第四季第8集：人道主义援助与不作为的代价

世界粮食计划署正在拯救生命。但如果我们反复拯救同一条生命，那就是结构性问题了。我们需要采取不同的做法。我们需要改变生活，而这不会一蹴而就。

World Food Program is saving lives. But if we are saving the same life again and again and again, it's a structural problem. We need to do something different. We need to change lives, and that's not gonna happen overnight.

欢迎收听Vox Dev Talks。我是蒂姆·菲利普斯。新冠疫情、乌克兰战争、加沙冲突、气候变化、人口结构变迁，所有这些危机都凸显了人道主义救援的必要性，而当前需求正处于历史最高点。然而国际社会的支持却在减少。如今大多数发展研究都聚焦于实现可持续增长。

Welcome to Vox Dev Talks. My name is Tim Phillips. COVID, Ukraine, Gaza, climate change, demographic change, all of these crises underline the need for humanitarian relief, and that need is at record highs. While support from the international community, well, that's dwindling. Most development research today focuses on creating sustainable growth.

但我们能否优先考虑那些能最有效提供紧急人道主义援助的政策？如果这样做，这些政策应该是什么？联合国世界粮食计划署首席经济学家阿里夫·侯赛因亲眼目睹了改善全球粮食安全的紧迫性与国际应对措施的不足，他现在加入了我们的对话。阿里夫，你是我们Vox Dev Talks最早期的嘉宾之一，很高兴再次与你交谈。欢迎回来。

But could we put more priority on the most efficient policies to deliver urgently needed humanitarian assistance? And if we did, what would those policies be? Arif Hussein, the UN World Food Program's chief economist sees at firsthand the need to improve global food security and the inadequacy of the international response, and he joins me now. Arif, you were one of our very first guests on Vox Dev Talks, so I'm delighted to talk to you again. Welcome back.

谢谢邀请。很荣幸参与。

Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure.

阿里夫，我提到人道主义援助需求非常巨大。能否用具体数字说明？2024年这些数字是在扩大还是缩小？

Arif, I've mentioned that the need for humanitarian support is huge. Can you put some numbers on that? And tell me, in 2024, are those numbers getting bigger or smaller?

先看背景数据：2019年新冠疫情前，全球约有1.35亿人处于饥饿危机或更糟境地，涉及52、53个国家。疫情爆发后，这个数字骤增至1.76亿，国家数量上升到78、79个。疫情持续两年后，乌克兰战争又将2022年的2.76亿推高至3.45亿人。

Well, just to put things in perspective, at the time right before COVID 2019, we had about hundred and thirty five million people in the world who were in hunger crises or worse situation. Mhmm. And that wasn't about fifty two, 53 countries worldwide. Then COVID struck, and suddenly that 135 became about one And hundred and seventy six instead of 52, 53 countries, we went up to about 78, 79 countries. And then COVID stayed with us for a couple of years, and after that, the war in Ukraine basically picked that two hundred and seventy six and took it up to three hundred and forty five million people in '22.

2023年全年，这个数字基本维持在相近水平，同样覆盖约78、79个国家。此刻我们谈话时，79个国家约有3.33亿人面临危机级别或更严重的粮食安全问题。但这只是冰山一角——可以说粮食安全数字正在稳定，但稳定在极高的水平线上。

For 'twenty three, we have pretty much stayed at that level for most of the year in about, again, 78, 79 countries. Right now, as we speak, we're looking at about three thirty three million people in 79 countries who are in crisis or worse level of food security situations. But that's just half of the story. So you can say that, look, mean, food security numbers, they're stabilizing, but they're stabilizing at very elevated levels. Mhmm.

但棘手的是我们的资金正在缩水。2022年我们达到了约142亿美元的创纪录水平，而2023年我们降至约86亿美元。哇，这相当于60%甚至更多的削减，坦白说这是不可持续的。

But what is tough is that our monies are shrinking. In 2022, we were at a record level, which was about $14,200,000,000. And in 2023, we fell to about $8,600,000,000. Wow. And that is a 60% cut or more, which is frankly unsustainable.

