Mobilizing the private sector is essential to closing persistent gaps in financing, infrastructure, and innovation.  While much of this capital and innovation originates in Western or global markets, its application and value must gear towards that of emerging economies, where health systems face the greatest climate risks. Done right, this approach can protect the most vulnerable from climate-health risks while also reinforcing economic stability, reducing long-term costs, and opening new markets for inclusive growth.

Private sector engagement must therefore be framed not only as a corporate social responsibility, but as a return-on-investment opportunity: healthier, more resilient communities reduce supply chain risks, stabilize workforces, and expand consumer markets. The report outlines four key domains where private sector action can strengthen health system resilience: 

• Innovative Financing, such as blended finance, green bonds, and outcome-based mechanisms.
• Infrastructure & Technology through renewable energy-powered facilities, and scalable digital platforms and solutions.
• Risk Management & Insurance, including climate-triggered insurance models; analytics, and protection products.
• Collaborative Partnerships that align commercial expertise with public health priorities and that build capacity to ensure workforce resilience.

Despite this potential, private sector engagement remains limited by misaligned incentives, regulatory uncertainty, weak impact measurement frameworks, and structural challenges. This report presents actionable solutions ranging from policy incentives to standardized metrics and inclusive investment models—to unlock meaningful participation.

The report calls for a shift toward more practical, results-driven collaboration between sectors, with equity—especially inclusion of women, youth, and local communities—as a core design principle for health system resilience.

Learn more about our Climate & Environment sector portfolio.

The post Report: How Private Sector Involvement Can Enhance Climate Adaptation within Health Systems appeared first on Camber Collective.

Around the world, 2025 was a year of unmistakable challenges. Cuts to foreign aid and development programs brought devastating human consequences. Wars and genocide continued, and governments used the most vulnerable at home and abroad as pawns in deadly political games. 

But amidst this darkness, we also witnessed meaningful progress. Across the social sector, partners, funders, and communities stepped up to fill gaps and adapt to uncertainty. At Camber, we found ways to meet the moment and drive impact for those most affected. 

In the spring, we launched a new strategy outlining our next chapter with a focus on field-building—a discipline aimed at breaking down siloes, cultivating shared agendas and collective action, and amplifying the impact organizations have across entire fields of practice. We also achieved B Corp recertification, executed our first Internal Equity Survey, welcomed six new colleagues, and celebrated nine promotions—including bringing our colleague and Shared Prosperity lead Marc Allen into the partnership.  

In 2025, we partnered with 27 organizations around the world on 42 projects. From women’s health innovation to climate resilience to income inequality, our work touched on some of the most important issues of our time. But don’t just take it from me. Below, we highlight work from across our sectors and the meaningful impacts each project has made. 

As a team, we found joy in personal accomplishments and milestones. We celebrated Camberians’ weddings and welcomed new Camber babies. We cheered on colleagues who became certified fitness instructors, one who earned a sommelier certification, many who ran full and half marathons, one who won a poker tournament, and several who completed new degrees. Our team also deepened their commitments to board and community service, volunteered locally, and directed $30,000 in nonprofit giving to make a difference. 

As we head into 2026, I’m holding the highs and lows with equal clarity and gratitude. The highs remind me of what we can build together, while the lows show me both why our work matters and why we must persevere. 

Read on for some of our most significant accomplishments from 2025. If you want to learn more about what we do and how we might work together, please reach out. 

With gratitude,  

Brian Leslie

Rethinking Resilience: Drawing Connections Between Climate and Health 

The Brief: Public health and climate change are inextricably linked—but too often addressed in isolation. In the fall, we partnered with Gavi and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to challenge this narrative through a novel report: Protecting Our Future: An Investment Framework for Quantifying the Climate Adaptation Benefits of Health and Immunisation Investments establishes a first-of-its-kind framework that quantifies the value of health investments for climate adaptation.  

The Solution: The report was released at COP30, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil, in November 2025. Our findings highlight the often-overlooked role that health systems play in helping communities adapt to climate change, particularly around immunization.  

