Rethinking Philanthropy (Lisa Genasci)

Good salon conversation yesterday with Bill Barron, economist and author of The Great Disconnect, Martin Lees, secretary-general of the Club of Rome, Christine Loh of Hong Kong’s Civic Exchange and Adrian Nelson, who writes and consults on sustainability issues from Manila.

Organized by Civic Exchange, about 30 people packed a China Club room to hear Bill talk about his new book: http://bit.ly/5YwjRG. Martin and Adrian provide invaluable insight. The book essentially covers the disconnect between the reality scientists urgently are trying to convey about the state of our world, about how close we are to depleting our natural resources, to changing our climate and planet irreparably, yet the ever-growing levels of consumption and lack of action from most governments.

No governments are really looking to change our economic models, built around consumption-led growth and with 1 billion people in China and 1 billion people in India looking to consume as we have, that is simply unsustainable, given our severely depleted oceans, water resources, forests and fossil fuels.

Talked about was the U.S.’s missed opportunity to sign the Kyoto agreement and lead the world  in development of green technology, that China is seizing this moment to do just that. Is the seismic shift that will be needed to adequately address the enormous challenges we face an impossibility in a democracy was a question asked? While China seems to understand the danger of inaction and the opportunity around leading all things green, the U.S. struggles even to pass a watered-down climate change bill now stalled in the senate.

Also considered was just why the public is not getting the message that we need to radically change our way of thinking about our lives and the resources we consume, and that our governments need to respond with appropriate regulatory frameworks – both international and national – stimulate innovation and change.

The question was asked why, when given the opportunity to really lead the way, is the Hong Kong government unable to respond in any effective way to the challenges it faces, starting with the public health crisis caused by the deteriorating quality of our air. Research has shown that 53 percent of the time the pollution that affects us most is locally grown – and not from across the border as the government had claimed. Pollution in Hong Kong, which is three times that of New York and causes 1,100 avoidable deaths a year, is caused mostly by transportation: buses, dirty trucks and shipping. The two power plants, of course, also play a role.

Christine’s Civic Exchange (www.civic-exchange.org)  and more recently the Clean Air Network (www.hongkongcan.org) are both working hard to educate government about the public health effects of air pollution, its causes and solutions that would bring better quality of lives for us all. Hong Kong exists at an interesting intersection between China and the West and could easily play an essential role in stimulating change. Our government needs to seize this opportunity and lead.

There is with good reason an outpouring of sympathy and aid from the world to Haiti fueled by some of the most tragic images in years. Perhaps since the South East Asian tsunami on December 26 2004 that killed 230,000 people there hasn’t been such a rush to help others in need.

The  earthquake directly affected about a third of the nation’s population of 9 million, according to the Economist. Perhaps 2% of the population has been killed, and a larger share injured. Much, and maybe most, of the capital city was destroyed. Millions may be without homes. There is certainly need.

In response, US private donors have so far sent US$1.8 billion in cash and in-kind aid, according to the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, with an AP poll showing that 30 percent of American households donated within two weeks of the disaster. There have been  parties in most communities to raise funds for Haiti. Schools have rallied in support of victims of the tragedy, organizing fundraisers and other events. Company employees have rallied to donate.

Much of the initial rush of funding has gone to support some of the aid organizations actively organizing relief operations in Haiti, including the Red Cross, Oxfam America, Partners in Health (which has been working in Haiti for two decades), Doctors without Borders and Unicef.

But it is important to remember that relief is only a small portion of what’s needed in Haiti – there will of course be a massive rebuilding effort once this initial phase is over. History shows that donations spike right after a disaster and then trail off as attentions are focused elsewhere.  At the same time, we must remember lessons from the Tsunami, which also stirred an outpouring of support for victims. Estimates are that despite the billions in well-meaning contributions, 30-40 percent of donations were tainted by graft or went astray.

Before the disaster, Haiti was the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and among the poorest nations on earth, with barely functioning infrastructure nd already enormous challenges for the government.  Now it is outsiders who will have to direct and support much of that effort and it will be enormous.

So it is  important to consider longer-term support for Haiti once this first rush is over. the Besides the excellent Partners in health (http://www.pih.org), Acumen Fund’s Jacqueline Novogratz recommends donating to Architecture  for Humanity (http://www.architectureforhumanity.org/).

In an excellent blog in the Harvard Business Review targeting corporations gearing up to donate, Timothy Ogden (http://bit.ly/8N7EWh) turns to the adage: “don’t just do something, stand there.” He too points to patterns following other disasters:  donations spike in the immediate aftermath; A huge portion of the funds donated are spent on setting up disaster-relief operations that are no longer the primary need; A flood of cash and materials cause a logistics nightmare leading to waste and ineffectiveness, if not corruption; Six months later, reconstruction stalls because the world’s attention has moved elsewhere.

What can we do? Obviously there is need for short-term funds but Ogden and others suggest that when you donate, not earmarking funds for relief only as well as giving to organizations with solid local connections and long experience in-country such as Partners in Health. They are in Haiti for the long-run. Give cash rather than in-kind donations. In the aftermath of the tsunami, products and supplies that could have been sourced locally were flown into affected countries at great expense leading to waste and losing the opportunity to fuel local economies. Ogden also suggests considering giving in six to eight months when it is clear where rebuilding funds are needed.