Episode 3: Crisis, fragility and risk

In the first mini-series of Good with data we explore one of the most important issues in global development today, the Leave No One Behind Agenda; what it means, why it matters, and how we can make it a reality by improving data and making best use of existing data and evidence. 

In this episode, we discuss how data about risk can support efforts to leave no one behind in uncertain times and in fragile places. By this, we mean the risk of natural disasters, conflict, diseases and economic shocks resulting in sudden, dramatic and extensive changes to poverty and inequality beyond the individual or household level.

For international development actors, this means balancing what we know about who is left behind today with a forward-looking understanding of who may be vulnerable to shocks in the future. We’ve seen the importance of this all too clearly over the last couple of years, as global poverty reduction went into reverse amid the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Our guests are: 

• Harsh Desai, a Data and Policy Analyst for Crises and Fragility at the OECD, where among other things he contributes to the flagship States of Fragility report and oversees the production of the multidimensional fragility framework and States of Fragility platform.
• Roberto Schiano Lomoriello, Programme Management Officer at the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, where he covers Sub-Saharan Africa.

For more on this subject, read our blog: How can data enable effective risk management to mitigate the worst outcomes for people experiencing vulnerability and leave no one behind? And the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2021.

• Roberto recommended reviewing the outputs of the 7th Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, and reading the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022 for an overall picture of global risk. He also encouraged us to think about how we all create risks in our daily lives, from our patterns of consumption to the way we build homes. 
• Harsh encouraged listeners to think about the link between data production and use, ensuring the data we produce is having the impact that we want, and to read the OECD’s  States of Fragility report.

Good with data is a production of Development Initiatives, a global organisation harnessing the power of data and evidence to end poverty, reduce inequality and increase resilience. 

To stay up to date with our work, follow us on Twitter or Linkedin, visit our website, and register for email updates.

We value your feedback! If you have comments or ideas for the show please contact us. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave us a 5 star review wherever you listen.

Transcript

Deborah Hardoon: 0:02

Welcome to Good with data from development initiatives. I'm Deborah Hardoon. And in this three part miniseries, I explore one of the most important issues in global development today, the leave no one behind agenda, what it means, why it matters, and how we can make it a reality by improving data and making best use of existing data and evidence. In this episode, I'm speaking with harsh Desai, an analyst at the OECD who works on the states of fragility report, which uses quantitative data analysis to better understand the implication of fragility for international stability and development. I'm also here with Roberto Schiano Lomoriello, who manages programmes for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction across Sub-Saharan Africa. We're all here together today to discuss how data about risk can support efforts to leave no one behind, particularly in uncertain times and in fragile places. In the other episodes in this series, guests from across UN institutions and civil society have shared their perspectives on the leave no one behind agenda. In one episode, we discuss what's necessary to support a robust data infrastructure that gives us all the empirical evidence we need about poverty and inequality. And in another, we cover how data and evidence on inequality can enable us to better identify and tackle the root causes of poverty. But for this episode, we're focusing on risk and data about risk. So by this, we're talking about the risk of natural disasters, of conflict diseases, economic shocks that can result in sudden dramatic and extensive changes to poverty and inequality. This goes beyond the shocks that can occur at the individual or household level. So for international development actors, this means balancing what we know about who is left behind today, with a forward looking understanding of who may be vulnerable to these kinds of shocks in the future. We've seen the importance of this all too clearly in the last couple of years; global poverty reduction halted and reversed due to the COVID 19 pandemic, and catastrophic climate change events such as floods and droughts and heat waves have affected millions of people. The escalation of conflict in Ukraine has not only created a sudden humanitarian need for millions of people there, but is also having major knock on effects on global energy and food prices, and in turn hunger. This just demonstrates how rapidly situations can deteriorate and affect millions of people. But it's one thing to acknowledge the problem of the risks that lie ahead, and quite another to know what to do about it. So turning first, to Roberto what are the main risks that you see in your context in countries in Sub Saharan Africa, and that through your work, you're seeking to understand and manage?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 2:57