The Impact: The report has sparked new conversations among multilateral development banks, donors, and country actors by bridging technical evidence with advocacy and policy potential. Stakeholders have been equipped with shared language and tools to advance long-term systems change in vulnerable communities around the world.  

Read the full report here or via AIIB’s website. Additional thanks to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and our other collaborators for their support. 

Investing in Healthcare and Rural Economies: Strategic Planning for United Indian Health Services 

The Brief: Last year, we worked with the United Indian Health Services (UIHS) to help them chart a course for the organization’s future and determine how to make amplify their impact. UIHS is a coalition of nine American Indian tribes who focus on lifting up culture, community, health, and economic prosperity for their members—many of whom live in rural communities. 

The Solution: This was not a typical strategy project—it required careful and equitable systems thinking and expansive conversations across the region. We conducted research on comparable organizations, interviewed board members and community stakeholders, and laid out options to illustrate key trade-offs and strategic choices for UIHS. 

The Impact: After close collaboration, UIHS decided to establish a new foundation focused on investing in the healthcare workforce and care model innovation to improve tribal career opportunities in their rural communities. The result will go beyond healthcare—these investments will improve the health, economic opportunities, and quality of life for generations to come. 

Learn more about UIHS’s important work. 

Spotlighting Women’s Health Innovation: Pushing for Investments Around the World 

Photo Credit: Gates Foundation / Marlena Waldthausen

The Brief: For years, women’s health research and development (R&D) has been underinvested in and underrepresented, despite the $1 trillion opportunity that closing this gap represents. In 2023, we partnered with the Gates Foundation and National Institutes of Health to establish the Innovation Equity Forum (IEF), a group of more than 250 global experts in women’s health research and development. This diverse group is committed to advancing a more equitable, coordinated, and innovation-driven ecosystem for women’s health R&D. 

The Solution: We kicked off 2025 by publishing the 2024 Women’s Health Innovation Opportunity Map Progress Report, highlighting promising strides made in 2024 and areas for immediate action. In order to translate the data into action, we coordinated across the forum to develop actionable concepts to advance women’s health. Our efforts culminated in IEF’s global convening in October in advance of the World Health Summit in Berlin, bringing together more than 150 stakeholders to refine and align on these concepts and infuse them into the broader women’s health innovation ecosystem.  

The Impact: The Opportunity Map website, which launched in the fall, provides a new home for the IEF’s work and highlights tangible ways for stakeholders—from investors to policymakers—to drive meaningful advances in women’s health innovation over the next 15 years. These resources have strengthened awareness of critical R&D gaps across academia, philanthropy, the private sector, and policy circles. 

Learn more about the IEF and explore the Opportunity Map. 

Putting Data into Action: Informing Funding, Strategy, and Policy Development for Economic Mobility 

The Brief: Economic mobility is widely considered to be a cornerstone of American life – available to all who set their sights on it. But in reality, economic mobility has been declining steadily since the 1940s. Our Mobility Experiences initiative aims to support efforts across the country to ensure that future generations have the power to access opportunities that will advance prosperity and well-being for all.  

The Solution: In 2025, we converted our breakthrough Mobility Experiences research into action by equipping 15 place-based initiatives to apply the research in order to develop their strategies, mobilize capital, and improve their programs and services. We provided direct technical assistance to community organizations while also hosting broader public awareness events (like this one in Iowa). 

The Impact: Over time, our data reached more than 100,000+ people, helped inform several hundred million dollars in investments, and improved programs for tens of thousands of people. We supported 15 direct grantees to mobilize capital and improve programs improvement initiatives, and collaborated closely with key ecosystem actors like Harmony Labs and Fisher Strategy Partners to expand the reach and impact of our work. 

Explore the Mobility Experiences dashboard and this video unpacking the efforts. 

Scaling Up Health Campaigns: Improving Global Health & Wellbeing Through Collaboration 

Photo Credit: Federal Ministry of Health & Social Welfare, Nigeria / SWAp Office

The Brief: The Collaborative Action Strategy (CAS) on health campaign effectiveness is a first-of-its-kind commitment by the global health community to align in support of countries and their planning, implementing, evaluating, and financing of health campaigns in a more collaborative way. It is designed to bolster countries’ existing efforts while improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of campaigns for a range of public health issues. 

