Political economy of Forecast-Based Action in the context of the 'new humanitarianism' paradigm: a multi-scalar analysis of anticipatory intervention

“新人道主义”范式背景下基于预测的行动的政治经济学：预期干预的多尺度分析

• 批准号: 2133223
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Sussex
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2133223
• 关键词: Political; economy; Forecast; Based; Action

Donors, governments and the NGO community often do not do enough to prepare for climate and 'natural' hazards. Traditionally, the bulk of funding has been supplied post-disaster (Kellet and Caravani, 2013), as was the case with the response to the Greater Horn of Africa 2011 drought, where despite early warnings the international community failed to respond in advance (Lautze et al, 2012). However, recent years have seen a suite of new approaches aimed at acting in advance of hazards. This approach is typified by integrating early warning systems into humanitarian actions, such as Forecast-Based Financing (FbF) and Forecast-Based Action (FbA), by a shift to 'on demand' climate information services and by novel insurance tools such as those promised by the London Centre for Global Disaster Protection . These approaches are marked by the call 'for increasing engagement between humanitarian aid and adaptation interventions' (Eriksen et al 2017:1), and represent a paradigm shift towards 'new humanitarianism' (Marin and Naess, 2017). Taken together, this shift represents a confluence of developments such as a desire to improve the usability of climate science, a more nuanced approach to adaptation and resilience, whereby the resilience paradigm serves as a bridging concept between humanitarian and adaptation initiatives. Taking off from the knowledge that policymaking is incremental, complex and characterised by competing agendas (Wolmer et al., 2009), this PhD draws from the development studies expertise at the University of Sussex and the ForPAc network to understand the operationalisation of FbA in Kenya, contextualising this against the broader paradigm shifts and initiatives outlined above. Following a problem-driven political economy analysis (DFID, 2009), techniques such as stakeholder interviewing and power mapping will be used to examine the actors, interests, ideas and institutions that influence how FbA is implemented in practice. The following research questions reflect the proposed multi-scalar approach; i) At a national level, how does the paradigm shift outlined above align with pre-existing development priorities and policy processes? In Kenya, this is complicated by the devolved county system, which has created opportunities for participatory decision-making and access to climate finance (Barrett, 2015), whilst also fracturing the policy process. ii) At an institutional level, how constrained are institutions by the perceived risk of acting in vain (Coughlan de Perez, 2015), or by the delicate positionality of humanitarian organisations within diplomatic spaces (Marin and Naess, 2017: 26)? There is much to be learned about the challenges for institutions adopting FbA. iii) At a local level, initial research suggests that increasing attention to resilience and adaptation among humanitarian actors may not lead to reduced vulnerability because resources tend to be captured through existing power structures (Mosberg et al. 2017). Is this replicated through the implementation of FbA?

捐助者、政府和非政府组织在应对气候和“自然”灾害方面往往做得不够。传统上，大部分资金都是在灾后提供的（Kellet和Caravani， 2013）， 2011年大非洲之角旱灾的应对就是这样，尽管有早期预警，但国际社会未能提前做出反应（Lautze等人，2012）。然而，近年来出现了一系列旨在在危险发生之前采取行动的新方法。这种方法的典型特征是将预警系统整合到人道主义行动中，例如基于预测的融资（FbF）和基于预测的行动（FbA），转向“随需应变”的气候信息服务，以及采用诸如伦敦全球灾害保护中心承诺的新型保险工具。这些方法的特点是呼吁“增加人道主义援助和适应干预之间的接触”（Eriksen等人2017:1），并代表着向“新人道主义”的范式转变（Marin和Naess， 2017）。总而言之，这一转变代表了一系列发展的汇合，如提高气候科学可用性的愿望，对适应和复原力采取更细致的方法，复原力范式在人道主义和适应举措之间起到了桥梁作用。从政策制定是渐进的、复杂的和以相互竞争的议程为特征的知识出发（Wolmer等人，2009年），该博士借鉴了苏塞克斯大学和ForPAc网络的发展研究专业知识，以了解肯尼亚FbA的运作情况，并将其与上述更广泛的范式转变和举措相结合。在问题驱动的政治经济分析（DFID, 2009）之后，将使用利益相关者访谈和权力映射等技术来检查影响FbA在实践中如何实施的行动者、利益、想法和制度。以下研究问题反映了所提出的多标量方法；i)在国家一级，上述模式转变如何与已有的发展优先事项和政策进程保持一致？在肯尼亚，权力下放的县制度使情况变得复杂，这为参与式决策和获得气候融资创造了机会（Barrett, 2015），同时也破坏了政策过程。ii)在制度层面，制度如何受到徒劳行动的感知风险（Coughlan de Perez, 2015）或人道主义组织在外交空间内的微妙地位（Marin和Naess， 2017: 26）的约束？对于采用FbA的机构所面临的挑战，我们有很多需要了解的地方。iii)在地方层面，初步研究表明，人道主义行为体对恢复力和适应能力的日益关注可能不会降低脆弱性，因为资源往往通过现有的权力结构获得（Mosberg et al. 2017）。这是通过FbA的实现复制的吗？