Thank you, Deborah. Thank you also for giving me the opportunity to discuss about this, this important topic. So in Sub-Saharan Africa, actually more than thinking about single risks, what I would like to bring is the concept of multiple risks and how countries that have very limited resources and also in both financially and human side, have to face often multiple challenges. And by this I mean, from COVID pandemic, as we have seen in the past few years, to managing floods and droughts, and as well as, locust infestation. As for example, it has been the case for the Horn of Africa, that during the day pandemic, the governments of many countries in the Horn of Africa region, including Ethiopia, which at the same time was also experiencing conflict. So the main challenge in the region is actually more than one or two or three types of hazards, it's the fact that they need to face several hazards at the same time with those with those very strong constraints.

Deborah Hardoon: 3:15

And how do those risks vary between the countries that are in the region? What are you seeing as the main differences between different countries and their potentially their ability to respond to those risks?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 4:21

So there is a very big difference for example, between Southern Africa the southern Africa region, which is also called the SADC Economic Community, those countries as we have seen now recently in Durban, for example, in South Africa, they experienced very impactful floods, they have mobilised resources from a relatively rich country to address these the consequences of the flash floods there. Similarly if I stay in that region, also SADC, we have also very, very strong cyclones. So Mozambique has experienced very important cyclones from Idai and more recently also Ana and of course, the Indian Ocean region also is very impacted by cyclones. If I'm just thinking about this region, even within the richest region in Africa, the SADC community, even within this region, we have huge diversity in terms of capacity and resources. So taking the example of South Africa comparing it with Cormoros, which is a small island developing state, which when faced with with a cyclone have zero capacity to reallocate resources from one place to another, because they actually, I mean it's a small area. So, there is not one part of the island that is not impacted, all of the island is impacted. So, they there is no possibility of receiving aid, food aid during a cyclone, there is no possibility of you know, all the transport, the maritime transport and the air transport is affected. So there is not even a possibility to reach this context in this situation. But then, of course, Sub-African region is very vast. So if we move to the into the area of, for example, the ECOWAS area, which is the West African side, in West Africa, we have experienced, of course, as you will know, Ebola in the past years, and at the same time, we have experienced very strong droughts in the countries like Niger and Mali, while at the same time compounded by other issues such as conflict in the case of Mali, and of course, other internal, other internal instability situations. And then back, if I move back to the Horn of Africa side, of course, we had also the locust infestation, which added on top of all the the assets that I mentioned before, because of course, also the Horn of Africa area is impacted by droughts very strongly and by by floods. And on top of that, during the, pandemic, they had also the, the locust infestation.

Deborah Hardoon: 6:58

Painting a pretty scary picture of disease and conflict and locusts and extreme weather and the confluence of those things happening at the same time. And Harsh turning to you now rather than risk your work uses the language and concept of fragility. Can you briefly explain how you conceptualise fragility, and what the main dimensions of fragility are in the world today from your perspective?

