the authors describe how the inability "to provide the requested guarantees on reporting and accountability" for aid projects in Somalia and elsewhere resulted in a stop of funding from major donor agencies – the results of this risk avoidance by the donors were disastrous: whole regions were destabilized; civil war flamed up. The death toll went into the thousands.
Online lecture and discussion: In a well-known study of the OECD (https://buildingmarkets.org/sites/default/files/managing_risks_in_fragile_and_transitional_contexts_september_2011.pdf), the authors describe how the inability “to provide the requested guarantees on reporting and accountability” for aid projects in Somalia and elsewhere resulted in a stop of funding from major donor agencies – the results of this risk avoidance by the donors were disastrous: whole regions were destabilized; civil war flamed up. The death toll went into the thousands.
Similar experiences were reported from the Global Fund, where audit findings of misused syringes in an HIV program resulted in a massive cut in funding: in the wake of the scandal, nearly half of the employees in HQs had to be dismissed, and country programs had to be cut – it is not exaggerated to say that this reaction of the donors resulted in a direct loss of human lives.
Needless to say that crying “scandal!” in a secure office somewhere in Western Europe was nearly risk-free, while implementing the programs was not.
These and similar experiences brought the theme of risk communication to the boards of supranational and international organizations. How to communicate risks to back donors? This seemed to be a core issue for the organizations. How to mitigate these risks? How to measure them? And – after all: which risks?