Annie Leonard (of The Story of Stuff) thinks not. If you only watch one video about our last chance to save the planet this week, it should be this one…

The video is about 8 minutes long, and a lot of fun.

If you want more, you can read Annie’s blog post on climate and consumption here.

“The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the “devils in the details” in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you’ve heard about cap and trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.“

“Climate change is a development issue” Douglas Alexander, UK Secretary of State

What’s the best way to deal with climate change? Oxfam America recently published a report, “The New Adaptation Marketplace: Climate Change and Opportunities for Green Economic Growth,” that highlights many industries and businesses, including the insurance, industry that may grow due to climate change. Insurance companies have been offering insurance against climate and weather-related causes as a means for individuals and companies to protect against ever-growing environmental changes. Companies like Zurich Financial Services Group and Swiss Re advocate that insurers can play a role in both mitigating and addressing climate change by encouraging and rewarding technologies that help with climate issues, and through supporting improving and building better infrastructure to withstand future problems. With the Zurich Financial Services Group noting that weather-related claims have grown nearly fifteen-fold in the past thirty years, climate insurance seems posed continue growing both as a business sector and resource.

But with the development of this insurance niche comes questions about how climate policy is assessed and carried out, and who will be able to afford these policies. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies’ Climate Change and Global Warming Task Force notes insurance is contingent on risk assessment and certification, along with a “statement of catastrophe.” Swiss Re uses four indices to assess risk: weather, precipitation, wind and a combination of all three). But the Climate Change task force also notes that issues may arise in areas where there is a high-level of risk contrasted by low-level preparedness, such as in developing countries. With insurance premiums typically linked to risk, is it possible for those in poorer areas of the world (who may also be a greater risk of weather issues and climate change) to afford to insure themselves?

Additionally developed countries such as the United States are not immune to concerns climate insurance. The Climate Change task force also raised concern about companies having enough capital to fill claims when disasters hit. Hurricane Ike, the 2008 storm that hit Florida, caused nearly $11.5 billion in insurance losses.

With all companies emphasizing risk reduction as central to climate insurance, watching how companies and groups address this in both developing and developed countries. As the severity of our climate continues to change, so too will the means and methods of addressing it.

Complexity theory originally comes from science/biology and is just beginning to be applied to social sciences, including development.  It recognizes that the contexts in which we work are complex – multi-polar, diverse, often chaotic, etc., and that changes occurring within these systems are therefore usually non-linear, emergent, unpredictable, and experienced or viewed differently for the various people and groups who experience it (i.e., multiplicity of knowledge).

The implication for monitoring and evaluation is to further emphasize methods that realistically recognize these complex social systems and the underlying unpredictability and diversity of outcomes and perspectives for the various actors within them, and looking for the changes that our programs can help trigger within these wider systems. This isn’t new to the field of evaluation: our traditional mixed-method evaluations which incorporate surveys, focus groups, key informant interviews and other methods, when done correctly, do often succeed in drawing out diverse viewpoints and effects on different individuals and groups.

However, there are other methods that fit more naturally with complexity and are being increasingly mainstreamed relief and development agencies.  These approaches distinctly recognize the complex and unpredictable nature of program contexts, and therefore seek to measure changes in ways that:

-          are beneficiary-led:

-          recognize and celebrate the diversity of actors/views/experiences;

-          look for emergent trends and evidence of change, often in unpredictable and unintended ways:

-          assess change from the distinct viewpoint of different types of individuals and groups,

-          do not seek to predict outcomes or pre-ordain indicators of success as viewed by outsiders;

-          look for “resonance” of certain themes or indications of change across groups and contexts; and,

-          lend quantitative and qualitative results through systematic analysis and interpretation.

Techniques which specialize in fitting into a complexity theory lens on evaluation and meet some or all of the characteristics above include:

-          Most Significant Change;

-          Outcome Mapping;

-          Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA) ;

-          Locally-developed indicators;

-          Self and peer-evaluation;

-          Photo voice;

-          Some applications of Appreciative Inquiry;

-          Other forms of participatory action research with emphasis on ongoing learning and reflection.

