MSF so far has chosen remain focused on humanitarian action only, responding to people’s medical health needs resulting from different drivers, not addressing these drivers themselves. A so-called ‘single mandate’ organization prioritizing reaction to a breakdown of normality over prevention, capacity building or future resilience. In this paper, Angela Uyen and Michiel Hofman, examine the tensions between the implementation of this commitment and the simultaneous commitment to respond not only to increased humanitarian needs in general, but the specific additional needs accelerated by the climate emergency. Expecting humanitarians to make an equal contribution to lowering emissions whilst simultaneously expanding the response to the acute consequences of the climate crisis is not only very difficult to manage but also risks reducing, rather than expanding the response. MSF is expected to both do more and do less. Respond, but with hands tied behind our back. Is this reasonable to expect, or should humanitarians be more explicitly exempt from carbon reduction expectations?

Article available here: Issue 28 – The crisis of humanitarian action in the age of climate change Archives – Alternatives Humanitaires