Why the Global Humanitarian System Must Look Beyond Emergency Aid

The conventional view of the international humanitarian system is that it is designed to tackle emergencies. Certainly, it is true that aid networks have a critical, often life-saving, role to play in sudden crises. Sadly however, many areas of conflict and displacement are now witnessing longer-term events that present an enduring backdrop to millions of people’s lives.

Protracted and increasingly interconnected conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, including in Yemen, several Horn of Africa countries as well as in Palestine and Lebanon, require further attention as traditional aid budgets—and accepted ways of doing things—seem unable to cope. OECD donor aid fell by 23 per cent last year, with global humanitarian assistance declining by 36 per cent. At the same time, the people caught up in these myriad crises may need support not for weeks or months, but for years to come.

This is forcing some to rethink how humanitarian aid is raised, how it is used and who best should be involved. Badr Jafar, the UAE’s special envoy for business and philanthropy, told The National that private capital is “looking for somewhere useful to go”. The challenge, he said, is that “someone has to connect the two”, that is, investment and humanitarian need.

That should not mean replacing aid with business. A company investing in water infrastructure, agricultural technology, health care or renewable energy is not necessarily providing humanitarian assistance. However, in fragile societies, such investment—and the skills and resources that come with it—can help mitigate the conditions that repeatedly generate humanitarian need. Acts of private philanthropy have a track record of success but are often too few. For example, in Rwanda, the Clinton-Hunter Development Initiative combined philanthropic capital with government and community partnerships, improving health care, water and sanitation.

It is clear that presenting direct budgetary aid is not enough to deal with humanitarian crises of increasing complexity. There is a growing case for bringing sectors together; the UAE—as a trusted and well-connected country diplomatically—can help achieve this. In the long run, emergency aid can keep people alive, but it is strategic investment that can help make their communities less vulnerable to the next shock.

There are limits to what can be achieved, and no single sector has all the answers. Philanthropy cannot rebuild every broken country, nor should private investment be presented as a substitute for governments, aid agencies or diplomacy. In many cases, ceasefires and a political process have to proceed before any significant philanthropic intervention. However, as the world faces interconnected wars, economic dislocation and climate pressures, innovative approaches become even more necessary.