换句话说，我们的需求已稳定在后疫情时代、后乌克兰战争时期的水平，但资金却回落至疫情前水平。这种情况非常糟糕，其后果将波及全球。另外我要明确一点：世界粮食计划署是靠自愿捐款运作的机构，我们最大的资助方是捐赠国政府——大型政府占比超过90%，其次是私营部门和个人捐赠。

So another way you can say this is that, you know, our needs have stabilized at post COVID, post Ukraine levels, but our funding has fallen back to pre COVID level. And that is something which is terrible. The consequences of that could be felt around the world. Let me also be clear about one other thing that World Food Program is a voluntarily funded organization. Our biggest funders are donor governments, big governments, you know, 90%, 90 plus percent, and then private sector, and then individual givings.

但主力还是各国政府。我们历来存在约30%的资金缺口，即所需资金与实际到位资金的差距。我们总能设法应对这个缺口，但60%以上的缺口就超出了管理能力，这将带来直接和间接的双重后果。

But the main thrust is governments. We have always had a gap of about 30% in terms of what we asked for, meaning what we needed, and what we actually got. And by one way or the other, we have been able to manage that. But a 60 plus percent gap is unmanageable. And that has both direct consequences and indirect consequences.

当所有工作都至关重要时，你们如何在这种巨大缺口下确定优先事项？

How do you make priority with such a huge gap when everything you do is important?

这确实是工作中最艰难的部分。因为你要在饥饿人群和濒临饿死的人之间做选择。当你给濒临饿死者发放食物时，明知其他人也在挨饿。而很快，那些饥饿者就会变成濒临饿死的人。

That's the toughest part of the job, really. Yeah. Because you're choosing between hungry and the starving. And you're giving food to the starving while you know others are hungry. And what happens is that pretty soon those who are hungry become starving.

于是陷入这种恶性循环。30%的缺口尚可应对，但60%的缺口实际上已无法处理。我们现在的做法是：几乎在所有地区削减口粮配给。

So you get caught in this cycle. When you have a 30% gap one way or the other, you're able to manage it. But at 60% of the gap, it is practically impossible. So what are we doing? Pretty much everywhere, we are cutting rations.

我们正在减少受助人数，大幅缩减规模；或者将全额口粮改为半额。即便如此，缺口仍然巨大。我必须再次强调：这个缺口不仅影响正在受苦挨饿的人群，还会波及整体经济和全球其他地区。当我们试图共同解答和应对这些问题时——无论你是人道主义者、政府官员还是政治家——都需要将这个因素纳入考量，因为这是个需要集体应对的问题。

We are cutting the number of people we are assisting and massively cutting those down. Or instead of giving them a full ration, we may be giving them half ration. And even then, doing all of that, we got a big gap. And I will say it again that this gap has consequences not only to the people who are suffering and starving, but it has consequences to the rest of the economy and also rest of the world. We need to take that part in our calculus when we are trying to answer and address these questions collectively, whether, you know, you're a humanitarian, whether you're sitting in the government, whether you're a politician, because it is a collective problem.

最重要的是，那些认为这是别人的问题，或者事情发生在别处、我们自有麻烦的日子早已一去不复返。我们紧密相连，无法再将其他地方发生的事视为与己无关。或许眼下是别人的困境，但很快它们就会变成我们的难题。最终我们不得不耗费数十亿美元来解决。我认为这是政策制定者、政治家和决策者需要更深刻理解的现实。

And above all, the days of saying this is somebody else's problem, or it is something, it's over there, we got our problems over here, are long gone. We are too tightly knitted to see things happening elsewhere as somebody else's problem. There may be somebody else's problems right now, but very quickly, they become our problems. And then we end up spending billions upon billions of dollars to sort that out. And I think that's something which policymakers, politicians, decision makers need to understand better.

稍后我们将探讨一些解决方案或可能的应对措施。但在结束这个话题前，为什么资金援助大幅减少？是捐助疲劳？还是政治优先事项发生了变化？究竟怎么回事？

We'll look at some solutions or some potential solutions to this in a minute. But just before we get off this, why has the funding dropped off so much? Is it donor fatigue? Is it different political priorities? What's going on?

归根结底，这就是捐助疲劳。对吧？嗯...在全球范围内，这么说可能有些讽刺，但资源终究是有限的。确实。

At the end of the day, it is donor fatigue. Right? Because Mhmm. In the world, it's funny to say that, but there are only so many resources. Yeah.