Harsh Desai: 7:22

Yeah, thank you very much, Deborah, and thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this really interesting conversation. So to answer your question about how the OECD conceptualises fragility, fragility, in our view, is a combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacities to address those risks. So, as you said, it's not just about risks, but about the coping capacities that exist to prevent the onset of risk, or mitigate the impact of risks that inevitably occur. And this perspective on coping capacities is a crucial piece of the puzzle, both in terms of better understanding how fragility manifests, and how actors can support countries' ability to handle the diverse risks that they face. You know, a country might have high risks, say, for example, risks related to environmental or climate related disasters, but it may not necessarily be fragile if it also has high capacities to address those risks, to give an example. Another crucial piece of the OECD definition is that fragility is multidimensional, and that it happens in a spectrum of intensity across five dimensions, the economic, environmental, political, security, and societal dimensions. This conception of this multidimensional approach to fragility really came about in states of fragility 2016, building on all of the great work that had been done up to that point, and following an extensive scoping and consultation process to identify the dimensions of fragility that were relevant to monitor. And I should say that the OECD will be adding a sixth dimension of fragility to its fragility framework, the human dimension, in states of fragility 2022, which should be hitting bookshelves in just a few months. And the last point, and I'm happy to talk a little bit more about that later on, but the last point about fragility that I really wanted to emphasise is that fragility is also universal. And in this way, our conception and framework mirrors the universality of the SDGs and the agenda to leave no one behind. However, I should also say that the states of fragility report importantly focuses on the 57 contexts that are fragile, and that merit closer attention due to the unique and rather significant fragilities that they face. And our point in the states of fragility 2020 report is that these are the countries and contexts that are the most left behind. So maybe I'll stop there. But that's sort of the broadly a broad overview of how the OECD conceptualises fragility across its dimensions.

Deborah Hardoon: 10:33

Thanks very much Harsh. I mean it's a really complex thing to get your head around in many ways, because it's that combination of exposure and coping mechanisms. And you've got these five now six different dimensions to address and, and we're very interested at DI on the data side of things. So can you tell us a little bit about how you actually put together your index when you're, you're kind of juggling all these different complex concepts? And particularly when you're talking about those 57 fragile states where we know getting data that's robust, that's timely can be really tricky from those particularly fragile contexts?

Harsh Desai: 11:10

Yeah, that's a really great question. Just to say, initially, I mean, it's important to note that the States of Fragility framework is explicitly not an index. And we make a point to not call it an index, because really the framework as it is, is an answer to indices that tended to rank countries together that have vastly different fragility profiles. So the point was, well, if you know, Venezuela is 13th and, you know, Solomon Islands are 14th, you know, what does that actually mean? And I picked those two countries just because of their vast geographic distribution, and also the the unique challenges that they're facing. And so I think the point that the States of Fragility framework is trying to make is that there are a range of contexts that have unique fragility profiles across the dimensions of fragility, and it's important to pay attention to those nuances in order to drive effective responses to, to risks and as well as to strengthen coping capacities to those risks. With that said, so since States of Fragility 2016, and we've had about three reports since then. So every two years, the OECD has basically constructed this framework, looking at about eight to 10 indicators, measuring risks, or coping capacities to fragility, in each of the five dimensions. So you, you have about, I think, about 45 to 50 indicators. And so as you said, it's quite a lot. And I think we took great pains when we were constructing the index back in 20152016, to choose data sources that are regularly updated, that have broad geographic coverage, that conceptually reflect the indicators or concepts that we were trying to to represent in each of the dimensions in terms of risks or coping capacities to fragility. So you have a lot of great sources of data here from institutions like the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the Varieties of Democracy Project, and other usual suspects in this area. And so I won't get too technical but once we have these initial set of indicators in each dimension, we need to find a way to make sense of the data and to find patterns in that data. And this is where the OECD uses a type of statistical analysis called principal component analysis to really bring all that data together. And that's as technical as I'll get, because I think people's eyes tend to glaze over when you say principal component analysis. But the point I'm trying to make is that yes, this is quite a complex operation, but we feel that it's important to make sure that we're getting all the right nuances. Now, when it comes to data gaps, I think that anyone who works with data and fragile and conflict affected contexts knows that these gaps will be inevitable to a certain extent. So I think for us, it's about finding the best data available, making certain assumptions in terms of the imputation and sticking to those assumptions as consistently as we can. And then layering that with some qualitative analysis where possible where we look into specific cases, or we try to complement the data with other sources of data that are not necessarily, you know, one of the 45 that we're collecting for initially. So you have this sort of initial foundational layer. But then it's really important to build on that with a range of qualitative analyses, as well as other sources of data to make sure that we're getting as complete of a picture as possible, and minimising some of those concerns that you pointed out about data data availability. So I'll stop there. But but happy to talk a little bit more about this because I think in the past year and a half, especially, we have taken great pains to revisit to the fragility framework, five years after its creation, to make sure that we're still picking up on the right data sources and the right concepts. And, you know, taking advantage maybe of the data revolution for sustainable development, however successful it might have been. And you know, where there might be some new sources of data available to catch some of these hard to capture things. Thanks.

