The Norwegian Red Cross misunderstands effectiveness

A shorter version of this post is published in Morgenbladet, see this link.

‍

The Norwegian Red Cross writes in Morgenbladet that the aid debate has focused too much on effectiveness, and that aid effectiveness may conflict with humanitarian principles and humanity. We believe this is weak reasoning for two reasons: the Red Cross misunderstands what efficiency is all about, and they reason that there are enough resources to help everyone who needs it. Unfortunately, it isn't.

‍

Effective assistance is humanity

The Red Cross shuffles efficiency and low cost level. They agree that we need to streamline today's humanitarian systems, but believe this should not “distract attention from other approaches that can bring greater humanitarian gain”. Here's the problem. About streamlining not leads to greater gain, it is not erased streamlining. Efficiency is not about helping as many people as possible. cheapest possible, but about getting the most goal achievement for the money.

More focus on efficiency doesn't mean we should just do simple things we know work, or work in uncomplicated contexts without war and conflict. It can also mean taking high risks where it can pay off in the form of greater expected impact, and trying to achieve lasting system change. But when we have good alternatives that can, with high probability, save and improve very many lives at a low cost, then we must also have good arguments for not prioritizing these first.

‍

We have to prioritize

The Red Cross also writes that “no consideration can come before helping and protecting a person in need.” It sounds nice, but is it true? What if the alternative is to help and protect two people in need?

We would like to wish that we had enough resources to help all those suffering distress in the world. The reality, unfortunately, is different. Last year needed 360 million people aid to survive, but according to UN estimates, less than half of their needs funded. Whether we do it consciously or unconsciously, we must prioritize who gets help first. We cannot choose to not do it. Politics is about election and deselectionAlso in aid.

The Red Cross points out that if we wanted the most effective humanitarian assistance, people in the most difficult conflicts would not be able to get help. It seems simplistic and basic. But if that's right, it doesn't deserve everyone people in need to get help, whether they are living in the very worst conflicts, or suffering from other causes? And when resources don't stretch, shouldn't we then prioritize doing what helps the most, the most possible?

‍

The simple may be the best

In June, Refugee Aid released its annual report on neglected escape crises. It showed that we systematically engage more for crises in the global north, than in the global south. There are also many other ongoing crises that are given little attention but have terrible consequences for people's lives. For example, the World Health Organization estimates that approximately two million people died from malaria and tuberculosis last year. That's more than ten times as many as died from war and conflict. Yet these deaths receive far less attention.

Very much distress and suffering in the world is caused by simple and familiar conditions, which are cheap to prevent and involve low risk in work. If we listen to the very bedrock of humanitarian principles, namely the principles of humanity, humanity and impartiality, it is difficult to say that those who die of simple causes and poverty are less deserving of help than the far fewer who die in war and conflict. It goes without saying that we should invest much more money in saving lives in conflict zones in Sudan, than in malaria-prone areas in Nigeria. Regardless of where and why the help is needed, the suffering can be great.

Humanity stands not as opposed to emphasizing efficiency. Quite the opposite. True humanity is to look past the headlines in the newspapers, and do what we have good reason to believe does the most good. Thorough assessments of cost-effectiveness are important, not because we are going to reduce people to numbers, but because in this case the numbers is people.