This conceptual isolation of climate from other health, economic, and development objectives has pervaded decision-making bodies, leading to siloed and myopic climate planning. But, as with other environmental issues, climate change is not merely an environmental problem. The data is clear: climate change affects all dimensions of human life, including the economy, housing, immigration, public health, food systems, national security, and political stability. Its far-reaching effects mean that achieving carbon neutrality will require that climate be embedded into frameworks across all sectors and industries rather than existing as a standalone issue.

The economy, public health, and democracy are three areas of critical significance under threat from climate change that carry massive societal ramifications. When the ability to earn a living, lead a healthy life, and live in a society that affords agency and autonomy are endangered, we risk losing the very elements at the core of human flourishing.

Economic mobility

Climate considerations and economic needs are often treated as a zero-sum game. This tension has been made clear in France, where proposed gas tax hikes sparked violent nationwide protests, and in Brazil, where the commercial upside from plundering the Amazon rainforest eclipsed the historic environmental fallout.[1] Climate action is hindered by entrenched economic interests that not only perpetuate economic injustice and inequality but reap sizeable profits from the destruction of the planet.

In reality, climate and the economy are deeply interdependent. Many of the sectors and industries underpinning the global economy—including agriculture, tourism, fisheries, and real estate—depend on a stable climate. Climate change has already begun to threaten key industries and supply chains, hampering economic growth and exacerbating economic hardship and inequality. For developing countries whose economies rely almost entirely on natural resources, the situation is dire, threatening the livelihoods of millions of low-income people across the globe. In addition to impacting climate-dependent industries, the natural disasters brought on by rising global temperatures bring entire economies to a halt and cause billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage each year. For homeowners living in disaster-prone areas (often marginalized groups), a changing climate can be catastrophic, costing many their homes and oftentimes only financial assets. On the global stage, these disruptions can translate into mass migration, placing even more strain on tight labor markets and dwindling public programs.

Fortunately, while climate change and economic prosperity face entwined challenges, they also face shared opportunities. Investing in renewable energy, climate technologies, and green infrastructure can not only help mitigate climate change, but also reinvigorate economies and create jobs, ensuring sustainable long-term economic growth. Empowering women and girls—touted as one of the best climate solutions at our disposal—is another vehicle for achieving the dual-objectives of advancing global economic development and combatting climate change. But while such common solutions are plentiful—and almost obvious—we need leaders and decisionmakers to execute them, and this requires adopting an interdisciplinary approach that factors climate into deliberations on the economy.

Public health

Climate change is intensifying a host of public health issues. Vector-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease and Zika virus, thrive in warmer conditions. Unstable climates and ecosystems increase the prevalence of pandemics caused by zoonotic diseases[2], the calamitous impact of which the world has witnessed over the past year. Noncommunicable diseases, such as heat strokes and respiratory illnesses, are on the rise. More than 10 million people die from pollution each year. Compounding these health concerns are the nutritional challenges brought on by a changing climate. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures impede crop growth, affecting both the quality of produce and quantity of agricultural yields. This is not to mention extreme weather events that eliminate entire harvests at a time, robbing farmers of their already meager incomes. A warming climate will mean increasingly smaller yields and less nutritious crops, in a world where 690 million are already undernourished. While these effects will be most prominent in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), high-income countries will not be immune to rising food prices and diminished nutrient density. The health repercussions of a changing climate are also acutely and overwhelmingly female. Women are more likely to be killed in the event of a natural disaster. In the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, women died at four times the rate of men in highly affected areas.^[3][4] For those who survive, the unsafe conditions they endure in temporary shelters and camps leave them at a higher risk of gender-based violence and exploitation.

It is imperative that global health institutions center climate considerations as core to their agenda and priorities. Funding research on climate-induced disease burden would ensure proper planning for pressing health needs in the years to come. Risk analyses must be conducted to adapt public health services and allocate resources towards climate-sensitive public health concerns. Funding is needed for adaption and mitigation. Investing in systems and structures that shield against climate change’s harshest effects (e.g., infrastructure that minimizes the urban heat island effect) will be needed to counter rising temperatures. Climate smart-agriculture can help safeguard our food supply and the livelihoods of millions while sequestering carbon, conserving water, and preserving biodiverse ecosystems.