The Solution: In 2025, we helped the Health Campaign Effectiveness Coalition put the CAS into action. We supported the implementation of CAS in two focus countries, Nigeria and Ethiopia. In Nigeria, we piloted efforts in three states to integrate malaria and neglected tropical disease campaigns into the largest measles and rubella vaccination campaign in the country’s history, which aims to reach over 100 million children. We developed a customized strategy and provided hands-on support through workshops, stakeholder engagement, and project management. Our efforts culminated in a major integrated campaign in October and the official adoption of the Nigerian CAS in December. These efforts united global, country, and local stakeholders, including the Gates Foundation, UNICEF, World Health Organization, Global Fund, CBM, and Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and National Primary Healthcare Development Agency. We also coordinated closely with the Measles & Rubella Partnership, where Camber colleagues serve as the Project Management Unit, to coordinate across initiatives.

The Impact: Health campaigns are a critical way that countries like Nigeria tackle a range of public health issues, from measles to nutrition. For too long, these issues have been siloed. Taking a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and integrated approach through CAS is more cost effective, efficient, and less burdensome on communities and health workers than running separate, siloed campaigns. This is a particularly critical need given recent cuts to global health infrastructure. Through our work in 2025, stakeholders in Nigeria showed that future campaigns will be more integrated through early planning, shared calendars, strong collaboration, robust and integrated data systems, harmonized payment structures, and improved advocacy and communications. They have committed to advancing these objectives as they scale up this work across the country in 2026.

Learn more about the CAS and explore its resources.

The post Reflecting on 2025: A Year of Unmistakable Challenges and Deepening Impact appeared first on Camber Collective.

This is not just a crisis of funding—it is a fundamental shift in how global health will be resourced and sustained in the years ahead. Across the global health community, people are feeling the weight of this shift deeply: most acutely in the communities served. Programs that once had stable funding are now in jeopardy. The UN is halving food rations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh; one of the only clinics on the Myanmar-Thai border has been closed, cutting off access to essential life-saving services; and a mysterious Ebola-like illness has broken out in the Democratic Republic of Congo, all following the cancellation of 90% of USAID’s international development projects. Colleagues who have spent their careers building critical health infrastructure are suddenly left without resources to continue their work. 

At the same time, within global health itself, a long-running shift toward decentralization and localization has been gaining momentum. For years, practitioners, policymakers, and leaders have argued that the global health system must transition from a top-down, donor-driven model to one that empowers national and local health systems to lead. The sudden withdrawal of funding is forcing an acceleration of this transition—whether we are ready for it or not. This crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of a system that was built for a different era and has now been outgrown.

Change is no longer optional—it is imperative. This moment must be used not just to patch gaps in funding, but to rethink how we deliver global health—decentralizing decision-making, integrating efforts, and ensuring that national and local actors have the power and resources to lead.

The Consequences of an Incomplete Shift

Historically, the overconcentration of decision-making power in global institutions and donor agencies has led to misaligned priorities, inefficiencies, and fragmentation. Competition for funding, rigid mandates, and lack of coordination across organizations have contributed to duplication, wasted resources, and fragile health systems that rely too heavily on external actors. Meanwhile, efforts to strengthen national capacity have often lacked the structural changes and political will needed to transfer leadership—they have failed to establish the robust foundations and local ownership needed for countries to sustain their own programs – leaving countries dependent on outside interventions rather than progressing toward self-sufficiency.

These flaws are not theoretical—they have played out in real time. When the Ebola outbreak struck West Africa in 2014, affected countries struggled to respond due to fragmented global health coordination. In Haiti, multiple organizations launched competing cholera response programs, wasting resources and creating service gaps. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed the weaknesses of global health dependency, as delays in vaccine distribution left low- and middle-income countries waiting for a slow, fragmented, and insufficient response.

The current global health model is no longer sustainable. While effective in delivering large-scale impact, it struggles to reach the last mile. More critically, it remains deeply exposed to funding cuts, shifting donor priorities, and geopolitical instability. Unless the system evolves, we will continue to face cycles of crisis, where essential programs collapse every time political or financial conditions shift.