Deborah Hardoon: 16:14

I personally, I'm very interested in these technical aspects of the composition of the index and where that data comes from. But I think, probably more interesting and important for us is, is what kind of difference this data make in terms of how it gets used. And I know that for many international indices and reports, sometimes outputs like this can be as much about driving agendas, and repositioning things like fragility, and the framework that you've got for fragility, you know, driving agendas at the international level, more than necessarily providing specific actionable insights or findings that policymakers can really use on the ground. So would you would you say this is the case of States of Fragility, too?

Harsh Desai: 17:02

Yeah, that's a, that's a great question, not to give too much of the party line but I wouldn't say the OECD necessarily is there to, or at least our work with the OECD in the States of Fragility report, it's not necessarily to further any kind of specific agenda. It's more about making sure that we provide the best evidence and data that we can to support the work that OECD members and other actors are doing in these fragile and conflict affected contexts. So I think it's important to maybe differentiate that and just say that, it's really important to let the data speak, and let the data guide that kind of decision making at both a global level when it comes to identifying where to give official development assistance, for example, and then at a country level when it comes to guiding specific action to address risks or strengthen coping capacities to those risks. With that said, if we're using the term agenda fairly loosely, I mean, I do think that it's important. A big sort of driving force of the states of fragility report series is to, you know, emphasise the multidimensionality of fragility, that fragility is not a monolith, nor is it static. And so, if you kind of accept that multidimensionality, then the response to your fragility needs to also be multidimensional, take into account that complexity, work towards more adaptive and flexible ways of working both in terms of financing and programming. And so I think that the overarching message of fragility being multidimensional, has a lot of practical implications. And so that is one thing that the OECD States of Fragility report series is really trying to emphasise. I mean, it's, you know, understanding the multidimensionality of fragility is really important in order to be fit for fragility in many of these countries. The other sort of overarching message that the report tries to get across is the importance of Official Development Assistance in fragile contexts where there are clear capacities in terms of the revenues that can be raised as well as the general broader fiscal space. And so the the latest data release of ODA in 2020, suggested that DAC, ah, members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, sorry, I'm trying not to use acronyms but members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee gave about 60% of their Official Development Assistance to fragile contexts. And I think it's important to to sort of say that the focus of this Official Development Assistance has been in fragile contexts and needs to continue being so so I think the States of Fragility report plays a big role in providing that evidence and continuing to make the case for the importance of ODA in fragile contexts. So, so yeah, I'll maybe those are just two examples of kind of broader agendas that the States of Fragility Report might emphasise without necessarily suggesting that there is a, there is an agenda being driven here.

Deborah Hardoon: 20:42

Thank you Harsh. I mean, building on that, and in terms of use, and thinking about how data might change the way we think or programme, perhaps from a multidimensional perspective? And can I ask you, Roberto, how does data speak in the countries in the region you're working in to change the way that you think and programme?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 21:03

