Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises

Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises
Anthony Lake

We must break down the barriers between development and humanitarian response, to
put in place long-term efforts to end poverty and hunger.
In two weeks, world leaders will ratify a new consensus to build a better world: the
sustainable development goals. But we will not reach these development goals — nor
can development be sustainable — without reaching the millions of children living in the
midst Of humanitarian crises. 

Consider a few data points*. Children living in countries affected by humanitarian crises
— conflicts, natural disasters and health emergencies — account for nearly half Of all
under-five deaths How can we achieve SDG3, good health for a11141 if we don't reach
these children?

Four-fifths Of these countries have stunting levels151 above 20%. Nearly two-thirds have
stunting levels above 30%. Two-thirds have unacceptable levels of wasting, often
associated with acute starvation. How can we realise SDG2, to end hunger and all forms
of malnutrition, if we don't reach these children? 

Countries affected by humanitarian crises account for 43% Of all out-of-school
children161 at the primary and lower-secondary levels. SDG4 demands inclusive quality
education for all. How will that be possible if we don't reach these children?
The international community tends to compartmentalise humanitarian and development
crises — separate funding appeals, separate advocacy campaigns and separate
conferences. It is as if development and emergencies exist in different worlds
But children living through crises see no distinction between humanitarian and
development action — they only see whether they are getting what they need to survive,
whether they are able to go to school, and whether they can dream about a better future.
When we educate a girl displaced by conflict, we're not only giving her immediate
protection. We're helping her to shape her mind, build her own future, contribute to her
family and society when she becomes an adult and perhaps even become a voice of peace
in her community and country. 

When we provide cash transfers to families living through natural disasters, we are not
only helping see to their immediate needs. We are supporting them to prevent them
depleting their savings, potentially enabling them to raise healthier, better educated
children. And sustaining the most disadvantaged and marginalised children in crisis with long-
term development efforts is a practical, cost-effective path to fighting future extreme
poverty — SDGI, so, we need to keep breaking down the silos between humanitarian and development action.

 
Ultimately, our success in achieving the SDGs depends on addressing humanitarian crises
themselves. This means, above all, refusing to accept a world in which we are unable to
prevent or resolve conflicts. Ending conflicts would open the single greatest pathway to global development; the best way to save lives; the best way to foster a generation of children ready, willing and able to sustain development into the future. 

Approximately 246 million children live in countries or areas affected by armed conflict.
Last year saw the highest number of child refugees since the second world war, with more
than 25 million171 fleeing violence, destruction and deprivation.
Ending conflicts is not only in the interests Of these children, though that is reason
enough. It is also in the interests of every country in the world. The cost of a civil war can
equal 30 years of GDP growth. Last year alone, conflicts cost the global econom 8 an
estimated $14.3trn - more than 13% of world GDP.
How can we sustain future development when we also sustain these losses, year after
year? Can the world afford to lose more than 10% of its productivity year after year? How
can we bring children out of poverty, poor health and despair when any progress made
can be so quickly — so brutally, so needlessly — erased?

And what kind Of future does humanity have when communities are battered by conflict
after conflict, seemingly without end? When children fleeing these conflicts drown at
sea, or suffocate in the backs of trucks crossing borders in a desperate attempt to escape
the fighting? Wouldn't ending these conflicts be the best possible contribution to reaching the
sustainable development goals?
Before we reject such a call as unrealistic, let's consider the words Of nine-year Old Ali,
from Sa'ada, Yemen — one of 1.8 million Yemeni children affected by the ongoing
conflict191 there. He recently asked: "What did we do wrong? Why can't we live like other
children in the world? The world owes him an answer. He and every child has the right to the quiet blessing of a normal childhood. 

Citation:

Lake, Anthony. "Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises." Gaurdian News and Media Limited. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/sep/11/sustainable-development-goals-target-millions-children-humanitarian-crises>

Response:

This article has some very valid points, but also some clear misunderstanding due to the shades of author's bias. The author has a very western mindset being money solves everything. Ending world hunger and poverty, as noble as it is, cannot be done by an endless supply of free hand outs. The author states, "When we provide cash transfers to families living through natural disasters, we are not only helping see to their immediate needs. We are supporting them to prevent them depleting their savings, potentially enabling them to raise healthier, better educated children." I disagree with him. The only thing they are doing is helping them see to their immediate needs. When those without money are given an exorbitant amount of money they don't know how to use it wisely, thus, they use it for their immediate needs and then it's gone. I know I have a bias since I've heard endless stories of the hurt that westerners inflict on villages here in Africa when they try to help without any consideration for culture. However; I do agree with the authors statement, "When we educate a girl displaced by conflict, we’re not only giving her immediate protection. We’re helping her to shape her mind, build her own future, contribute to her family and society when she becomes an adult and perhaps even become a voice of peace in her community and country." Education goes much further than anything else. That is why I agree and disagree with the author, taking into account both of our biases.