The Way Forward: Collaboration, Adaptation and Resilience

The global health system is unraveling before our eyes. We do not have the option to preserve it as it was. Instead, we must adapt, reshaping global health institutions to function as true partners in a locally led ecosystem.

The international community must take this opportunity to not only shift decision-making power and resources to national and local levels but to do so in a way that fosters cooperation, alignment, and collective problem-solving. The shift toward decentralization cannot simply be a reaction to shrinking donor budgets—it must be an intentional strategy that strengthens health systems in the long run.

Not insignificant is the additional challenge of funding. Beyond the political will to increase collaboration and streamline programming, financial support will be imperative to translate this vision into reality. We don’t have a solution yet: we must come together and chart a path forward to meet this challenge.

This is not about abandoning the institutions that have driven decades of progress, nor is it about resisting change out of fear of uncertainty. It is about leaning into transformation—building a global health system that is adaptive, responsive, and truly aligned with the people it serves.

The post Beyond the Crisis: Why Global Health Must Evolve Now appeared first on Camber Collective.

The post A Patient-Centered Health Model for Sub-Saharan Africa appeared first on Camber Collective.

The authors wish to thank Patrick Russel and Natacha Mugeni for their contributions to this article.

Public healthcare spending has doubled in sub-Saharan Africa over the last two decades, with the per capita going from $100 in 2000 to $205 in 2018^[1]. But, despite this progress, access to primary care remains a challenge for many people. In remote areas, it’s still difficult and costly to access a doctor, a nurse, or the appropriate treatment. Six out of ten people^[2] are not covered by Universal health coverage schemes, and for those covered, the out-of-pocket expense is significant and can be as high as 76% in Nigeria^[3]. Moreover, going to the hospital is associated with bad personal experiences for many people discouraged from seeking preventative care. The challenge is even daunting when we factor in the population growth on the continent. By 2050, the continent’s population is projected to double to 2.5 billion people, with one in four people in the world living in Africa. The healthcare sector needs a massive increase in productivity to address this challenge, and we cannot see it happening without bringing in new innovative approaches and leveraging digital technologies.

Provide better health through digital

With the recent uptake in smartphone and internet usage, there is an opportunity to take a different approach to quality and cost-effective primary health. Digital health services could transform people’s experience with healthcare. Even in rural areas, internet uptake has increased to 60% in some countries such as Senegal and Zimbabwe^[4]. Seeking a doctor consultation could be as simple as pulling out a phone to book a virtual appointment. The patient could order her medication through an e-commerce health platform doing last-mile delivery in rural areas. This scenario is already a reality in Kenya, but most people in sub-Saharan Africa are not yet benefiting from this opportunity. Given population growth projection for the next decades, this opportunity is one that stands to grow exponentially.

The good news is that Africa is only at the onset of its digital health journey, and we are seeing the rapid growth of highly scalable innovations that have the potential to disrupt global health. Startups like Kasha and Totohealth are bringing concrete and fast-to-market digital health and self-care solutions for women with novel business models that benefit both patients and providers in urban and last-mile environments. Focusing on the customer experience helps these businesses to improve patients’ interaction with primary health and enhances spaces such as self-care. Other players such as Crib MD are building on-demand preventive care platforms. Beyond primary care, BIMA seizes the opportunity to safeguard people from economic shocks by providing cost-effective health insurance.

Unfortunately, too few of these solutions are available at scale and customers without access to smartphones are not often prioritized. Entrepreneurs face multiple challenges to bring their products to the masses and reach those still using a basic mobile phone. It is important that whilst we acknowledge the power of digital health care and the benefits it provides, we do not forget those who do not have easy and affordable access to digital solutions. We believe there are complementary opportunities between these private initiatives and the public health systems to build affordable, cost-effective, and sustainable primary care services to the hard-to-reach.