Thank you for the question. Actually, it's good, because now we're shifting from the more on the on the global level on driving, also implementation from the donor perspective into what is happening at the country level and the national, this is where we come in, because we are trying to use the data to inform policymakers at the national level and sometimes at the local level and of course, if possible, also private sector actors, civil society organisations. So what in the I mean, in disaster risk reduction, evidence is essential. So and any data backed decision making, I mean, any decision making will need to be data backed to really make the case for investing in, in prevention, for example, or investing in preparedness to or investing in mitigation. So on our side, what we are what we are really trying to work on in many African countries is to bring them understanding about the risks that they face, with the analysis of their risk, let's say, portfolio or better said their risk profile. So we have done we have done several studies on 16 African countries. And what we have found is that on average, we have very, very high impacts for mainly floods and droughts across the most, the most important hazards. And when we look at these data using global databases, and we try to bring this information, which is also relatively complex, because it's, it's actually using a lot of probability theory behind, we do probabilistic risk assessments. When we bring this information at the country level, there is often very, let's say, misconception of what will have this data because we were bringing information that this country might already have in some, in one form or in one form or another, sometimes it's in terms of qualitative information, sometimes, even in terms of local, local knowledge you know from indigenous populations. So what what we have we have improved at doing over time is really to bring the process of creating country profiles at the country level, and also bringing the local knowledge as much as possible into the picture, which basically, that will that mainly brings added value to the understanding of the final results of those studies, because this these people will trust much more these results when they see that information from their country information from their community is actually used. This whole process, though, of data collection and data analysis to create risk profile for those countries also, helps us in something that is even more important at the end of the day, which is actually the coordination among stakeholders. I mean, as we all know, disaster is not the responsibility of one agency or another, it's a cross-sectoral responsibility, and not only cross-sectoral actually it's a whole of society responsibility. So when we bring all these stakeholders together to discuss about the data they have about how to aggregate this information to have an analytical product at the end, it definitely brings discussions among them. And it brings to light even more information in terms of who does what in the country that some institutions might be doing disaster risk reduction, without even knowing that they're doing it, but when they enter into a conversation with with all these stakeholders, then they do realise that they have an important stake in the whole, in the whole picture. Maybe just to add on an element that that we're pushing countries to actually report on is our Sendai Framework. The Sendai Framework, as you might know, is a non-binding agreement. And it requires countries to report on several indicators. Of course, though some of these indicators, then are used at the global level, even most likely for the States of Fragility report through the INFORM index. So this monitoring tool, it's quite demanding on the country side, especially in those countries that they don't have necessarily very strong statistical capacity or a very committed disaster risk management agency. So it requires many institutions to bring to report on, for example, indicators related to mortality to people affected, to economic losses, related to disasters, on damage to critical infrastructure, and then also there are some qualitative information that we're trying to capture there in relation to legislation and strategy, in relation to early warning systems, in relation to investments in disaster risk reduction. So when we, when we started training countries in reporting to these indicators it was a huge effort. And it was very difficult to make sure that all the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa would understand these indicators and these concepts. Now after it was brought in 2017. Now since then, more countries are reporting and more data, is becoming available, and that at the end of the day, these data will feed, also global processes and global information, but most importantly, will actually be useful for the country themselves when they start thinking about planning and project design.

Deborah Hardoon: 26:54

And what data analysis is possible to identify that as a result of some of these risks - who exactly is it that is most vulnerable, and who is actually most likely to be left behind?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 27:08

Ok, yes, the most disaggregated, the information you have, the more you can actually have an understanding of who is, who is impacted. So when when we manage to get data disaggregated I mean by gender, by age, by income level, this is when we actually had information on the most impacted people. So if we have done this exercise would be disaggregating data as much as possible in Zambia, and in, Tanzania. And in that occasion, of course, we were capable of saying, in using our estimates, on average, average potential people affected than we know, out of these average people affected, how many would be low income or below poverty line, how many of them would be children, how many of them would be women, and when you actually look at these statistics, then you realise that, of course, the impacts of disasters are not felt equally in the population. And of course, those that are feeling most of the impacts are actually in general, the people that are most vulnerable, which are those that are lower portion of the of the income, distribution. And, and of course, also women. Women in many situations are the those that are most affected by disasters. Giving one simple example in a Muslim country, I think it was in Niger, more women die because of floods. And the reason for this is that women are not allowed to learn how to swim, they are not allowed to go to, for example, the swimming pool. And and then of course, when there is a flood, then the men might be able to get out of the water, but the woman would not be able to get out of the water. So then you see like, also, how important is it to understand the cultural nuances in terms of qualitative information that, that you need to develop, you know, risk profiles and all of these.