同时存在优先级的抉择。每当重大事件发生，这些优先级就会重新洗牌。乌克兰战争代价不菲，应对新冠疫情代价不菲，如今处理加沙问题同样不会轻松。

And there are prioritization decisions. And when anything happens, those prioritization decisions change. The war in Ukraine wasn't cheap. Dealing with COVID wasn't cheap. Now dealing with Gaza is not gonna be cheap.

嗯。当所有这些事件同时发生，资金从何而来？总要有取舍。遗憾的是，很多时候被牺牲的就是人道主义援助。嗯。

Mhmm. So if all of these things are happening, where the money's coming from? And something has to give. Unfortunately, many times, that something which has to give becomes humanitarian assistance. Mhmm.

至少在我看来，这从来都不是最佳决策。为什么？因为这仅仅意味着你在拖延问题。就像任何疾病，如果不在初期症状出现时就及时处理，几个月或几年后，它就会恶化成更严重的状况。嗯。

Which is, you know, at least in my mind, this is never the best decision. Why? Because it just means that you're delaying the problem. And like any disease, if you don't address it upfront, when it's only a symptom, a few months later, a couple of years later, it festers into something way more serious. Mhmm.

在这个领域，道理别无二致。

And it is no different in this work.

政策制定中常将人道主义响应与发展政策区分开来，前者旨在鼓励增长，且两者预算独立。这种划分是不可避免的吗？是否存在问题？

Policy often has this distinction between a humanitarian response and development policies to encourage growth, and they have separate budgets. Is this inevitable? Is this problematic?

这是个非常基础的根本性问题。答案其实很简单。当我们区分这是人道主义窗口还是发展窗口时，本质上是在讨论资金分配。嗯。但面对的群体是相同的。

This is a pretty basic fundamental question. And the answer is quite simple. When we say, you know what, this is the humanitarian or this is the development window, we are essentially talking monies. Mhmm. But the people are the same.

当你关注民众、与民众打交道时，只要资金出于正确理由、正确目的并在正确时间到位，来源并不重要。嗯。举个例子，假设有个村庄即将遭遇洪灾，但你只有人道主义资金——这意味着你不能用这笔钱修建防洪堤。

When you're looking at people, when you're dealing with the people, it doesn't matter where the money came from as long as it comes for the right reason and for the right purpose and at the right time. Mhmm. So, I mean, let me give you an example. You may have a situation where there is a village which is gonna get flooded, but you have only humanitarian money. So you cannot use that money to build a levee so the village doesn't get flooded.

但洪水真正来临时，你可以救助灾民。嗯。听着，朋友们，发展资金流还是人道资金流根本不重要。关键在于我们面对的是同一地区的同一群人。让我们整合资源，无论是发展建设、灾后重建还是人道救援，完成必要工作，避免资源浪费。

But when it does get flooded, you can help people out. Mhmm. Look, guys, it doesn't really matter whether it is the your development's income stream or your humanitarian income stream. Bottom line is you're talking about the same people in the same place. Let's bring them together and do what is necessary, whether it is development work, whether it is recovery work, whether it is humanitarian work, and get it done so we don't waste resources.

最重要的是，我们不能消耗民众的抗逆力。要知道，每个人都会遭遇冲击，对吧？但什么导致长期贫困？就是当人们因冲击失去生产性经济资产时。嗯。

And above all, we don't waste resilience of people. You know, everybody deals with shocks, right? But what makes chronic poverty, what makes people really, really poor? That is when somebody experiencing a shock has to lose their productive economic assets. Mhmm.

被迫变卖这些原本用于谋生的生产性资产——在索马里或埃塞俄比亚可能是牲畜，对电工来说可能是电钻。一旦出售，他们需要耗费多年才能重新积累足够资源回归经济循环。所以无论你自认是人道主义者、发展工作者还是重建专家，核心使命是：在民众被迫变卖资产前就施以援手。嗯。

Has to sell those productive economic assets, which they used to use to make money. Now it could be in Somalia or in Ethiopia and elsewhere, it could be livestock. Or for electrician, it could be a drill. Because when they sell that, it takes them ages to have insufficient resources to get back into the economic stream. So as humanitarians and development actors, as recovery actors, whatever label you wanna part of, what you wanna make sure is that you help people before they're forced Mhmm.

