{"id":51193,"date":"2024-03-28T23:15:52","date_gmt":"2024-03-28T23:15:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/globalcommunities.org\/?p=51193"},"modified":"2024-04-09T16:03:12","modified_gmt":"2024-04-09T16:03:12","slug":"adapting-and-innovating-in-a-volatile-world-reflections-from-the-2024-fragility-forum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/globalcommunities.org\/blog\/adapting-and-innovating-in-a-volatile-world-reflections-from-the-2024-fragility-forum\/","title":{"rendered":"Adapting and Innovating in a Volatile World: Reflections from the 2024 Fragility Forum\u00a0\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By Paula Rudnicka, Sr. Manager for Public Affairs\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Last month, the World Bank held its 2024 Fragility Forum<\/strong><\/a> \u2013 a biannual conference that brings together policymakers, researchers and practitioners from humanitarian, development and peacebuilding communities to exchange knowledge and ideas about how to improve our approaches in fragile, conflict and violence-affected settings. This year\u2019s theme was \u201cAdapting and Innovating in a Volatile World.\u201d<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n After the Forum, I asked my Global Communities\u2019 colleagues who attended the event for their reflections. Kelly Van Husen<\/strong>, Vice President for Humanitarian Assistance; Patricia Dorsher<\/strong>, Senior Manager for Humanitarian Business Development; Meena Grigat<\/strong>, Director of Humanitarian and Nexus Business Development; and Patrick Woodruff<\/strong>, Manager for Humanitarian Assistance participated in the exchange. The conversation was edited for length and clarity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Paula: <\/strong>In most of the sessions I attended, the panelists painted a bleak picture. The world is increasingly fragile, marred with compounded crises<\/strong> and intertwined risks, from protracted conflicts and climate disasters to chronic political instability and widespread food insecurity. The World Bank estimates that by 2030, almost 60% of the world’s poor will live in countries classified as fragile and conflict-affected situations<\/a> (FCS). During the opening session, Anna Bjerde, Managing Director of Operations at the World Bank noted that we cannot end poverty without addressing fragility. She also said, \u201cI\u2019m going to be very honest with you. \u2026 We are not preventing conflict.\u201d Why? What are the key factors behind these alarming trends? <\/p>\n\n\n
Patricia<\/strong>: I have been working on our humanitarian assistance portfolio for the past few years and found it difficult to identify funders who are willing to address the root causes<\/strong> of conflict in contexts like Syria, where the outcomes are very political<\/strong>. For example, investing in infrastructure in the non-regime areas could help stabilize the lives for millions of people, but humanitarian donors do not see this as their purview and development actors do not want to pay for something where there is no recognized government counterpart to work with. We have been working to find intermediate solutions, but with funds decreasing, humanitarian donors want to focus on the urgent, lifesaving activities and not those that can help counter systemic fragility.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Patrick: <\/strong>Well said, Patricia. Humanitarian and development organizations are often forced to choose between working with actors considered illegitimate<\/strong> by the international community and restricting or even halting programming to at-risk populations. This was evident after the Taliban\u2019s takeover in Afghanistan. The disengagement of many actors, including donors, not only left many people at increased risk, but resulted in brain drain of trained humanitarian workers who fled the country or went underground. The lack of funding and support for national non-governmental organizations has led to devastating backtracking<\/strong> on hard-won gains in the rights of women and minority groups. We can see this trend in almost every major crisis today, from Ukraine and Syria to Gaza and the West Bank. Furthermore, many, if not most humanitarian and development organizations are overly reliant on government funding<\/strong> from the Global North. It makes it increasingly difficult to respond to the needs on the ground when the donor countries are aligned with one side of a conflict. While this is understandable from a political<\/strong> standpoint, porous funding streams<\/strong> leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people without lifesaving aid, in direct contradiction to the humanitarian principles<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Patricia:<\/strong> So true! During the session on \u201cState Building in Protracted Crises,\u201d<\/strong> I was struck by the discussion on Palestine led by Nigel Roberts, former Country Director for Gaza and the West Bank at the World Bank. Roberts talked about how the World Bank is designed to be apolitical \u2013 at least at a technocratic level \u2013 but is beholden to a board that is, by nature, political<\/strong>. Because of this dichotomy, the World Bank has missed many opportunities to help realize economic improvements and development objectives for Palestinians. This resonated with me. In humanitarian assistance, we frequently grapple with the mandate to be \u201cneutral<\/strong>\u201d and \u201capolitical<\/strong>,\u201d and yet our largest government donors are responsible for carrying out domestic and foreign policies. Being neutral or apolitical is often thought of as the refusal to choose sides, but we fail to recognize that this is also a choice with consequences. It raises the question of what it means to be neutral or apolitical, and if it is ever truly possible.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n
