the confusion caused by this overwhelming amount of data to strengthen their political positions.

So, let’s get some facts straight.

George Floyd was murdered by a police officer who had had several previous accusations of racism brought against him. In response, angry protestors took to the streets. Those protests escalated to riots following a heavy-handed police response. And Donald Trump took to Twitter to incite violence against an angry, disenfranchised, and oppressed section of US society. He branded those who disagree with his white supremacist, inflammatory rhetoric as “fake news”. He praised those in his supporter base who threatened journalists, political opponents, rights campaigners, and anyone else who dared point out his ignorance.

US citizens continue to be murdered on the streets by a police force that is supposed to protect them. Reporters, attempting to tell the story as it unfolds, are arrested. And, regardless of reality, if what you say contradicts the President, you are wrong.

Trump would have you believe that there is only one reality, one truth, and it’s the one inside his head. Do I really need to spell out where that sort of thinking ends up?

The truth still matters. And we have to defend it.

Learn how to counter disinformation here:

https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/RESIST_Toolkit.pdf

Find out more about protecting the rights of journalists, and support real freedom of speech here:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/right/freedom-of-expression/

Donate to help cover the legal fees on the Minnesota protestors here: https://minnesotafreedomfund.org/donate

No Such Thing As Normal - Dreaming of a Post-COVID World

In the UK, we are now over a month into the COVID-19 lockdown that has brought the world to a halt. The death figures continue to rise, and our government appears to mark each day with new revelations of catastrophic mismanagement of the crisis and a seeming overwhelming drive to protect themselves rather than the public. In an atmosphere of uncertainty, people have become increasingly unsure of what to do during this lockdown. Counterfactual narratives have been shared across social media platforms, with no response from officials or health experts, and impatience at the perceived draconian measures being taken to prevent the virus spreading is growing.

A glimpse of the kind of discord that lockdown measures can sow is evident in the absurd anti-quarantine protests currently taking place across the United States. Although the number of people involved in the protests is currently relatively small, their impact has been to poison the discourse around the coronavirus lockdown in the states and embolden those who would break the rules intended to prevent the spread of the virus. These protests grow as President Donald Trump insanely suggests that perhaps disinfectant could be injected as a response to COVID-19. His statement prompted global disinfectant manufacturers Dettol and Lysol to warn people against ingesting their products.

Nurses face down anti-lockdown protesters in Colorado, US. Credit: Alyson McClaran/Reuters.

What is happening in the US right now is absurd and dystopian. It goes beyond satire, but we mustn’t forget that its real. And in other countries, like the UK, the same anti-scientific trend cuts a more insidious path. Our own Prime Minister proudly proclaimed that he “shook hands with everybody” in a COVID-19 hospital ward at the end of March. At the time of writing, he finally returns to work after a bout of COVID-19 that nearly killed him. In his absence, our government continues to lie about its coronavirus response – first promising 100,000 tests a day by the end of April which seem incredibly unlikely to materialise, then deliberately dodging questions related to the number of COVID-19 deaths in care homes, and unsuccessfully trying to inflate the number of tests of NHS workers currently being completed daily in parliamentary questions. Simultaneously, BBC panorama reports that “more than half of all the PPE items [included in official figures] are surgical gloves - and in most cases, each individual glove is counted rather than pairs.” (emphasis my own). That means that the UK government is deliberately inflating the number of PPE items it is claiming to have delivered to frontline workers, as it is announced that over 100 NHS staff have now died of COVID-19.

But whilst the news appears to bombard us with more shocking revelations every day about our lack of preparedness, our botched responses, our hypocritical leaders, growing social tension, and rising deaths, something else is also happening, quietly and without acknowledgement in the mainstream media. I first noticed when I realised I had found myself agreeing with Piers Morgan, of all people, as he challenged government ministers on their handling of the crisis. Then I noticed that my neighbours on my street, none of whom have I spoken to before, have started to chat to each other over garden walls after the weekly clap for the NHS. You can look at volunteering figures in the country and find that support agencies cannot keep up with the demand of people wanting to help out however they can. The skies are clearer, nature is returning, people are learning to adapt and cope in a situation they never would have dreamed of 5 months ago. People are coming together, across political lines and social divides, giving up time to help others and try to make a difference.

This gives me hope for the future after the crisis subsides.

Dramatically reduced pollution levels across London and Europe as a result of the lockdown. Credit: Descartes Labs.

We are far from out of the woods. There is a lot more turmoil, disruption, and heartache for us to bear. But this will one day end. With a vaccine, perhaps a cure, better treatment, a better protected, more resilient health care system, and a greater appreciation for the need to prepare, properly fund and support our health care workers and medical researchers, we will emerge from this crisis.