Democracy & governance

Finally, climate change intersects strongly with issues of democracy and governance. By disrupting ecosystems and economies, climate change threatens to provoke violent conflict and destabilize systems of governance. Such troubling trends have already begun to unfold in parts of the Middle East. In Syria, severe droughts that decimated agricultural production and forced hundreds of thousands of Syrians into poverty and near famine set the stage for the political unrest that prompted the country’s civil war. Similarly, in Iraq, drought-induced poverty afflicting farming populations fueled extremism and sectarian violence, enabling terrorist networks to exploit economic desperation and expand their recruiting base. Conversely, problematic systems of governance also threaten to aggravate climate change. Given that climate-forward agendas and policies are often driven by citizen demands, weak democracies undermine climate action.[5] The rise of nationalist movements and governments in the past decade has eroded democracies and consequently debilitated climate efforts. The increasing spread of disinformation and propaganda through social media has added fuel to the fire, not only endangering the world’s democracies, but also undermining a climate agenda, particularly in the US.

As with other spheres of interest, climate and democracy share commonalities in their path forward. Strengthening democracy, and in particular citizen-climate movements, is key to advancing a climate agenda. Combatting counter-narratives and propaganda, which are core to enhancing democracy and governance, will also be essential in gaining broad support and creating appetite for climate initiatives. And finally, an effective and equitable plan of action that is backed by broad constituencies will require democratizing climate discourse and centering female, BIPOC and LMIC voices, as well as those of rural and resource-based communities.^[6][7] An environmental movement led predominantly by White, urban, Global North institutions will invariably fall short by failing to address the needs and challenges of those most affected by the climate crisis.

The path forward

Understanding is growing of the interconnectedness between climate and a wide variety of sectors – from economic prosperity, health, and democracy, to gender equality and racial equity. Some early adopters in these sectors have begun to revisit their social impact strategies through a climate-smart lens, identifying ways in which they may inadvertently be contributing to the climate crisis and how to adapt their approaches to reduce climate shocks. Players like Wellcome Trust and the Belmont Forum have made forays in this area—albeit small ones.[8] More recently, the European Commission has recognized the gaps in climate and health planning, funding projects like ENBEL (‘Enhancing Belmont Research Action to support EU policy making on climate change and health’), which brings together leaders from both spheres to make coordinated advances in knowledge generation and integrated policymaking.[9] USAID has also funded intersectoral climate programming. In 2014, it launched ATLAS (Adaptation Thought Leadership and Assessments), a 5-year program to “integrate climate risk analysis and adaptation strategies across its portfolio”.[10] USAID’s Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN), which identifies synergistic policies and technologies at the nexus of the three sectors, is another example of the kind of interdisciplinary programming that will move the needle on climate.

While such efforts are laudable, more ambitious efforts are needed to beat climate change, and its host of negative outcomes in other sectors, this late in the game. Other philanthropies, government entities, and the private sector should proactively identify opportunities to support and fund work at the intersections of climate and other sectors and incorporate climate frameworks into existing programs and portfolios. Besides funding, influential organizations can go a long way in effecting change through field-wide agenda-setting and prioritization.[11] Addressing climate helps ensure that progress made in other areas is not lost in a matter of years or decades, and thoughtful planning and execution will be needed to adapt strategies, policies and programs to intentionally address their intersections with climate change and its effects. We at Camber are committed to utilizing our strategic planning, segmentation and coalition building expertise to help bring about change, and we hope you will collaborate with us in the collective effort against climate change.