These techniques are gaining increased acceptance because of their unique ability to “tell the story” of how change really happens on the ground while emerging with a robust mix of quantitative and qualitative data.

For a more complete view on complexity theory and its application to M&E the following report by Wageningen International.  For additional background and presentations on suggested tools and approaches, you may also check out:  http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/events/Complexity/.



Interaction has just published a progress report on their perceptions of the state of foreign assistance, almost one year into the Obama administration.  Even if you don’t have time for the full report – take a look at the cover sheet which divides areas into ‘improved’ ’stagnant’ and ‘deteriorated’ in terms of progress on the particular issue and allows you to then read in more detail on each section – from Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment to Sudan to NGO and military relations. The report points out that the biggest obstacle to significant progress being made is the fact that as yet, no administrator for USAID has been appointed.

The book, Made to Stick: Why some ideas thrive and others die by Dan Heath and Chip Heath isn’t directly about the world of humanitarianism but the issues it looks at are fully relevant to us as we strive for both scale and sustainability in our programs. If we could really understand what makes ideas live on (and/or what kills them) and then apply it to our programs we would really be on our way to making a difference. The book outlines six principles for successfully getting an idea to take hold – summarized in the link below.

To read more about the book and decide whether you want a copy yourself read either this review from Time magazine or this summary.

Reuters provides an interesting humanitarian story tracking service, Alertnet.org’s World Tracker Service, that charts the rise, retention (and fall) of 107 English-language media sources from around the world. Reuter’s codes then chart the humanitarian issues, providing an interesting look at why and how the general public cares about or follows certain stories. During August 2009, swine flu received the most attention, particularly on August 12, 2009 when the 107 news sources contained 123 articles on the subject. Was the attention merited? Well, on August 12, 2009 the WHO published its sixty-first update on the pandemic H1N1 and confirmed cases in the following countries: Timore-Leste, Pakistan, Kirabati, Maldives, French Guiana, Falkland Islands (UKOT), Wallis and Futuna. The day before, The New York Times reported that the family of the first deaths of swine flu in New York planned to sue the city for wrongful death, and CBS had a story on flying rabbis praying for the demise of the virus. Also Costa Rica’s president Oscar Arias announced on August 11 that he had contracted H1N1.

The second largest amount of coverage was “Afghan turmoil,” which spiked in attention from August 16 to August 21 leading up to the August 20 elections. While the election results are still unconfirmed, coverage dropped from around seventy stories per day during the aforementioned five day period to eighteen mentions on August 22 before ending the month with thirty seven stories on August 31.

Somalia generated thirty-nine stories on August 4, its high for the month before coverage declined to average one to six stories for the remainder of August. Coverage of Iraq regularly ebbed and flowed beginning the month with thirty four mentions and ending it with only four. Around the anniversary of the South Ossetian war in 2008, coverage spiked on August 6 and then sunk to zero on August 15. Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentencing by the Burmese junta on August 11 drove news mentions from only two on August 10 to twenty five the following day. By the 15th, Myanmar was back to only two mentions in the news.

Recent research by Barb Wigley of the Univ. of Melbourne suggests it’s actually the bad boss.  Wigley found aid workers often felt better prepared to manage stress related to violence and insecurity than stress from problems with managers and bureaucracies. She acknowledges the stress on managers coping with difficult situations and says that rather than bullying staff – often young or early in their development careers – managers require a keen sense of team dynamics in order to operate successfully in conflict contexts.  Think this is just a field issue?  Think again!  Wigley found aid workers were constantly frustrated about colleague dynamics in large organizations.  This article and Wigley’s research offer important insights into how culture influences organizations’ activities and performance, including staff retention and implementing change.  An important read whether you sit in Somalia or HQ!

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/113829727990.htm

Oxfam is running a fairly scathing article on both the quantity of assistance to Afghanistan, saying that while the US alone spends $100 million a day on security in the country, all donors combined spend only $7 million a day on aid. In addition to that imbalance, the aid that is arriving is not having the impact it should, leaving a third of the population at risk of hunger and the country the ‘worst place in the world to give birth’, with a woman dying in childbirth every 30 seconds.