Deborah Hardoon: 29:03

Really interesting, thank you. In terms of building the demand for analysing and managing risk and even measuring, I mean, you mentioned that some of the frameworks are really kind of time intense and complex. There's, there's a challenge I'd like to ask you about about, you know, whether all this effort is worth it? Because the better you are at managing and mitigating the risks facing the most vulnerable people, the less likely you are to see negative impacts on poverty and inequality, because everyone's happily doing well, because you've managed that risk. So it can be hard to know whether or not the positive outcome was a result of your efforts, says if the risk itself was a bit overblown, and therefore the investment was unnecessary. And even more than that any risk occurring has a probability attached, and it may never happen. It's not certain. So if it doesn't happen, have you just wasted all your time and effort that could have been spent elsewhere on something knew that wasn't a risk. But there was a known uncertainty, like, for example, the lack of primary health care facilities where you know that there's a demand there, and there's no uncertainty or probability that it might not occur. And so I was wondering, you know, how do you build a business case, if you like, for managing this risk, given those challenges that I just mentioned?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 30:24

Ok, so I guess this question is for me, right?

Deborah Hardoon: 30:27

Yeah, give it a go.

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 30:30

Yes, no, I actually, I really liked this question, because it really links to, to a lot of the narrative that that I'm working around on investing in prevention, of course, I mean, as you say, it is, it is very hard to demonstrate the benefits of prevention, especially when you move out from all these probabilistic analyses. And when you're really trying to, to demonstrate the fact that, you know, the government is investing in this and because of that, now you have, you have less people are going to be impacted, it's true. But actually, this is, this is one of them, I mean demonstrating the benefits is one of the main problems, but even worse, actually, is the myopic, you know, thinking around investments in prevention, because often, as you say, I mean, risks are perceived as remote, limited, uncertain, or unquantifiable. And, of course, this brings very short time horizons thinking around risks. And whenever we see a change, usually in policy and governance is when actually after disasters happen. One example of this, and then I'll go back into demonstration part, is in in Mozambique, after Idai, they have had like 300,000 people impacted by Idie. And even around 350 people dead or I don't recall exactly the right amount. But after that, they they have basically established an operation centre, and then the government, the President himself, he decided to be the lead in, in the region in disaster risk reduction, he went to the African Union and he said, I want to become leading, I want Mozambique to lead in disaster risk reduction, and I want to invest in a facility that will help all the countries in the region to know about when an emergency happens, and then coordinate directly from there. Just like you know these huge ideas about investing in disaster risk reduction that happen just after a disaster, is what we need to try to shift our our policymaking landscape. And the way we're trying to do it is by providing more and more evidence that investing in disaster risk reduction, it's not only actually providing new benefits in terms of avoided risk, that usually this is what the models provide, but also what how the these investment will bring you benefits anyway. So, this is the the triple dividend approach. So, there is the first the first part is because I invest in prevention and mitigation, I have less damages, I have less people affected, less people die, and this is one component, this is the first dividend, the second dividend is because of these investments, I'm actually using debt investment also to do things so for example, that is the case of a multipurpose dam, the multipurpose dam can retain water when the flood situation, but can also generate electricity by just using you know the water flow to as a as a hydropower generator. And then there is a third dividend which is because of these two effects. So, because of the reduced losses and because of an because of other sources of income that have been generated, this is creating a more stable environment, this security this is providing you know, incentives for the private sector also to invest because there is less risk, even less risk perceived in a specific area or location. So, this overall has a multiplier effect over in the in the community and then at the national level. And and then these provide other benefits to the to the overall development of the of the country, if we are you if you want to use GDP then the GDP that will be possible the increase in GDP level growth. So, this is maybe I mean the narrative that has been also developed by the World Bank and we have done several studies to demonstrate this also in Angola we have done a study to show that if we use for to fight drought, if we use drought resistant crops, these drought resistant crops of course they can provide a general increase in the level of income of the population. They can be because of the because of there is a more stable exchange between communities with selling different crops then this community will have a more stable income level. So the idea is really to shifting the mind around, ok, we are investing in prevention or mitigation just to avoid this impact from happening, but we will never know whether this disaster will happen or not. But moving into, we are investing in something that if disaster happens or not, it's still, it's still providing benefits to you. And other examples come from the nature based solutions world that have proved to be extremely effective also, like mangrove restoration, mangrove restoration is extremely effective for flood retention, and is also very important for biodiversity purposes.