Paula: <\/strong>How can we, and others in the sector, address these challenges? <\/p>\n\n\n
Patrick: <\/strong>To me, some of the most impactful discussions at the Fragility Forum were around the need to stay engaged in challenging situations<\/strong>, including by finding ways to work with illegitimate or diplomatically isolated actors. Many panelists emphasized that humanitarian organizations have the moral responsibility<\/strong> to remain engaged in order to alleviate suffering. They also noted that continued engagement decreases the financial and social costs that result from humanitarian and development actors leaving in the face of these challenges. Of course, there is no easy solution to this, and every organization needs to make its own decisions based on acceptable risk levels. I think that the most important thing that organizations can do is to protect the foundations of humanitarian work<\/strong>, which is rooted in the principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence<\/strong>. By reinforcing these ideals, organizations will be better positioned to respond to crises based on needs.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Meena:<\/strong> The sessions I listened to reinforced the importance of investing time and resources into developing an in-depth understanding of the local context<\/strong>. It is very important to build long-term relationships with local communities and actors<\/strong>, and to conduct political economy and conflict analyses. We must be ready to work with communities and local systems over the long-term in order to see impact.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Patricia:<\/strong> I have to echo what Meena said. You can\u2019t ignore the political context and conflict dynamics<\/strong>. Understanding them at the macro, meso, micro and even household levels is essential if we want to work effectively in fragile and conflict-affected areas. I also want to second what Patrick said about staying engaged<\/strong>. When a new crisis emerges, donors and implementers cannot just forget about conflicts that have been going on for years or decades. When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a sudden reassignment of critical funding and programming<\/strong> to Ukraine and its refugees. Now, the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza dominates the headlines. While we must respond to these new crises to the fullest extent possible, we must still remember about people in Yemen, Syria and other fragile states with protracted conflicts and instability. Their voices deserve to be heard, and their needs deserve to be met, too. I am proud of our programming in<\/strong> Syria<\/strong>, where we have been addressing food security, protection, water, sanitation and shelter needs for a decade. I truly hope donors will remain engaged there for years to come.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Kelly:<\/strong> One theme that I heard repeatedly in the sessions I attended was around the need to be agile and innovative.<\/strong> This is not necessarily new, but the speakers highlighted how critical it is for implementers \u2013 particularly those working in fragile contexts \u2013 to be flexible: constantly evaluating, assessing and identifying new opportunities to shift programming to better meet humanitarian needs and more effectively achieve program outcomes. The Forum also reinforced the need for continued advocacy to our donors, policymakers and other stakeholders around flexible funding mechanisms<\/strong>. In a volatile world we live in, funding mechanisms must have built-in opportunities, such as crisis modifiers<\/strong>, to quickly adapt and pivot to rapid emergency response.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
Paula: <\/strong>Indeed. The ability to fluidly respond to changing circumstances is a game changer. We have witnessed how crucial this is in many contexts. In Ukraine<\/strong><\/a>, for example, our long-term development program \u2013 Decentralization Offering Better Results and Efficiency (DOBRE)<\/strong> \u2013 was able to quickly mobilize its networks and provide rapid emergency response right at the onset of Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion in 2022. This paved a way for the Community-Led Emergency Action and Response (CLEAR)<\/strong> program, which we launched soon after in two regions overlapping with DOBRE. By layering life-saving humanitarian interventions with development assistance, we can more effectively respond to the crisis, set the stage for post-war recovery and foster lasting resilience to shocks and stresses.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n