Read the article here.

When sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn coined the term “youth bulge” during the 1990s, he provided definition of a dual-sided phenomena that has repeatedly emerged throughout history.  Countries or regions which see population booms in younger demographics (such as the Middle East where 65% of the population is now under thirty), are privy to mass labor forces useful for fueling economies. However, if not properly supported the youth bulge can turn dangerous as in Kenya, a country which expanded from only just under 3 million people less than a century ago to nearly 37 million people as of 2008, with the average age around eighteen. Without sufficient opportunities, the concern is that many of these “idle youths” will turn to violent or extremist groups leading to outbreaks of instability and violence.

A recent article by the International Rescue Committee points out that 12 of the 15 countries with the largest youth bulge are also home to violent conflict and/or large displaced populations. It identifies the fact that a large youth bulge, coupled with lack of opportunity creates a high risk for destabilization. Furthermore, the fact that 50% of all aid education in the last ten years has gone to basic education is now creating huge pressure on post-primary education options as expectations are created through the education channels for continuing education and/or employment that are not necessarily being met.

The article has some interesting facts and examples (and makes policy recommendations) on the challenges of creating opportunities for young people at the same time as raising education levels.

To help mitigate circumstances and better infrastructure to better support this youth bulge, the IRC calls for both governments and NGOs to reevaluate their approach and aid for education. Whereas many education programs may be put up in response to emergencies, often the support and benefits are only short-term. In response the IRC calls for aid givers and providers should better align policy and foresight with humanitarian and development plans. Additionally, as the education system is improved, the economy must be strengthened to match and support its educated workforce. Thirdly, the education program in any given country must be accessible and relevant to the youth and the opportunities that await them.

A few recent articles in Praxis, a journal published by The International NGO Training and Research Center (“What is Distinctive about FBOs: How European FBOs define and operationalise their faith”, “Faith-based Organisational Development (OD) with Churches in Malawi,” and “Capacity Building and Islamic FBOs: Insights from Malawi,” ) highlight various issues that FBOs (faith-based organizations) face in defining their organizations. As NGOs and other humanitarian organizations confront questions about their field as a whole, FBOs additionally juggle their religious identity. Stirring the fire for these FBOs are issues concerning donors and funding, both private and institutional. Both Christian and Islamic FBOs have built-in communities of donors.  How this affects FBOs is illustrated through their means of receiving funds and their choice of partnerships. As noted in “Capacity Building and Islamic FBOs,” the zakat donation is often intended for Muslim beneficiaries, and because Islamic FBOs often receive fewer public grants, these organizations may face parameters on who they provide assistance to.  Some organizations have addressed this tension by dividing donations into zakat and non-zakat funding.
Similarly Christian FBOs can also impose restrictions on their funding sources and partnerships as they may choose to work with or for organizations or groups that share their same belief set or practices. For faith-driven donors, this move may reassert the FBO’s commitment to their belief system. As Rick James points out in “What is Distinctive about FBOs,” many donors “are asking agencies to clarify their values,” and organizations that fail to provide a clear definition may lose support. As such, the choice of partnerships and areas of focus may say more about the identity of the FBO than its methods.
However, this can be difficult as secular aid organizations and governments have increased efforts to engage and partner and fund FBOs in the past decade in recognition of the important role they play in humanitarian work. Two trends seem to have emerged in the past decade: the resurgence of faith in shaping aid and animating traditional donor institutions (e.g. DFID), along with global intra-faith partnerships that serve to combat extremism and promote global accord. Post 9/11, many prominent organizations have made efforts to engage FBOs and include matters of spirituality into the concept of aid-giving. While organizations such as the World Bank promote an active incorporation with faith-based groups through increased funding and partnerships, this heightened attention doesn’t come without issue or cost. Paradoxically, FBOs may downplay their religious affiliation to secure both legitimacy and funding outside of their donor-base, a cyclical problem. This returns FBOs to the question of balancing internal donors and religious identity and coherent mission with beneficial external partnerships and funding.