Deborah Hardoon: 35:51

Yeah and I think the example you gave of women in Niger is another good one where, you know, breaking down the barriers and discrimination facing women and enabling them to learn to swim is a good thing in and of itself, even if the flood doesn't happen, right?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 36:06

Totally, actually, that brings me to a very, very relevant point that not only investments in disaster risk reduction is necessarily costly. So there are those that we call the structural investments. So that this is really infrastructural measures, and like investing in infrastructure and other things like this. And then there are also the non infrastructure of investment. So he's really investing in governance, in education, in programmes like this. And actually, these are often providing very good returns, though it's very hard to demonstrate it with cost benefit analysis kind of, of exercises, because really investing in a national platform, for example, investing in governance, investing in leadership in DRR, it's very hard to quantify the cost of this, but the benefits are definitely very high.

Deborah Hardoon: 36:58

Harsh, where do you see the role of data and evidence in supporting those kinds of investments and building the business case at the global level? For that kind of upfront investment before the impacts on poverty and inequality are seen and costed?

Harsh Desai: 37:15

Yeah, thanks very much for that question. And a really interesting turn to the conversation. I mean, I think there, there is a lot of potential for data to help us make the case for these types of upfront investments, mainly because I think we're getting more sophisticated and better data. We're developing, we as in sort of the community that is working on these issues, but I think we're developing better models and becoming smarter about the assumptions that we make about the data. And that is a huge credit to the great work that so many institutions are doing in this broader ecosystem of data production, use and uptake. So just going back to the conversation we were just having about sort of the problem of the counterfactual problem. You know, I think that it's it's important to note that that problem does exist. And it might partially explain why for every dollar invested in conflict prevention in fragile contexts there are $4 invested towards humanitarian assistance, which is sort of contributing to overstretched humanitarian budgets and capacity and, and leading to this tendency towards firefighting, which is something that States of Fragility has repeatedly emphasised. But just to say that, thanks to all of the great work that is being done, it is definitely possible to quantify the effect of a particular programme on, in the case of prevention or to, to make the business case for prevention. So I think there's some great impact evaluation work being done. And it's sort of a reminder to maybe bake in some of those impact evaluations upfront in programmes so that you can go about assessing their potential impact for prevention purposes. There's also some great work, of course, being done following on from pathway for peace, as well as the work that Pathfinders is doing on on sort of building a business case for conflict prevention. So I think there's some great work and it does sort of trickle down into the explicit and specific business cases that donors are making for particular projects. In prevention, for example. With that said, I would you know, push us as a community to think more about the uptake of the evidence, and about the logic, the sort of the, you know, the theory of change between having data available and then using that data for particular purposes. In the context of States of Fragility, we know that donors use the fragility framework as an independent resource to understand where they can prioritise their financing and programming for example. Even at the country level, some donors have developed tools that use some of the data from the fragility framework to help identify specific risks and coping capacities that can galvanise some action. With that said, you know, I do think we need to sort of think a little bit more about the assumptions that we're making with the data, and how that data is being put into the hands of decision makers in order to inform some very specific and concrete actions. I would say that we're a little bit far off from that, you know, that sort of theorised chain from working so seamlessly. And I think it's up to us as a community to continue to produce data that is actually in demand, to continue to test the assumptions behind the data that we produce, as well as the models that we develop. And then to think a little bit more concretely and specifically about the use cases for that data, whether it be at a country level or regional and even global level. So I'll say that's sort of a starting point, but I think Roberto had some really great examples as well of, of ways to navigate that kind of a divide between the production of the data and then the use of it for policymaking.