Seizing the digital health opportunity

Our experience suggests that building platforms that bring together startups, public health systems, and regulators will enable countries to take advantage of the digital health opportunity fully. Similar approaches have yielded benefits in other countries. For example, Doctolib, a French startup offering online doctor-appointment services, has increased access to providers with a user-friendly experience, an area in which the public health offering was lagging. During the Covid-19 pandemic, public bodies, startups, and regulators collaborated closely to make PCR-tests and vaccine appointments widely available, leading to other innovations such as ChronoDose or ViteMaDose^[5], built as soon as the vaccines were available.

Empathize with patients

Getting a deep understanding of patient needs and behaviors is the best place to start for all ecosystem actors, that way platforms are built with a customer first approach. Patients need a space to share their pains and aspirations, which are necessary to build sustainable digital health products and services. Additionally, each country is different, and understanding people’s cultural norms, behaviors, and specific digital profiles will increase digital health adoption and utilization.

Create space for entrepreneurs to grow

Enabling the new digital health startups to emerge should be a priority for countries. It starts with standard innovation building blocks such as dedicated support, mentoring programs, coupled with eased access to financing to demonstrate product-market fit. For digital health, it also requires evolving the regulatory framework to enable use cases such as remote consultations and task shifting while protecting patients’ data and privacy.

Experiment boldly within the public health systems

Too few health systems are digitalized today, data is not collected, and most investments provide basic needs. While this remains critical, bringing technology could bring massive operational efficiencies within the current healthcare systems and improve patients’ experience. But it requires a bold vision to bring the technology within the public health system. Starting with patient-facing services could be an excellent place to begin building a digital and data-driven culture within public health agencies. The future of public healthcare relies on engaging new models alongside the traditional public health models and leading with successful public-private partnerships or success.

Share and collaborate

Public health systems have an established distribution system across countries, and startups have innovation and the ability to deliver market-ready products with a novel business model as well provide traceability back to the provider. Learning platforms where people will learn from each other through local organizations are critical. These platforms will help entrepreneurs understand the challenges in the healthcare systems while exposing public health bodies to the innovation mindset that startups bring. Finally, collecting and sharing data through open data platforms will be critical to foster concrete solutions that will ultimately benefit the patients wherever they are.

---

[1] Current health expenditure per capita, PPP (current international $) – Sub-Saharan Africa, European Union | Data (worldbank.org)

[2] UHC service coverage index – Sub-Saharan Africa | Data (worldbank.org)

[3] Out-of-pocket expenditure (% of current health expenditure) – Sub-Saharan Africa | Data (worldbank.org)

[4] DHS Survey : Usage of internet, ownership of a mobile phone

[5] Vite Ma Dose : trouvez un créneau de vaccination COVID-19 (covidtracker.fr)

The post Sub-Saharan Africa: the Digital Health Imperative appeared first on Camber Collective.

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.

The post A New Paradigm for Resource Distribution 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.

This is how Michael Pollan, American author and academic best known for his explorations of the socio-cultural impacts of food, concludes an article underscoring how Covid-19 has exacerbated the inherent vulnerabilities and inequities of our modern food system. Adding to the discussion, a recent paper published in the Journal of Peasant Studies provides a detailed history of how we came to inherit this food system, by outlining 70 years of policy choices focused on improving efficiency in response to previous food system crises. In the 1960-70s, efficiency was pursued through industrial production methods, then in the 1980-90s it was pursued through specialization and trade, and the last two decades have pursued efficiency through corporate dominated supply chains.[2] Consistent and compounding policy responses have led to a vulnerable food system that lacks resilience and has traded economic equity, human dignity, human health, and environmental preservation in pursuit of efficiency and concentrated profit. Recognizing this, the time has come for us to force the choices that will put us back on a path to a just, nutritious, and sustainable food system.

First, let’s talk about the current realities of the food system. Then, let’s explore theories for food system transformation. Finally, let’s think about what we can do to help keep our people and our planet alive and well.

Lest we forget one of the hot topics during the early months of this pandemic, Covid-19 exposed to mainstream media the ineffective, inhumane, and highly inequitable nature of our food system.[3] Taking each of those in turn:

If we focus on ineffectiveness, we remember how dumbfounding it was to watch as our food system forced farmers to dump hundreds of gallons of unsold milk and euthanize their livestock on one end, but was unable to accommodate food banks’ ever-growing lines of hungry families suddenly unemployed by the economic shutdown on the other end.[4] A food system built for efficiency has rendered it ineffective except under perfect conditions.