防止民众变卖生产性经济资产——这在政策层面极其关键。我们需要预警机制和早期行动，确保人们不必陷入那种绝境。

To sell their productive economic assets. That is really, really, really critically important when it comes to policy. Early warning, early action, so we can allow people to not be in that space.

巴基斯坦官员表示，自六月中旬以来，全国多地爆发的山洪已造成逾千人死亡，数千人流离失所。最新伤亡主要发生在西北部和南部的信德省。持续数周的季风暴雨已影响超过3000万人。

Officials in Pakistan say flash floods across much of the country have killed over a thousand people and displaced thousands more since mid June. The newest fatalities are primarily being reported in the Northwest and down in Southern Sin Province. Weeks of unrelenting monsoon rains have affected more than 30,000,000 people.

啊，如果每天醒来都面临以更少资源做更多事——如你所说是用少得多资源做多得多的事。这背后其实是行动方案的选择，虽令人难以接受却又不得不做。我们是否已充分掌握最佳政策的严谨依据？我注意到人道主义援助领域的研究基础远小于其他发展领域。这样的研究基础足够支撑决策吗？

Ah, if every morning you wake up with a challenge to do more with less, well, much more with much less as you've described it. What sits behind that is a choice of actions, an unpalatable choice, but one that has to be made anyway. Do we know enough rigorously about what are the best policies? Is the research base, which I note for humanitarian assistance, is much smaller than it is for other areas of development. Is that research base big enough?

是否存在我们尚未掌握的关键信息？

Are there important things we don't know yet?

大体而言，我们掌握的信息已经足够。

In broad strokes, we know enough.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我们对问题本质有非常清晰的认知，也非常清楚需要采取哪些措施。嗯。我甚至可以说，或许我们连实施这些措施的资金都准备好了。

We have a very clear idea of the problem statement. We have a very clear idea of what needs to be done. Mhmm. I would go as far as saying, maybe we even have the money to actually do that.

确实如此。

We do.

如果将投入农业领域的全部资金重新调配，包括所有补贴资金，我指的是涉及数千亿美元的资金。对吧？所以钱可能不是现成的，但可以重新分配。你们清楚问题所在，也知道该做什么。

If you repurpose all the money which goes into agricultural sector, if you repurpose all the money which goes for subsidies, I mean, you're talking in hundreds of billions of dollars. Right? So money may not be sitting there, but it could be repurposed. So you know the problem. You know what needs to be done.

你们掌握技术，甚至自称拥有资金，那为何无法实现？坦率地说，答案在于这些事情需要政治意愿和持之以恒的坚持，因为它们不可能在一两天、一个月或一年内解决。而这正是我们所欠缺的——既缺乏政治意愿，也缺乏坚持到底的执行力。

You have the technology, and you say you even have the money, so why doesn't it happen? And the answer, frankly, is that in order for these things to happen, you need political will, and you need to stay the course Because these things cannot be solved in a day or two or a month or a year. And this is where we lack. We don't have that political will. We don't have that ability to stay the course, to get everything done.

我们总是在危机来临时才讨论对策。嗯。然后着手应对，危机缓解后又恢复原状。我认为这种循环必须终止，因为危机发生的频率正在加剧。政策层面我认为第二重要的是：必须拓宽人们的机会选择面。

We talk about it when there is a crisis. Mhmm. And then we get on to that, and then the crisis goes up, and we go back. And I think that's something which needs to stop because our frequency of crisis is increasing. The second thing for me on the policy side, what is important is we need to increase the opportunity sets of people.

嗯。如果让我或你们处于受助者的生存环境中，我们大概率会做出和他们相同的选择。所谓拓宽机会选择面，意味着要投资农村基础设施比如道路建设。你我无法亲自修路。

Mhmm. If I put you in a situation where many of the people we help live, or if I put myself in that situation, I will pretty much be doing the same thing that they are doing. Mhmm. When I say improve their opportunity sets, it means investments in things like, rural infrastructure, the roads. You and I cannot build roads.

但若有现成道路，我们就能做得更好。可以开辟市场，缩短距离，各方面都会改善。对吧？

But if the road is there, we can do better. We can start markets. Our distances shrink. All of that improves. Right?