But we should not long to return to normal.

Normal was 10 years of austerity, politicians cheering at halting pay rises for junior doctors, rising xenophobia and racism across the developed world, continuing inequality, and a global population marching blindly off the cliff of the climate crisis. I was pissed off at the world long before COVID-19, and so were many others.

The pandemic has been worsened by much of this action. The crisis has been defined by NHS staff and essential workers going into battle without proper protection. It has been defined by catastrophic mismanagement by our leadership. It has been an excuse to further alienate outside groups and turn inwards. It has been a global crisis, and a personal tragedy for millions. And it will continue to be, for many more months.

But it has also been a time to come together. Physically distant but socially strong, millions have volunteered for NHS support roles, and many more have signed up to deliver food and medicines to the most vulnerable. We've all found ways to stay connected in this darkest of times. It has been clearer skies, falling pollution, a return of nature to our global beauty spots. It has been a time of reflection, a time of appreciation for those things we previously took for granted. It has been a time of learning. We can change. We have changed. And, if necessary, we will change again.

One day we will turn on the news and we will have beaten this silent killer. We will have overcome. We will be able to see our families again, to go out with friends again, to travel, to go to public spaces, to sit in a beer garden or go to a football game or an art gallery, to go to a gig or watch a show. We will be able to return to our social norms.

But we must not return to normal.

We must do better.

We can do better.

We will do better.

COVID-19 has exposed the weaknesses in our governments that must be addressed when this comes to an end. Leaders must be held to account for their failures in managing the crisis. But COVID-19 has also exposed the weaknesses in ourselves. And we must be held to account as well. We must ask who we want to be.

For every landlord who kicked out essential staff for fear they would bring the infection into their homes, many more have welcomed them in with free accommodation. For every attacker who targeted Asian minorities in countries around the world, others have focused on supporting Asian businesses and highlighting their importance to our country. To those who flouted social distancing rules and met up with friends and family, remember that millions of others stayed home. To the hoarders, and to the conspiracy theorists spreading medical misinformation, and to the anti-lockdown protestors, you should remember how you acted in this time of crisis. And you should remember that you are in the minority.

Selfishness, callousness, and stupidity have defined some of us during this time. But the majority have shown resilience, capacity to adapt and change, compassion, kindness, and solidarity. The new world that emerges after the crisis will need a lot more of that.

I've spent a lot of time throughout this despairing at the news of government failure, community failure, and global indifference. No doubt I will feel that a lot more before we are through. But we will get through. And we get to choose what our new dawn looks like.

The challenges will be many. Containing, treating, and slowing the spread of COVID-19 in developing countries with poorer health care systems will be a far bigger task than even here in the UK. The challenge of COVID in refugee camps and slums globally seems insurmountable. We must do all we can to aid the poorest among us, as they will suffer the most if we do not. If we weather the coronavirus storm, the climate crisis will lead to greater devastation, more upheaval, more ruined livelihoods and premature deaths, but we now know that we can and will respond to these threats when we have to. So we must.

Tackling the joint challenges of coronavirus, poverty, and overcrowding in slums will be a key obstacle to global recovery from this pandemic. Credit: Getty Images.

The coronavirus pandemic has taught us above all else that we are a global community. When a disease breaks out in China, it will bring Europe to its knees weeks later. If COVID is controlled in one place but not another, it will return with a vengeance at similar speed. Similarly, if we do not lower our carbon emissions in the Western world, before the end of the century Pacific Islands will be underwater, and Africa and Asia will face worse storms than we can currently conceive. Violence and instability in distant parts of the world will prompt mass displacement, and spawn the rise of far-right hate groups in countries receiving refugees. What each and every one of us does at every moment matters, because we are all connected.

If you ignore social distancing now and go to see your friends when you should be in lockdown, you could unknowingly spread the virus and kill someone you will never meet. If you share a Facebook Post with incorrect medical advice, a friend of a friend might see it, follow it, and end up in hospital taking up a bed someone else might need. If you clap for the NHS without holding the government who failed to provide them with appropriate PPE to account, more doctors will die.

If you go back to normal when this pandemic is over, we can expect more frequent, more severe disasters around the corner. A more unstable and dangerous world can lead to people turning on each other, and greater levels of intergroup violence and hatred. If you do not stand up to those who share bigotry, xenophobia, racism and sexism today, it will be too late by then.

Once this is over, let's not get back to normal. Breathe the cleaner air, hear the birds sing, be thankful for the privilege of being able to social distance and keep safe. And fight like hell for those who can't, and who won't be protected from the next crisis. Though it might not feel like it, today we are the lucky ones. Tomorrow we might not be. But whatever happens, we will always have each other.