[1] In 2019, a record 72,843 fires had burned in the Amazon rainforest by August of that year, a roughly 80% year-on-year increase, largely as a result of commercial deforestation encouraged by the Bolsonaro Administration https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/wildfires-in-amazon-caused-by-deforestation

[2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/coronavirus-and-climate-change/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/sep/08/disaster-humanitarian-response-data-gender

[4] Higher mortality rates among women are largely a result of sociocultural factors: women are less likely to be taught how to swim, and more likely to tend to children or the elderly in emergency situations, impeding their ability to evacuate quickly

[5] In some cases, antidemocratic systems of governance may facilitate rather than impede climate action (e.g. in China) by bypassing the constraints posed by antagonistic public sentiment

[6] https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/understanding-rural-attitudes-toward-environment-conservation-america.pdf

[7] For instance, studies show that rural voters in the United States have distrust of federal environmental regulations that are formulated without their input, instead expressing greater affinity towards locally- or state-led efforts that factor their needs and considerations

[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7594144/

[9] https://cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/projects/enbel-connecting-health-and-climate-change-research

[10] https://www.climatelinks.org/blog/efforts-integrate-climate-risk-across-sectors-must-continue

[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7594144/

The post Climate, Economic Mobility, Public Health, Democracy: All Connected appeared first on Camber Collective.

By Roxane Sazegar

The COVID-19 pandemic’s devastating effects on historically under-resourced populations are widely recognized and documented. Beyond its calamitous impact on public health, the pandemic has disrupted nearly every facet of daily life and, by consequence, the economy, with the greatest consequences falling along and exacerbating existing fault lines of race, gender, and class. Nearly a year into the pandemic, the situation has grown exceedingly dire—an October 2020 study found that “1 in 4 Americans are now jobless or earning poverty-level wages”.[1]Stories of eviction, lost livelihoods, and overwhelmed food banks abound, with women, low-income, and BIPOC communities most severely impacted.

Preventing further damage is essential to the survival of communities bearing the brunt of the crisis, and hinges on the ability of government and civil society to administer swift and effective interventions. Absent government assistance in the face of congressional inertia, philanthropic and non-governmental organizations have been left to take on an increasingly daunting burden. And while the development of several viable vaccines remains a cause for hope, the time it will take to produce and distribute sufficient quantities, both on a domestic and global scale, means that it could be years before the economic effects of COVID-19 subside. Ensuring that grantmakers are equipped to adapt and respond to the crisis until then is thus essential.

To gain an understanding of the COVID-related challenges afflicting the philanthropic sector and possible areas of need, we surveyed program managers across a range of grantmaking organizations. The managed portfolios among those who responded ranged from $500k to $325M in size and included grants across a wide range of programmatic areas including health, education, sustainability, and shared prosperity.[2] Here’s a look at some of the noteworthy insights:

In assessing the severity of COVID’s direct and indirect effects on grantmakers’ ability to achieve their stated missions, we learned that few have been unscathed—in fact, most (75%) reported being at least moderately affected by the pandemic. While we anticipated organizations with smaller portfolios to be the most severely affected, owing in part to the limited financial and programmatic resiliency that comes with smaller budgets, our findings revealed a positive correlation between budget size and severity of impact. Large entities with large budgets were among the most highly impacted, while small entities reported the least impact. Several explanations may account for this trend. The severity of the pandemic’s effects on larger grantmakers may be a function of the larger scope and scale of their operations, which could lead to a higher likelihood of COVID-induced programmatic interruptions. Larger entities may also rely on more traditional and entrenched business models, lacking the adaptability and agility of smaller organizations. The protracted nature of the pandemic and its long-lasting effects might compel foundations with a global footprint to reimagine their traditional operating models in order to continue serving their target populations sustainably. Adapting multimillion-dollar programs that span multiple continents over long periods of time is no small feat, however, and will undoubtedly impose major costs if executed without thoughtful, long-term strategizing.