我们需要灌溉系统。我个人建不了水坝，但若有现成水坝，就不需要依赖救济粮。嗯。我们还需要电力设施。

We need irrigation. I cannot build a dam. But if the dam was there, I don't need to be fed. Mhmm. We need electrification.

如果这类能创造机会空间的基础设施到位（嗯），局面就会开始转变。这不是空谈，我能列举无数实例：当我们为运输粮食清理道路后，市场自然形成，医疗点变得更近，距离缩短，贸易随之兴起。所以我们很清楚该做什么。

If those type of basic infrastructure was available, which in my mind creates the space for people to utilize opportunities Mhmm. Suddenly things start to change. And I'm not just saying this. I can tell you example after example where we cleared the road because we had to move food, and we suddenly see markets spring up, or health centers become closer, or distances shrink, and trade starts to happen. So we know what needs to be done.

对我来说，另一个关键点在于，我们身处西方国家。每当经济衰退时，我们会怎么做？我们会给经济中最贫困的家庭提供税收抵免。为什么这样做？因为我们知道这些人会把钱花出去，从而刺激经济增长，创造就业机会，这种机制能重振美国、英国或其他地方的经济。

The other thing is, for me, we are sitting in Western countries. Whenever there is a recession, what do we do? We give tax credit to the poorest households in our economies. Why do we do that? Because we know those individuals are gonna spend that money, which will generate growth, which will generate jobs, and the idea is that it reignites the economies within The US or UK or elsewhere.

对吧？非洲农村地区有什么不同吗？没有区别。你把资金投入到基层，当人们有钱购买时，自然会有商贩前来销售。

Right? Why is it any different in rural areas of Africa? It's not. You put in money in the grassroots. If people have the money to buy, somebody will come to sell.

但商贩只会来销售的前提是有道路。所以这不是说'哦，我们束手无策'——我们当然知道该怎么做。但只有具备政治意愿、改善治理、协调应对时，这些才能实现。所有这些术语都有其实际意义。

But they will only come to sell if there are the roads. So it's not saying, oh, we don't know what to do. Of course, we know what to do. But it will only happen if there is political will, if there is better governance, if there is coordinated response. All those words, they have meaning.

看看九十年代中期的布隆迪和卢旺达。相同的人口数量，相似的社会经济指标，相近的预期寿命。如今，一个国家已处于较高的发展轨道，另一个却仍停留在二十年前的水平。为什么？

Look at Burundi and Rwanda, mid nineties. Same number of people, same socioeconomic indicators, same levels of life expectancy. Today, one is pretty high on the development trajectory. The other one is pretty much where it was twenty years down the road. Why?

政治稳定、对妇女儿童的投资、基础设施投入以及相对更好的治理。我不接受'我们不知道该怎么办'的论调。我认为我们知道，但需要持之以恒地落实这些措施。世界粮食计划署正在拯救生命。

Political stability, investment in women, investment in children, investment in infrastructure, and relatively better governance. I don't buy the argument that we don't know what to do. I think we do. But we need to stay the course to get these things done. World Food Program is saving lives.

但如果我们反复拯救同一条生命，这就是结构性问题了。我们需要采取不同的方式，需要改变生活境遇。而这不可能一蹴而就。

But if we are saving the same life again and again and again, it's a structural problem. We need to do something different. We need to change lives. And that's not gonna happen overnight.

阿里夫，即便我们清楚哪些政策能提升生产力，债务问题仍是阻碍结构性转型的绊脚石。我们能否将国际社会对债务的态度与你建议的政策方向结合起来？

Arif, one of the things that gets in the way of that structural transformation, even with policies that we know would work and make people more productive, is indebtedness. Is there some way that we can wrap up the international community's attitude to debt with the sorts of policies that you are recommending?

老实说，这对我来说是悦耳的消息。超过60%的低收入和中等偏下收入国家要么面临风险，要么实际上已陷入债务困境。约有23个国家在偿债上的支出超过了教育领域。还有50多个国家在偿债上的支出超过了医疗和教育领域的总和。既然我们可以为环境减免债务，为什么不能为更好的粮食安全、为人力资本建设减免债务呢？

This is music to my ears, to be honest with you. Over 60% of low and lower middle income countries are either at risk or actually in debt distress. There are about 23 countries which spend more on their debt servicing than on their education sector. There are 50 plus countries which spend more on their debt servicing than on their health and education sectors combined. If we can have debt relief for the environment, why can't we not have debt relief for better food security, for building human capital?

