VEHA
Guidance
Guidance
Virtual Environmental and Humanitarian Adviser Tool – (VEHA Tool) is a tool
to easily integrate environmental considerations in humanitarian response. Field Implementation guidances are useful for the design and execution of humanitarian activities in the field.
Today’s crises are usually so acute and overwhelming that the majority of resources are spent on responding to immediate life-saving needs, with insufficient resources focused on prevention, resilience, and recovery that can support communities in the longer term. Conditions after a disaster or emergency displacement do not usually allow for a full environmental impact assessment and immediate mitigation of negative environmental outcomes. Fundraising and mobilization of resources fall at the center of these decisions and are likely to impact other Nutrition decisions. The availability of funding, regardless of the source, will directly impact decisions regarding which materials will be used, what kind of items can be distributed, and what general services will be provided to affected populations. Moreover, consideration given to more environmentally-friendly materials and technical options is likely to impact a response’s final budget.
Experience shows that environmental projects are unlikely to receive dedicated funding from humanitarian aid budgets at this point in time. It, therefore, becomes all the more important that within sector responses, environmental impacts and vulnerabilities are clearly appraised, understood, and monitored by the humanitarian actors. This will help to ensure continued access to financing that is increasingly tied to environmental and social standards and accountability policies (e.g. Green Climate Fund, bilateral donors)
Environmental considerations related to resource and funding mobilization should be mindful of the needs and services of vulnerable groups, namely women, children, and disabled people.
Climate change and subsequent harm to water, land, locally available resources, and clean air impact women disproportionately, and as a result, they are likely to run out of resources and work less efficiently in adverse circumstances. Identifying the daily activities of the most vulnerable groups likely to suffer from environmental changes in the area of intervention, should enable the implementing actor to design-focused strategies to prevent and mitigate these impacts.
Air pollution
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
Desertification
Eutrophication
Climate Change
Loss of biodiversity and ecosystems
Natural resource depletion
Soil erosion
Noise pollution
Visual Intrusion
Increased intensity of storms/hurricanes
Increased drought/flood
The environment is not a core humanitarian sector and is often thought of as someone else’s responsibility. Donors are not yet fully focused on funding environmental sustainability. Food Security projects can therefore easily cause environmental harm or expose affected people to environmental risks if their assessment is not funded. If environmental sustainability is not adequately funded, the consequences are likely to be:
Competition to access funds restricts visibility of and funding for environmental sustainability. Priority is usually given to immediate life-saving activities, without the capacity to build resilience to future crises, including environmental factors.
Food security projects can cause environmental harm or expose affected people to environmental risks if their assessment and sustainable actions are not funded. These include ongoing or increased air, water, soil pollution and creation of health risks; harm to flora, fauna, and ecosystems, harming people’s livelihoods, health, and wellbeing and potentially ultimately reducing their ability to remain living in the area; unsustainable management of natural resources; Unsustainable transport and logistics practices; unsustainable waste management practices; lost opportunities to protect or strengthen the environment and support communities in becoming more resilient to environmental risks.
Successful resource mobilization relies on a strong understanding of the global humanitarian financing landscape together with keen local knowledge based on the mapping of donor presence and priorities. Fundraising and resource mobilization commonly happen simultaneously to the Information Management phase of the response. This is because the results and findings from your information management activities, including but not limited to primary data collection and secondary information review, will inform what may be the environmental considerations your agency should be aware of to prepare financially.
Fundraising activities for humanitarian responses should learn to advertise or ‘sell’ such initiatives as sustainable investment opportunities, able of generating a direct or indirect capital return to the investing entities. Humanitarian crises often displace contexts of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) and Humanitarian Investing (HumIn) seeks to address not only immediate relief activities but instead build resilience and prevention, through recovery activities. These activities can easily incorporate environmental considerations, including, for example, forest and land degradation, water, and land pollution, natural resources management, and more.
A key concern overlooking environmental threats and risks to sector responses lies in the management agency’s ability to portray the activities and services provided as part of the response as sustainable investment strategies that enable investors, beyond the traditional UN umbrella and international organizations, to consider social and environmental factors alongside financial returns.
While humanitarian organizations normally lack organizational readiness to appeal for funding from the private sector or drown in the overly competitive fundraising environment in and around humanitarian donors, organizations can behave like market catalysts, to develop and de-risk investable opportunities that bring investment capital to the fragility-crisis cycle. Moreover, humanitarians and development organizations play a crucial role in sharing their understanding of the needs and environment of impacted communities. These organizations are also critical in monitoring and evaluating the human impact of these investable opportunities, thus translating the enhancement to social, environmental, and livelihoods conditions of people in crises into market capital returns.