If nothing else, COVID-19 should teach us that.

Coronavirus volunteering opportunities:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/participation/get-involved/volunteering/#

https://www.redcross.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer

Donate to organisations fighting coronavirus in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/apr/11/donate-help-victims-coronavirus-hospital-food-bank

https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/uk-emergency-response/coronavirus

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coronavirus-charity-donate-how-to-help-support-vulnerable-a9437711.html

And abroad:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/donate

https://thekanjiproject.org.uk/tkp-coronavirus-statement/

Learn the facts:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

COVID-19 and the Threat of Disaster Fascism

On the 30^th March, the Hungarian Parliament voted 137 – 53 to give Viktor Orban’s government the power to rule by decree in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such measures, ostensibly in order to give the government a free-hand to take action against the spread of the virus, have raised significant concerns both within Hungary and across Europe, with critics arguing that it gives Orban “unnecessary and unlimited power”. Particularly worrying is the fact that these powers have been bestowed upon Orban with no time limit, effectively, in the words of opposition leader Peter Jakkab, placing the whole of Hungarian democracy “in quarantine” indefinitely.

Despite support in the public sphere for governments to have tight control over their coronavirus response, the main worry is that certain individuals and governments may use this power to their own advantage. Viktor Orban has long been seen as a threat to democracy in Hungary, and since rising to power in 2010 has systematically chipped away at many of the checks and balances of the Hungarian state. His far-right populist policies, claims that Europe is “under invasion”, and authoritarian tendencies have plagued policy-makers in the European Union since long before the current crisis. COVID-19 has given him the push he needed to seize absolute control of Hungary, ostensibly as a legitimate response to the current emergency. His track record, however, suggests that such powers will be used to further solidify his position, leading some to claim that with Hungary, COVID-19 has “killed its first democracy”.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban - the first Western leader to use COVID-19 for personal gain?

Whilst it remains to be seen if such fears have been misplaced, the threat of authoritarian rulers using the COVID-19 pandemic to consolidate their own power and pursue external goals is very real. It could be argued that the pandemic has taken hold at an unfortunate time in history, where many states around the world are witnessing a shift towards authoritarian thinking. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, for instance, has flouted the international norm and pushed ahead with continued economic and social activity across Brazil, despite members of his own cabinet falling victim to the virus. In response to criticisms of his approach, he has threatened to fire his health ministers and scientific advisers. As Bolsonaro continues to bury his head in the sand, it has fallen to Rio's gangs to enforce social distancing measures in the communities they inhabit.

In India, Hindu-nationalist leader Narendra Modi has been widely criticised for his botched handling of the lockdown which resulted in widespread violence and displacement across the country. In a context of great division even before the pandemic, Indian minority groups now fear that the lockdown measures will be used as a way to further disenfranchise and disconnect them from access to government support. Muslim groups, displaced by pogroms in Delhi, can expect little to no support from the government in the coming weeks. With those forced to exist in displaced people’s camps, with little to no medical support or capacity to self-isolate, the coronavirus can be expected to spread rapidly amongst these vulnerable groups. A rising number of sick Muslims in India could easily be weaponised as a way to further alienate the group from the Hindu majority, and these populations can expect to be scapegoated as the crisis deepens in the coming weeks.

Xenophobia and racism can spiral in times of crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. Donald Trump’s insistence at referring to the virus as the “Chinese Virus” highlights the way that populists can turn an emergency into a blame game. China’s own authoritarian leadership has been quick to fuel rumours that the coronavirus outbreak may have been caused by the US military in an act of biological warfare, an absurd claim that nevertheless escalates the war of words between the superpowers and undermines global diplomacy at a time where it is needed more than ever. With the outbreak originating in China, there will undoubtedly be questions directed at the management of the early stages of the spread of the virus in Wuhan, and many of them will be well-placed and require hard answers. With global economies sliding into free-fall thanks to COVID-19, China finds itself in the firing line as stock markets tank, industries collapse, and people lose their livelihoods. 

Accompanying this real need for accountability comes ignorance, scapegoating, and thinly-veiled racism.

Never far from the crest of any wave of opportunistic race-baiting, Nigel Farage is again making headlines for attacking the UK government for its decision to purchase ventilators from China, with others suggesting that we cannot ‘trust’ the Chinese to sell uncontaminated ventilators. With reports that US government officials are referring to the virus as the “Kung Flu” in response to Chinese-American reporters asking questions, and increasing vitriol being posted on social media accounts across the West aimed at Chinese users, it seems clear that we are witnessing a global rise in hate speech as the pandemic continues. Such rhetoric has spilled over into actions, with reports of mob-violence directed at Asian people in the UK, and a “shocking rise” in hate crimes reported by police, even with the current social distancing conditions in the country.