Deborah Hardoon: 41:52

Roberto and Harsh, thank you so much for your time and contributions on this topic. I mean, I think it's got, we've got some pretty scary things happening in the world right now and I think data really does help us get more of a practical handle on some of the uncertainty and what we can do to prevent the worst outcomes for the most vulnerable people. Before we sign off though, is there anything you want our listeners to take away in particular, or read or think about as they digest this podcast on risk and fragility, any recommendations for our listeners?

Roberto Schiano Lomoriello: 42:26

Sure, sure there are always good recommendations. I mean, we have recently, just last week, we had a global platform for disaster risk reduction, I would advise everybody to also look at the website, there have been very interesting sessions, and of course, very interesting publications related to it. And one, or just just before the global platform, one of it is the Global Assessment Report, which is done every every three years by UNDRR, and it really brings you the the overall picture globally on what we know about risk. And and not only that, this year what we have brought in is also the concept of behaviour, like, how can we actually change behaviours of people. And that brings me to the other point that maybe I would like all our listeners to think about is that I think it's good to really think about how we create risks ourself, in our way of in our consumption, the way we consume, the way we purchase things, the way we build houses, the way we actually live and move in the streets, I think we should really think carefully about all the decisions that we that we, that we take, because all of them can create risk or another and we are the first people and the first also responders in case of a disaster happen. So let us think, let us think resilience, let us bring this concept of thinking about resilience when in our life. And then, slowly I think this would also bring changes in the private sector that would bring changes in the public sector. Because at the end of the day, it's us who would who will move the agenda of the public sector and the private sector by our decision making roles.

Harsh Desai: 44:09

Yeah, thank you, I mean, I would just add to that, really would encourage listeners to think about this link between data production and use and what is the purpose of the data that we are actually producing? Because I think there's a lot of research, there's a lot of data floating out there and a lot of different models that we can use with that data. But if all of that is sort of built without an end user in mind, then we have to think about whether it's the best use of time at you know, at best, or if it might actually lead to some really negative consequences for the work that we are doing and the people that we're trying to help and so yeah, I think thinking of out that link a little bit more. And we take a lot of time here at the OECD to think about that link to ensure that really, we are producing and providing the best evidence for better policies and better lives. In terms of resources to think about, you know, I would be remiss if I did not mention the States of Fragility data platform where we publish all of our data that's publicly accessible and freely available, so I would encourage you all to check that out, as well as stay tuned for States of Fragility 2022, which is coming in just a few months. And we'll be thinking a little bit about sort of what fragility looks like after the past two or three years that the world has had. And you know, how we can kind of challenge and update our assumptions about fragility, as well as about the data that we use to kind of better understand that fragility.

Deborah Hardoon: 46:06

Thank you both. And thank you to our listeners, we hope you found the discussion here interesting, useful, particularly in efforts to use data to leave no one behind. If you haven't already, I encourage you to tune into our other two episodes in this series for more discussion on data systems and inequality in the context of the leave no one behind agenda. Good with data is a production of Development Initiatives, an independent organisation that enables action through data driven evidence and insight to end poverty, reduce inequality and increase resilience. For more on what we do and the issues discussed in this episode, go to devinit.org, that's d e v i n i t.org. This series is produced by Sarah Harries, Joshua Flynn, Anna Hope, Tim Molyneux and me Deborah Hardoon.