A discussion of the New Humanitarian’s first-ever fictional story about how the aid sector may look in 30 years from now, by Malka Older.
This is the second article in a three-part series discussing the New Humanitarian’s first-ever fictional story, “Earthquake relief. Mexico. 2051. A glimpse into tomorrow’s humanitarian world,” by Malka Older. The story, which was published in August this year, takes readers to post-disaster Mexico in 2051 and explores how a bottom-up humanitarian disaster response could look like in a world with less nationalism and more mutual aid.
The first article in this series explored if there will be a typical aid worker in Older’s 2051 and, if so, what characteristics they will have. This article zooms in on the relationship between humanitarian aid and development aid. The aid sector has repeatedly been criticized for being more reactive than proactive. The main question discussed in this article is: will the aid industry be more proactive in Older’s 2051?
Who will fund development work 30 years from now?
In her short story, Older envisions a world where disaster relief programs and projects do not have to cut red tape to receive funding for their activities. There is “a general agreement that it’s much easier to deal with emergencies without penny-pinching or micromanaging, especially at the beginning.”
In Older’s 2051, every government – local, regional, national – is required to put aside a minimum percentage of their budget for emergencies. “The funds will pay for whatever you need.”Before we move on and I let (a mildly cynical) realism destroy this utopian dream, let us all take a moment to appreciate the bliss of being able to truly put humans – not mandates, budgets, or bureaucracy – first in crises situations.
Okay, moment over. Not worrying about the humanitarian aid budget would be great, if the price you paid was not a cannibalized development aid budget and more disasters.
The protagonist in Oder’s story, a member of the community that was demolished in the earthquake that the story centres around, asks Sana, an individual disaster relief consultant, why societies “have to wait for disasters to fix stuff.” To this, Sana replies “We’re working on that too … Hopefully, it won’t take too much longer.”
Fingers crossed she is right, because, before there are government budgets set aside for development work, preventive activities likely have to survive on a shoestring budget – unless development has been more or less fully privatized …
In Older’s 2051, NGOs no longer exist. UN agencies and organizations have presumably folded (since governments now channel their contribution to aid activities into local, national and global emergency funds instead of to the UN system.) Unless private companies have picked up the slacks, preventive development work may just be what “not worrying about the budget” is today – a distant dream. Oh, and if the free market manages development work, then that is another pickle. After all, the market force does not have the best track record in the areas of ethics and morals.
Aid’s climate challenge
Humanitarian organizations do already respond to the climate crisis. At the end of 2020, a record 55 million people were internally displaced due to extreme weather events. Last year was the first year when more people had been forced to leave their homes due to climate-related events than armed conflicts, according to a report by the Norwegian Refugee Council.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimate that by 2050 (i.e. around the time when Older’s story is set) the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance each year as a result of storms, floods and droughts could double to 200 million people. The number is more likely to continue to rise if the world does not come together to solve the climate crisis. Solving the crises is, of course, a billion times easier said than done. But one thing is for sure, adaptation and mitigation must be addressed in tandem. In Older’s 2051, adaptation (including reactive activities such as disaster relief actions) is paid for by local funds and carried out by the community committees and international consultants.
Mitigation, simply put, equals development. As discussed above, our best hope seems to be wishing that private companies, or extremely rich private individuals, finally take social and societal responsibility. Unless neoliberalism has been abolished in 2051, this, however, seems unlikely.
In sum, in 2051, “when does the emergency budgets kick in during slow-burning and all-encompassing crises such as the climate crises?” is likely to be one of society’s most acute questions.
There is one small comfort in all of this. At the very least, Older’s 2051 has a global emergency fund. Meaning that while wealthy nations likely continue to pollute our planet and low-resource communities likely continue to feel the worst effects of climate change, rich communities finally help finance the bandaids put on vulnerable crisis-prone communities gunshot wounds through the global emergency fund.