However, while our food system is ineffective at getting food to those who need it, it is effective at accelerating the spread of disease – a distressing reality to confront while we sit amidst a global pandemic. Old and new research has surfaced on how the food system quickly spreads infectious disease – since 1940, agricultural drivers were associated with more than 25% of all diseases, and greater than 50% of infectious diseases caused by germs that spread between animals and people.[5],[6] That said, food system transformation will greatly improve our chances of avoiding the economic and personal pains of rampant disease in the future.  

If we continue examining the food system from the angles of inhumanity and inequity, we remember how food system workers – often workers of color – such as food processing workers and migrant farm labor, continued to face increased illness and death as government mandates kept meatpacking facilities open and restricted labor protections.[7],[8] For many of these same workers and their families, symptoms of Covid-19 were exacerbated by chronic diet-related health illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension that continue to disproportionately afflict low-income communities and communities of color.[9] The food systems’ laser focus on lucrative outputs such as grains, meat, and dairy have long left low-income communities – again, many of color – able only to afford foods that do not fully nourish human bodies. These socio-economic realities (indisputably linked to racial realities) continue to play out in a food system that places more emphasis on profit and efficiency than on nourishment and equity.

Although the news has shifted to the latest-breaking stories, the blatant vulnerabilities and gross inequities exposed in our modern food system remain rampant. This alone provides increasing evidence for and recognition of the longstanding consensus that a concerted transition to smaller, local food systems with increased resilience, distribution of power, equitable access, and diversification of output is a necessary and pressing matter of public policy.[10],[11]

While the consolidation of global supply chains in the industrialized food system made things cheaper and more efficient, the streamlined processes collapse like a long chain of dominos in the event of the smallest of disruption. Smaller systems, on the other hand, can pivot and adapt to changing environments.[12] Their localized nature also means disease does not spread as quickly or as ubiquitously as a germ hitching a ride on the Global Industrialized Food System Express. And finally, although current political choices have created an environment that incentivizes and ensures concentrated power to produce problematic outputs, if power were shifted to local communities, they could make choices that sustain, strengthen and protect their communities with adequate worker rights and appropriate health foods.

Despite consensus on the solution, there is little agreement as to what choices we should make to feasibly arrive there, and who should make those choices. Given what we know about where power lies and given that lobbyists, lawyers, large profit margins, and consumer access might not be on the side of localized food systems for a long time, what can realistically be done?

While several theories of change exist, for each theory of change advocate, there are just as many critics.

First, to those who believe writing concrete scientific reports and telling compelling stories will shift beliefs and behaviors enough to shift policy incentives and consumer preferences, there are those who are not as convinced. While science and storytelling are important, looking to the climate movement as an example, we see evidence it doesn’t matter what is said and known generally, but rather what people in positions of political and financial power proclaim. Much like the climate movement, policy for a new food economy would be expensive, and has few short or medium returns. If communities and politicians fear immediate economic loss or political unpopularity more than they fear future scientific certainty, starting such a politically and emotionally charged conversation with scientific facts is useless.

Second, to those who advocate for solving this issue from a different angle, in which powerful food industry actors themselves transition business models towards sustainability, critics similarly say that as long as policies provide them incentives to operate as they always have, and insurance allows them to write off their losses from operating in such a way, it’s too risky – foolish even – to transition away from the status quo.

Third: What if people vote with their fork until consumer demand out-competes business as usual? Enter critiques: only those who both care about long-term health and sustainability and also have the purchasing power to make choices in line with their beliefs can vote with their fork. That specific consumer segment is not large enough to create system-wide change alone, and even if it were, the process would leave behind the very people we were demanding change for in the first place, given the high prices of food. Chronic lack of purchasing power and access is the reason why America’s dollar stores are able to sell more food nationally than Whole Foods.[13] Besides, for the industries that have decided to cater to this relatively small consumer base by flooding the market with “better for you” brands and fast-casual restaurants, the pandemic seeks to prove you can’t beat capitalism at its own game: in this new normal, the first foods to go are the ones with the most preservatives and longest shelf lives, and the fast food chains have been surviving much better than local restaurants.[14],[15]

It has been made clear that systemic issues rarely have perfect solutions and come with many more questions than answers. Urgency is imperative, but negligence can be deadly. In a world where health is a function of privilege rather than a human right, where excess supply is unable to meet excess demand, and where the land that provides us with our food is treated as poorly as the person working the land, it is time to demand policy change.