想想看，如果你说‘哦，为环境减免债务’，然后种一棵树，树可能被砍掉。但如果你说为粮食安全或人力资本建设减免债务，这是无法被‘砍掉’的。它将持续产生回报，无论是现在还是将来。无论通过债券还是其他金融机制实现，以人力资本投资为条件的债务减免都能产生深远影响。

Think about this. If you say, Oh, debt relief for environment, and you plant a tree, a tree can be cut. If you say debt relief for food security or for building human capital, that cannot be cut. That will pay dividends now and later. Whether you do it through bonds, whether you do it through any other financial mechanism, debt relief conditional on investment in human capital can go a long way.

您提到气候变化。我们多次讨论过气候变化对全球最贫困人群——尤其是您最关注的极端贫困人口——的不平等影响。我们能否将气候变化政策与您希望推行的这类政策结合起来？这对您思考世界粮食计划署的未来有何影响？

You mentioned climate change. We have the many episodes talking about the unequal impact of climate change on the world's poorest people and especially the ultra poor, the people who you are most concerned with. Can we wrap up our policies for climate change with, again, the sorts of policies you want to deliver? How does it affect how you're thinking about the future of the World Food Program?

从这个角度看，第二十八届联合国气候变化大会令人鼓舞。各国政府讨论了一些融资方案。因为归根结底，这既是商业议题也是道德议题。对吧？特别是那些未必导致当前局面却要付出代价的小国。

COP twenty eight was encouraging in that sense. Governments talked about some of the financing. Because at the end of the day, it is both a business argument as well as it's a moral argument. Right? That countries, especially small countries, which have not necessarily contributed to the situation where we are right now are having to pay that price.

嗯。那么受益国家该如何补偿那些已经付出代价的国家？典型例子就是巴基斯坦，2022年该国三分之一地区遭受损失，我记得损失金额达300亿美元。嗯。这种损失该如何补偿？

Mhmm. So how can now the countries which have benefited kinda compensate those countries who have already paid the price? I mean, classic example of that, look at Pakistan, what, 2022, where a third of the country was damages worth $30,000,000,000, if I recall correctly. Mhmm. How can that be compensated?

关键在于，如果我们不解决这个问题，所有人——无论贫富——都将付出代价。问题是穷人连支付代价的资源都没有。所以他们比富人承受更沉重的打击。但我们不该说‘哦，为穷人做这件事’，而应该说‘为我们自己做这件事’。

And the issue that this is something which if we don't address, everybody will pay the price, the rich and the poor. The problem is that the poor don't have the resources to pay the price either. So they are more heavily discounted than the rich. But it is something which we shouldn't be saying, Oh, do it for the poor. Do it for ourselves.

但顺便提一句，在我们行动时，最贫困国家正因自身无过错的原因遭受最严重打击，所以让我们在行动时也关照他们。这才是问题的核心。

But, Oh, by the way, while you're doing this, the poorest countries are suffering the most because of no fault of their own, so let's take care of them as well while we are doing this. That's what this is all about.

关于在冲突环境中促进发展的问题已有大量研究。我想，在提供人道主义援助方面，这些问题更为严峻。我们是否正在应用从这些研究中获得的经验？是否有更好的方式在受冲突影响的地区实施援助？

There has been a lot of research on the problems of creating growth in conflict situations. Those problems are even more acute, I would imagine, in providing humanitarian assistance. Is what we are learning from those being applied, is there a better way in which we can deliver assistance in conflict affected areas?

这涉及因果关系。在解决根源之前，你必须面对现实。我认为这在调解援助中尤为明显。举个例子，假设一场战争三年前爆发。嗯。

You have cause and effect. Till you address the cause, you have to deal with the fact. And I think that's absolutely the case in a meditating assistance. Mean, I'll give the example that, look, a war started, you know, three years ago. Mhmm.