In response to such behaviour, already stretched emergency services can and should respond to limit the damage caused by those who do not follow the rules of the lockdown. In the UK, we’ve seen allegations of the rise of a “police state” as forces around the country seek to limit interpersonal contact. Such a claim is absurd and ridiculous, but it demonstrates how uncomfortable British people are with government encroachment on their own social lives. In Italy, we’ve seen increasingly aggressive tactics being used by stretched-to-the-limit police forces trying to ensure people stay on lockdown. In Spain, the military has been deployed to keep people inside.

The Spanish military enforcing lockdown measures. Credit: Olive Press.

Avoiding these authoritarian measures is simple. Do what is being advised by the experts. Stay inside, keep your distance from others, support the vulnerable in your community where possible, wash your hands, and do everything possible to slow the spread of the virus. If we practice personal responsibility, and social solidarity, then our governments need not intervene as stringently on our behalf.

We in the West do not take kindly to the sort of authoritarian response that has been seen in China. We do not do well when our civil liberties are threatened. Some people take this to mean they do not have to follow government advice. But those people should remember that in a crisis, advice can very quickly become an order. In an attempt to protect its people, a government sometimes has to make undemocratic decisions. In the case of Hungary, the country’s leadership has solidified its power in order to respond to an unprecedented crisis. When the pandemic has subsided, Hungary may just find that one of the victims of COVID-19 was its democratic values.

Strong, sometimes draconian, measures will be required to combat the spread of COVID-19. Governments will be forced to make decisions that they would never consider in business-as-usual circumstances. In some cases, the democratic process may have to be postponed. There are many legitimate reasons for governments to impose more direct rule in a time of crisis. But now is no time to blindly support the actions of national leaders. We must watch closely what is done, critique the decisions that are made, and be definitive about where we as citizens draw our hard lines on what we deem acceptable intervention on our behalf.

The COVID-19 pandemic will pass, and when it does, we will be left with the consequences of our actions during this time. This means we must take personal responsibility for every decision we make. This means social solidarity with our neighbours and communities, helping the vulnerable where we can, and abiding by social distancing measures to slow the spread. This also means holding our governments to account for their actions during this time. If we do not take personal responsibility for halting the spread of COVID-19, our governments will be forced to enact more authoritarian policies to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable. Once that power is wielded, it can be difficult to put back in the box.

We all want the COVID-19 pandemic to be brought to an end. The only measure to stop the spread of the virus is to keep ourselves physically distant from one another until we have a vaccine or a cure. That can be achieved by a mass movement of social solidarity, or through government force.

Now more than ever, we need to look at our leaders, and look at ourselves, and ask what kind of society we want to live in.

The most insidious side effect of COVID-19 could be the way it erodes the social fabric of our democracies globally. We cannot allow that to happen.

Stay physically distant, but socially engaged. Help your friends, your neighbours, and the most vulnerable in your communities. Hold your governments to account. Use this crisis to build a new world that is better equipped to cope with whatever the future may hold. Do not look blame others. The power is in every one of us to do the right thing and avoid the threat of disaster fascism encroaching on our liberties and our lives.

The Spiralling Impacts of COVID-19 for the Humanitarian and Development Sector

The global coronavirus pandemic has rocked whole societies and ground economies to a halt across the world. In the UK, the NHS is expected to be stretched far beyond its limit, businesses are closing down, and people are being advised to self-isolate to limit the spread. In a well-developed, well-prepared society like the UK, such challenges are scary, but there is a good chance that if safety precautions are followed the spread of the virus can be brought under control. But we have already seen that COVID-19 has the capacity to cripple even developed nations’ healthcare systems, such as in Italy and China, and developed nations across the world are taking increasingly draconian measures to fight the greatest public health crises in recent memory.

But if COVID-19 is capable of wreaking such havoc across some the best-prepared nations on earth, then its impact on populations without access to the services we take for granted will be exponentially greater.

Photo Credit: Norwegian Refugee Council. A Syrian boy poses for a picture during an awareness workshop on coronavirus (COVID-19) at a camp for displaced people in Atme town in Syria's northwestern Idlib province, near the border with Turkey.