Beyond severity, our survey revealed that the pandemic has affected multiple dimensions of grantmaking, altered funding availability being the most obvious consequence: as expected, most respondents (82%) expect COVID to alter their available grant funding in one way or another. Anticipated increases rather than decreases in funding were cited by 40% of respondents, three-quarters of whom are anticipating their giving to increase by at least 25%, suggesting that funders are seeing the pandemic as a moment of action and correspondingly augmenting their efforts. The second most commonly cited change (30%) was neither a decrease nor an increase in funding, but a reallocation of funds. Respondents reported deprioritizing long-term goals and non-pandemic related issues, instead focusing their resources on the pressing, immediate needs that have emerged from the crisis, including health, domestic pandemic response, food, and eviction prevention.

As for timing, most respondents (96%) anticipate COVID’s greatest impacts to fall within a 2-year time horizon, meaning that while the worst continues to unfold, grantmakers still have the latitude to cushion the pandemic’s impacts and optimize outcomes by adapting their program strategy. However, the uncertain nature of the pandemic has constrained grantmakers’ ability to respond to it meaningfully. In fact, the most commonly cited impediment (40%) to scenario planning was the inability to do so with confidence given the rapidly evolving understanding of COVID and shifting government policies. That said, it is likely that with the initiation of the vaccine rollout and an increasing understanding of the virus, the ability to strategize with confidence will increase going forward.

Notably, despite the uncertainties and respective limitations on long-term knowledge and planning, grantmakers across the board are stepping up to assist existing grantees. Roughly 80% of grantmakers either have or anticipate providing supplemental funding to better support grantees’ immediate needs. Aside from financial support, grantmakers are making a concerted effort to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on grantees and bolster grantee autonomy—providing additional operational guidance, relaxing reporting requirements, and increasing flexibility grantees have in utilizing existing funds. While these measures are no doubt crucial to the wellbeing of grantees, the conditions under which grantmakers are operating are suboptimal, with imperfect information and tight deadlines impeding the formulation of a clear strategy that can drive desired outcomes.

As reflected in our survey responses, COVID has imposed material changes on grant programming, affecting prioritization, funding, and timelines, in an environment both volatile and lacking in robust information. Innovative, data-driven, and thoughtful solutions are necessary for transitioning toward a less reactive and more strategic approach to grantmaking in the era of COVID. To that end, the vast majority of respondents (85%) indicated that they either have or are interested in engaging with their peers, to discuss themes as varied as information sharing, joint pandemic response, and grassroots and grantee engagement in the era of COVID-19. Cross-sector collaboration in the form of coalitions is one potential avenue for enabling peer engagement among grantmakers as a means of overcoming COVID-related challenges, bolstering the collective pandemic response, and facilitating more impactful outcomes for underserved communities. Coalitions can drive more meaningful impact by allowing grantmakers to coordinate services, pool resources, and ensure optimal allocation of funding. Further, they can provide a forum for data-sharing and exchange of experiences and best practices, bringing together diverse voices and insights that can catalyze the creation of novel solutions that are imperative in such unprecedented times.

The social sector’s demonstrated eagerness to rise to the occasion despite gaps in understanding provides a ripe opportunity to bring together major funders to share knowledge and think critically about key strategic priorities. The pandemic also offers an opportunity to reflect on traditional modes of philanthropy and consider the possibility of a permanent transition toward one that is more flexible and grantee-led in nature. Such a shift may ultimately be more conducive to equitable and impactful sectoral outcomes. We at Camber Collective have a proven track-record of helping funders define strategic priorities and building effective coalitions that have worked to set field-wide priorities while also enabling robust cross-sectoral grantmaking. We bring extensive experience helping partners navigate uncertainty and can assist in the development and integration of a more equitable approach to grantmaking. We are actively engaged in COVID response at the domestic and international scale, and are continually seeking opportunities to channel the catalytic power of philanthropic funding to support COVID response for under-resourced populations. We welcome your perspective on the data points shared above and would welcome your partnership and collaboration in the months and years ahead.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jobless-americans-poverty-line-earnings/

[2] Respondents included 30 program managers across 28 organizations.

The post COVID-19 and Philanthropy: Challenges, Insights, and Opportunities appeared first on Camber Collective.