战争初期，人们的处境比现在要好。为什么？因为他们已经应对了三年。他们的适应能力在消耗，资源随时间枯竭。但我们的援助模型却还停留在事件刚发生的状态。

When it started, people were in a better state than they would be now. Why? Because they've been dealing with it for the last three years. So they're coping, their resources, have depleted over this time. But our models, oh, it started.

比如地震或山体滑坡等灾害。是的，初期援助很及时。所有人都伸出援手。但六个月后，人们就遗忘了。

Let's say, or earthquake or landslide or whatever. Yeah. That's good assistance because it just happened. Everybody out there. Six months later, everybody has forgotten about it.

然而影响并未消失，因为根源仍在。当灾难发生时，必须解决根本原因。在解决之前，持续援助是必要的。看看也门的情况。

But the effects have not gone away, because the cause is still there. When something happens, you must address the root causes. Until you address those root causes, you need to help people. You need to assist people. Look at Yemen.

看看叙利亚。嗯。这些危机已持续十年以上。既然战争仍在继续，这些地方怎么可能没有需求？当有人要求我减少援助时，我会说：除非你能展示问题已解决的地区，需求自然会下降。

Look at Syria. Mhmm. These crises, I mean, they're getting to ten years plus range now. Why should there be no need in these places if the war is still continuing? When somebody says to me, please reduce needs, I'm like, you show me a place where things have been sorted out, and needs will automatically come down.

但如果根源未除，就别空谈减少需求。其次，作为援助实施者，我们能否更高效？效率总有提升空间——新技术、新方法。比如有时现金援助就比食物更有效。

But don't say reduce needs if the initial cause is still there. The second thing is, as implementers, as providers of aid, can we be more efficient? We can always be more efficient. New technologies, new ways of doing things. I mean, efficiencies in terms of maybe sometimes cash is way better than food.

在其他地方，根据具体情境，食物往往比现金更有价值。关键在于更深入地理解那种情境。但是，蒂姆，问题在于当我们审视当前的缺口时，仅靠提升效率是无法解决的。因为归根结底，效率只是我们提供福利的方式。

In other places, food is way better than cash, depending on the context. Better understanding of that context. But, Tim, the issue is that when we look at the gaps that we have right now, we're not going to sort those out by improving our efficiencies. Because at the end of the day, efficiencies are in the sense of how we provide a benefit.

嗯。

Mhmm.

而成本的大头在于福利本身。对吧？所以即便你能将效率提升个位数百分点，但你要提供的主体福利依然需要成本，这部分是无法压缩的。

And the bulk of the cost is the benefit itself. Right? So you can do your efficiency in single digit sense Mhmm. In terms of percentage, but the bulk that you're going to provide is still going to cost. That you cannot shrink.

政府已花费数十亿美元建造这艘最先进的航空母舰。英国曾是世界弱势群体援助领域的领导者，如今却因削减55亿美元对外援助预算而备受指责。

Government has spent billions of dollars on this state of the art aircraft carrier. Where Britain used to lead the way in supporting the world's most vulnerable people, the government's now under fire for slashing its foreign aid budget by 5 and a half billion dollars.

因此我们必须退后一步，重新评估的不仅是援助方式，还包括我们的行动内容及整体战略——这需要国际社会通力合作。该在什么平台上推进？如何确保现有证据（关于哪些措施最有效）被纳入讨论？

So if we have to take a step back and reassess not just how we deliver assistance, but what we do, the whole strategy to do it, that has got to be something that's taken on by the international community working together. In what forum does this happen? And how do we make sure that the evidence that we have, what we know about what works best, is included in that discussion?

只需回顾历史。以二战为例，当时许多国家被彻底摧毁。坦率说，如今七国集团多数成员在二战后都曾是满目疮痍的国家。它们如何成为G7成员？如何跃居世界经济前列？

All you have to do is look back. After World War two, for example, there were many countries were totally destroyed. Frankly, most of today's g seven countries were countries which were totally decimated after World War two. How did they become g seven countries? How did they become top economies of the world?

答案就摆在那里。对吧？甚至不必局限于二战，稍晚些的韩国案例也可参考。我还能举出更多例证。

The recipe is there. Right? And you don't even have to just take World War two. You can even take, Korea a bit later. And then I can give you a couple more examples.

