Dear All,
In lieu of another piece from me at this time, we decided to post this back and forth between myself and Neema Kihwelo a young woman of Tanzanian origin and formerly a student at Columbia University. Neema is not in New York at this juncture but has been helping us fill a gap with respect to our concerns with human rights and peace and security issues – the widening development inequalities and debt burdens which exacerbate tensions which can (and do) lead to violence in various forms. Neema has shared expertise which we would otherwise only sporadically have access to, expertise which helps to “round out” our core policy concerns and more directly links progress on sustainable development to progress on peacebuilding.
In the Security Council this past week, the US representative shared his disdain for the Sustainable Development Goals believing them to be a needless distraction from the “real work of peace.” Contrary to this view, we affirm that such Development which includes a fairer system of international finance, urgent debt relief, counter-corruption measures and greater international solidarity and trust are actually indispensable to any peace which can ultimately be sustained.
Neema started off the conversation with her review of the important UN event below.
Towards a Risk-Informed Approach to Development Financing Resilience Today for a Sustainable Tomorrow Second Committee Side Event, UN General Assembly
UNDRR and UNDP opened with a strong call for country-led transformation moving from project-by-project interventions to a “systems finance” model. They stressed integrating risk analysis and financing into core government policy across all sectors, anchored in three pillars: scaling risk-informed investments, strengthening national systems, and promoting cross-sector action.
Panel 1: Financing Gaps, Local Capacity, and Innovation
Key Highlights:
● Global disaster risk financing needs are estimated at USD 2.3 trillion annually, yet only 25% is currently mobilized, signaling an urgent need for more effective resource allocation as ODA continues to decline.
● Panelists identified a risk appetite mismatch between capital holders and the credit profiles of vulnerable nations, with perceived or actual credit risks obstructing private and institutional investment in resilience.
● The UNCDF and partners showcased practical de-risking innovations such as climate insurance programs in the Pacific and Africa, financial inclusion facilities for African small banks and SMEs, and mobile-based insurance payouts that provide citizens rapid compensation after climate shocks.
● Subnational governments face fragmented and misaligned financing options. As highlighted by Paul Smoke, private financing remains scarce, concessional funds unevenly distributed, and infrastructure transfers often bypass local resilience priorities.
● The panel called for expanding incentive-based and intermediary finance, such as municipal development banks and blended finance partnerships, to empower local governments, improve creditworthiness, and attract sustainable private investment.
● Strengthening loan repayment systems, targeted bond frameworks, and aligning financial instruments with measurable resilience outcomes were seen as central to enabling locally owned, durable disaster risk investments.
Critical Reflections: While Panel 1 presented innovative tools and strong technical solutions, the discussion revealed persistent structural obstacles. Many pilot initiatives depend on external actors and lack domestic ownership or policy mainstreaming. Subnational entities where vulnerability is greatest still face limited capacity to absorb, implement, and sustain risk-informed investments. National reforms to integrate resilience into public budgets remain incomplete, and incentive frameworks for private investment are not yet delivering at scale. The price of inaction, however, is rising without deeper collaboration, governance reform, and equitable access to finance; innovation risks outpacing inclusion.
Panel 2: Tailored Solutions for Vulnerable and Local Contexts – Financing strategies, concessional mechanisms and partnership
Rwanda: Rwanda presented a strong example of national ownership in risk-informed development. A roadmap for universal early warning coverage by 2027 is being implemented through coordination across ministries and financing from the Rwanda Green Fund and National Risk Reduction Fund. Its partnership with the World Bank’s contingent credit line mechanisms represents a shift from reactive to proactive financing, anchoring resilience in domestic resource mobilization and job creation within green sectors.
Portugal – “Safe Village, Safe People” Programme: Portugal’s model of community-led wildfire risk reduction demonstrated how local partnerships can operationalize systemic resilience. The program combines structural safety measures with behavioral change, conducting local drills, appointing Local Safety Officers, mapping safe zones, and training volunteers in vulnerable rural areas. Recognized by the EU, World Bank, and G20 as a leading example, this initiative highlights how risk preparedness can be localized effectively to address vulnerable demographics such as older and isolated populations.
Private Sector & Digital Finance – Global Policy House: Michelle Chivunga (Global Policy House) emphasized digital transformation as a driver of resilience finance. She urged governments to invest in data ecosystems, digital literacy, and energy sustainability for data centers to support AI-readiness and analytics for disaster response. Highlighting alternative capital sources such as digital assets, tokenized resources, and cryptocurrency, she framed private-sector innovation as essential for inclusive growth. Her remarks underscored the need for citizens to be co-architects, not beneficiaries, ensuring that digital transitions are participatory, ethical, and community-led.