For instance, one of the worst affected nations currently is Iran. The country is facing near-total breakdown, with leaders dying, reports of mass burial pits for victims of the coronavirus, and an unknown death toll that some warn could eventually reach into the millions. Government mismanagement of the response has been blamed, as has the unfortunate timing of the virus arriving in the city of Qom during a mass Shia pilgrimage to the site, which may have helped speed up the spread. But many others are pointing to the severe limitations of Iran’s capacity to deal with the outbreak due to the continued US sanctions placed on the country. Due to the confusing nature of the sanctions, certain exemptions for humanitarian imports are still not translating into available materials for healthcare providers.

For example, a sanction on paper material entering the country has resulted in many doctors and nurses facing work without such basic equipment as facemasks. As Human Rights Watch pointed out in October, “while the US government has built exemptions for humanitarian imports into its sanctions regime … in practice these exemptions have failed to offset the strong reluctance of US and European companies and banks to risk incurring sanctions and legal action by exporting or financing exempted humanitarian goods.” The result, they conclude, “has been to deny Iranians access to essential medicines and to impair their right to health.”

And Iran is not the only country struggling with sanctions as it attempts to contain and delay COVID-19. Syria, too, has seen a war-weakened health system further impeded by international sanctions. Although, as with Iran, exemptions are made for humanitarian aid, in Syria’s case an embargo on oil imports has meant that ambulances have been left without fuel. Other countries with weaker health systems than those in the west will undoubtedly suffer more greatly. This is a political and economic crisis as much as a public health one, and our actions with regard to each other will impact the outcome of our response.

However, citizens of poorer countries can still practice the same self-isolation techniques as those of us in the UK. Other groups, such as refugees and internally displaced persons’ do not have the luxury of locking themselves away in homes. In Moria camp in Greece, for instance, the threat of COVID-19 is looming large over the front-line doctors working daily to support new arrivals in the overcrowded, underfunded camps. Medecins sans Frontieres have called for an immediate evacuation of the camp, highlighting that in some areas there is only one water tap for up to 1,300 residents, making widescale cross contamination almost inevitable. Since the first confirmed case in Moria on the 13^th March, the Greek government has called a temporary suspension of non-state organisations working in the camps, which MSF argues will lead to a much more severe crisis in the coming weeks.

And even in the absence of government suspensions of activity, humanitarian organisations are finding it harder and harder to do their jobs as COVID-19 spreads around the globe. Jan Egeland, the head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, himself currently in quarantine, highlighted the difficulties of continuing to work in a context where many staff members are sick and showing symptoms of the novel coronavirus, or are otherwise unable to travel to their worksites, saying that the COVID-19 response should be “treated like a warzone”. Agencies are scrambling to deliver public health services in contexts of displacement and conflict to help slow the spread of coronavirus, but they are also finding their ongoing activities hindered or halted entirely due to the pandemic.

The World Bank has now committed $14 billion to fighting COVID-19 in developing countries, and particularly in supporting local private sector networks to continue to work and keep supply chains moving in areas that require support to keep hospitals and food markets open, but much more must be done to support the most vulnerable populations in this time of crisis. Much like within the UK, we must be aware that poor, elderly, immunocompromised, or isolated individuals need greater support than the majority of us for whom coronavirus may just be a severe flu, we must take a global perspective when planning our response to the crisis as a whole.

To stop a pandemic, everybody needs to be prepared. In the same way that those of us currently stockpiling our own hand sanitiser, hand soap, toilet paper, and other sanitary products are in fact increasing the risk of the virus continuing to spread by leaving others without access to these goods (what good is having five boxes of hand sanitiser if your neighbour and colleague can’t get any and therefore they catch the virus and pass it onto you!?), it is not enough to protect our own communities and nations. This is a global pandemic, and it needs global solutions.

We are entering unprecedented times. The last major global outbreak like this, during the 1918 Flu pandemic, took place in a very different context, where the world was still much less interconnected than today. A global population approaching 8 billion, with people living closer together, with far more efficient road, rail, and air transport systems, working jobs that often require international collaboration, has never before had to deal with something as severe as COVID-19.

Unfortunately, the best treatment for COVID-19 appears to be self-isolation. This may slow the spread of the virus, but in the process of protecting ourselves we must continue to (figuratively!) embrace our humanity and think of others. There is no Noah’s Ark to save just some of us from the flood. Nor, do I believe, should we wish for that. Together, we are more intelligent, more resilient, and more powerful than this virus.

Listen to advice, do what you can to help, be kind, reach out to those who are isolated and vulnerable, and stay safe.

Find out how you can help during these difficult times here:

https://staythefuckhome.com/

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/elderly-coronavirus-how-help-older-vulnerable-people-supermarket-shopping/

https://www.thecut.com/2020/03/dont-spread-coronavirus-misinformation.html

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.