Thankfully, policy is much more than the work of politicians. While responsibilities and distribution of power are uneven, the responsibility to change policy is not on politicians alone, nor does the power lie exclusively with them. We as individuals have varying levels of power and privilege we are responsible for using to influence, inform, and initiate change. To change policy, we can do at least two things:

We can gain and share knowledge. Paramount to affecting policy is the interminable work of gaining and sharing knowledge from and with different times, peoples, and places. A well-rounded understanding of the challenges and opportunities can start with having a conversation with a friend, or watching a documentary on Netflix, or even typing a relevant question into the Google search bar. In parallel, it is important to critically analyze any knowledge in order to understand the relationships it has with yourself, the source sharing the knowledge, and the system the knowledge belongs to. For example, does the knowledge reveal anything about your own role in perpetuating the status quo and preventing change, or perhaps opportunities to affect change, based on lived experience, history, or privileges? Who is sharing the knowledge and why them?

We can exercise our right to engage in policy advocacy and voting processes. In a moment in history when political activism is so high, we all know how important it can be to add one’s voice to national elections. However, our voice can be used in local elections, or in any democratic process any organization or community you are involved with might have, too. Register to vote. Find out what decisions are on the table by searching candidates on the internet or emailing the head of the organization you are involved with. Vote for or defend the position that will likely not be perfect, but will bring us away from the status quo of repeated attempts to place efficiency above all.

Morality has been pitted against politics and profit, but such battles have been won before (take the tobacco industry, for example).[16] There is hope in the fact that we got to where we are based on policy, and so we can get ourselves out the same way.

[1] Michael Pollan (2020) “The Sickness in Our Food Supply,” The New York Review of Books

[2] Jennifer Clapp & William G. Moseley (2020) “This food crisis is different: COVID-19 and the fragility of the neoliberal food security order,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1823838

[3] Caleb Pershan (2020) “It’s still the Jungle Out There,” Eater

[4] Tyler Whitley (2020) “Op-ed: Don’t Blame Farmers Who Have to Euthanize Their Animals. Blame the Companies They Work For,” Civil Eats

[5] Albie Miles, Kathleen Merrigan (2020) “If We Get Food Right, We Get Everything Right.” Honolulu Civil Beat

[6] Laura Spinney (2020) “We Need to Rethink Our Food System to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Time Magazine

[7] Andrew Restuccia & Jacob Bunge (2020) “Trump Takes Executive Action to Keep Meat-Processing Plants Open,” The Wall Street Journal

[8] N.a. (2020) “Impact of COVID-19 on people’s livelihoods, their health and our food systems,” Joint statement by ILO, FAO, IFAD and WHO

[9] Pollan (2020) “The Sickness in Our Food Supply”  

[10] Chloe Sorvino (2020) “Going Local: The Case For Bringing America’s Meat Supply Closer To Home,” Forbes

[11] Clapp & Moseley (2020) “This food crisis is different”

[12] Sarah Sax, (2020) “A Vietnamese Farmers’ Cooperative in New Orleans Offers a Lesson in Resilience,” Civil Eats

[13] Elly Truesdell (2020) “Grocery Wars: A Natural Foods Reckoning,” Food + Tech Connect              

[14] Ibid.

[15] Cathy Erway (2020) “What Happens When the Only Restaurants Left Are Chains?” Grub Street

[16] Paul Verkuil (1998) “A Leadership Case Study of Tobacco and its Regulation,” Public Talk: The Online Journal of Discourse Leadership

The post Influencing Policy to Transform Food Systems appeared first on Camber Collective.