Comparative Insights and Overarching Gaps
● Financial Innovation: The event showcased diverse instruments, contingency funds, DRF strategies, Cat DDOs, and risk pooling but large-scale blended mechanisms involving private and digital finance remain nascent. Sustained pilots, harmonized regulation, and stronger domestic financial ecosystems are crucial for scaling impact.
● Data, Digital, and Equity Challenges: While digital readiness was frequently mentioned, data ethics, infrastructure, and harmonization gaps persist, particularly across low-capacity and rural contexts.
● Decentralized Capacity: Subnational entities require tailored tools and credit enhancements to invest in risk management autonomously, supported by practical governance and fiscal reforms.
● Participatory Shift: Rwanda and Portugal reframed local actors as partners in design and delivery. Similarly, Chivunga’s proposal linked digital and financial inclusion directly to SDG progress, envisioning resilience as both an economic and social justice outcome.
Zuber Response
Hello Neema,
I’m sitting in a UN cafe waiting for 6th Committee to start and thinking about your good reflections on the Thursday event. You are more on top of all this than I am, and I appreciate it very much.
One part of your assessment struck me particularly: “National reforms to integrate resilience into public budgets remain incomplete, and incentive frameworks for private investment are not yet delivering at scale. The price of inaction, however, is rising without deeper collaboration, governance reform, and equitable access to finance; innovation risks outpacing inclusion.”
The UN has been pushing states to adopt more robust early warning mechanisms for the SIDS and other small developing states. And there is plenty of discussion on the importance of blended finance and domestic resource mobilization. But amidst all of the positive interventions, something doesn’t add up and I can’t put my finger on it.
Clearly one issue relates to the gaps, sometimes enormous, between pledged funds and delivered funds. It is so easy to promise, but delivery runs into obstacles including funding already promised for other purposes (ie. peacekeeping, specialized agencies), the proliferation of earmarked funds rather than general operating funds which can be mobilized quickly to meet crises, the relative lack of anti-corruption policing as well as measures to ensure that natural resources remain in domestic hands and can thus contribute to domestic budget priorities.
All of this is important, and all of this seems insufficient to building a more peaceful world. What is missing?
Pinning some of this resource inadequacy on “colonial legacies” is true, in my view, but doesn’t illuminate the path forward aside from demanding a reset to ensure that domestic resources remain under domestic control and that colonial puppeteers cut the manipulative chords for good.
But governments don’t always have the best interests of constituents at heart, and in some instances the “theft” of resources has occurred with the active support of governments which have also in some instances enabled the “illicit flows” that we spend so much time talking about here and which the wealthier nations and investment banks have enabled as well in their own way.
I don’t know, Neema. Seems at times like we have too many culprits and not enough solutions. We humans and our motives are a mixed bag for sure.
All best,
Bob
Neema Response
I hope you are well and have had a good start to the week. I completely agree with your sentiments, and I guess this is what I have always found challenging about policy work versus the realities of implementation. The moderator at the end of panel one captured it perfectly when she said that solutions exist, but financing remains a challenge. That struck me, because again it raises the question of what a real resolution forward looks like.
I agree with you that humans are a complicated bunch. While colonial legacies have undeniably shaped today’s inequities, they can’t fully explain the persistent dysfunction in how we mobilize and govern resources. What has been needed for a while now is a genuine overhaul of governance systems at both global and domestic levels. The protests we’re seeing across the Global South, from Nepal, Madagascar to Kenya and beyond, reflect deep frustration with governments that feel disconnected from citizens’ realities and with global systems that still appear extractive rather than empowering.
Blended finance continues to be celebrated as a silver bullet for unlocking private capital, but in practice it often reproduces the same hierarchies it claims to fix. Risk perceptions make finance prohibitively expensive for small or climate-vulnerable states, while accountability mechanisms remain weak. Without tackling the systemic biases about who defines risk, who controls resources, and who truly benefits, even the most innovative mechanisms risk becoming old tools repackaged.
Maybe what is missing is the connective tissue between global ambitions and local realities. That means putting greater focus on institutional intermediation and trust infrastructure. National systems need the capacity and credibility to absorb and direct funds effectively, while international institutions must learn to share rather than centralize risk and decision-making.
Best,
Neema.
gapwblog 
Leave a comment