Environmental sustainability requires funding across all humanitarian activities to ensure the environment is not degraded and that people are not exposed to increased environmental hazards. Successful resource mobilization relies on a strong understanding of the global humanitarian financing landscape together with keen local knowledge based on the mapping of donor presence and priorities. Preparation to obtain environmental sustainability funding should commence in the earliest data gathering and information management stages of a nutrition project.
All humanitarian food security projects should be assessed to ensure environmental impacts and risks are identified and planned for within budget activities. Project planners need to ensure environmental sustainability costs and benefits are clearly visibile to donors. Examples include the benefits of the provision of sustainable materials and practices; renewable energy sources for cooking. Advocate for environmental funding. Develop advocacy towards environmental donors to highlight how the humanitarian situation and response actually is a part of their mandate. Set aside funds for training and consider environmental elements in that training
All food security activities should go through some level of environmental assessment that helps identify clearly funded activities that reduce harm and increase sustainability. Donor environmental policies should be reviewed to demonstrate compliance and go beyond the minimum required. Use your environmental analysis in proposals and reporting. Also facilitate dialogue between humanitarian, development, and environmental donors, since this may lead to joined-up, multi-year funding. In protracted emergencies, a strong environmental analysis may allow you to access development or climate funding that would otherwise not be available for “pure” humanitarian response.
Many actions can easily be identified and actioned that reduce or prevent air, water, soil pollution and creation of health risks, at low or zero cost – they are often about doing things differently rather than doing additional things.
Harm to flora, fauna, and ecosystems and subsequent impacts on people’s livelihoods, health and wellbeing, and long-term residence in the area can usually be addressed at low cost through funding environmental assessments to inform any site selection or livelihood activity design. Pre-prepared environmental risk assessments of livelihood activities and locations should be submitted and summarised to the managing agent to design appropriate mitigating measures. The absence of these, which will also require previously mobilized resources, can contribute heavily to the degradation of the surrounding environment and impact livelihoods, health, and nutrition.
Unsustainable use of natural resources can easily be assessed through a low-cost environmental assessment. Alternative sustainable sources can usually be identified at either zero/low additional cost or can be demonstrated to provide much greater cost benefits than depleting local unsustainable resources would. Alternatives can include careful management and re-use of existing crisis waste, demolition waste, and alternative renewable or less polluting resources, and supporting local livelihoods in processing waste for construction use or producing construction materials from recycled materials including much plastic waste to develop insulation, plastic roof tiles, even plastic construction blocks.
Taking time to understand and address unsustainable transport and logistics practices can often save money, or be easily demonstrated to bring significant longer-term benefits that help build the resilience of local markets and local communities.
Unsustainable waste management practices can be addressed in part at low cost through simple separation and sorting, composting, re-use and repurposing and can be developed into viable recycling livelihoods. Failure to assess and build resilience to environmental hazards such as landslides, floods, disease spread, can usually easily be demonstrated to cost donors much more in the long term if not addressed now.
Apply to relevant funds for environmental funds for humanitarian activities. Note that the CERF Rapid Response Window criteria specifically call for the environment to be considered. Other donors are increasingly asking for environmental considerations to be demonstrated. These are also elements that affect project sustainability, another key criterion in donor funding decisions. Use the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) corporate approach for resource mobilization and funding mechanisms (See resources).
While humanitarian organizations normally lack organizational readiness to appeal for funding from the private sector or drown in the overly competitive fundraising environment in and around humanitarian donors, organizations can behave like market catalysts, to develop and de-risk investable opportunities that bring investment capital to the fragility-crisis cycle. Moreover, humanitarians and development organizations play a crucial role in sharing their understanding of the needs and environment of impacted communities. These organizations are also critical in monitoring and evaluating the human impact of these investable opportunities, thus translating the enhancement to social, environmental, and livelihoods conditions of people in crises into market capital returns.
A key concern overlooking environmental threats and risks to sector responses lies in the management agency’s ability to portray the activities and services provided as part of the response as sustainable investment strategies that enable investors, beyond the traditional UN umbrella and international organizations, to consider social and environmental factors alongside financial returns.
Resource mobilization and fundraising do not have to be restricted to the financial assets determined in your RM strategy. The case study below shows an example of how in-kind contributions after the Indian Ocean earthquake of 26 December 2004 fulfilled the goal of Build Back Better.
“The earthquake reached a 9.3 on the Richter scale and the ensuing Tsunami affected about a dozen nations and resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, jeopardized livelihoods of the survivors, and destroyed their source of income, fishing. After an intensive process of identifying recipients and with international donations, FAO delivered a variety of fishing equipment to help restructure damaged fishing vessels and enable fishermen to go back out to sea, return to their craft and ensure food security in many communities. By providing in-kind contributions, FAO was able to enable the local population to conduct their own recovery activities and even reach productivity levels superior to those prior to the tsunami.”
% of funds allocated to environmental prevention, mitigation and enhancement.
Prevention of environmental damage
Mitigation of environmental damage
Environmental enhancement