即便你想从非冲突、非战争的角度，仅就发展而言，看看中国就知道了。嗯。四十年间将贫困率从80%降至不足1%、2%。所以，我的观点是，这是有先例可循的，因此希望是存在的。但要实现这一点，需要每个人都真正聚焦于特定地区、特定国家。

And you can even if you wanna go in terms of, you know, not conflict, not war, but just, development, look at China. Mhmm. Bringing poverty down from 80% to less than 1%, 2% in forty years. So, my point is, it has been done before, so there is hope. But for this to happen, it requires everybody to actually be focusing on a particular place, a particular country.

并且这项发展计划需要得到执行。每当做到这一点时，你就会看到国家步入发展轨道并表现相当出色。对我而言，这总是让我觉得，当你因目睹这一切而失去希望时，你需要回顾并告诉自己：要知道，以前也有过人们与你感受相同的时刻。嗯。

And that development plan needs to be executed. Whenever that is done, you have seen that countries have gotten onto the development trajectory and did quite well. For me, I mean, it always like, okay, you know what, when you're losing hope because you're seeing all of this, you need to look back and say, you know what? There were times before when people must have felt the way you are feeling. Mhmm.

然后我们见证了他们的脱困。我们拥有技术。我们拥有资源。我们拥有专业知识。这确实是个政治意愿和行动决心的问题。

And then we saw them get out of there. We have the technology. We have the resources. We have the know how. It really truly is a matter, political will and commitment to get it done.

我们太习惯于询问：这个项目要花多少钱？我想做这个项目。好吧。成本是多少？我认为我们需要彻底扭转这个问题，当有人对你说想做什么时，你应该反问：如果我不做会怎样？

We are very trained to ask, okay, how much is it gonna cost on a project? I want to do this project. Okay. How much is it gonna cost? I think we need to start turning that question on its head and basically saying, somebody comes to you say, I want to do this, and you ask them, so what will happen if I don't?

如果答案让你害怕，那你最好去做。如果答案不吓人，那这事可以等，我有其他优先事项。但至少要从'不作为的后果'这个角度来审视。我认为在当今世界，如果我们开始提出这个问题，或许我们的政治家和决策者会采取与以往不同的行动方式。因为不作为是有代价的。

And then if the answer scares you, you better do it. And if the answer doesn't scare you, it's, this can wait, I've got other priorities. But at least look at it from the angle of what if you don't? And I think in this world right now, if we started asking that question, maybe our politicians and maybe our policymakers will be doing things a bit differently than they've been doing so far. Because there is a cost of inaction.

只是我们未能准确计算这个代价。让我用数据说明：五六年前叙利亚百万难民涌入德国时，嗯。2016至2021五年间，仅联邦政府就为此花费了约1250亿美元。同等条件下，若在黎巴嫩或约旦（这些难民原本想留下的地方）提供相同福利，

It's just that we don't calculate that properly. Let me give you some numbers on this. The Syrian refugees, five, six years ago, when they went to, 1,000,000 to Germany Mhmm. In the five years from '16 to 2021, the federal government alone spent about $125,000,000,000 on that 1,000,000 refugees. Apples to apples, if the same benefits were provided in Lebanon or in Jordan, where these people, by the way, wanted to stay.

相同宗教文化背景，成本将减少70倍。我们做过测算并公布了结果。再看中美洲与美国——那些试图进入美国的中美洲移民，大多来自各国最贫困、粮食最不安全的县市。既然我们要花钱阻拦他们，不如把钱用在源头，让他们根本无需背井离乡。

Same religion, same culture, it would have cost them 70 times less. We did the math, we published all of this. Look at Central America and The US. The people who are moving or trying to come into The US from Central America, most of them are coming from the poorest counties of those countries, most food insecure and poor. So if we're gonna spend money to keep them out, we might as well spend money where they are so they don't have to leave in the very first place.

有一种谬论认为每个人都想离开家园去西欧或美国。我认为这不属实，因为若真如此，移民人口将超过全球人口的3%。实际上移民仅占全球人口的3%。你可以问问自己的家人和朋友，看看有多少人真的迁移了？很可能你会发现——至少在我的经历中——我们这些迁移者才是少数派。

There is this fallacy that everybody wants to leave their home and go to Western Europe or go to US. I don't think that's true because if that was true, population of migrants would be more than 3% of the global population. Migrants are only 3% of the global population. You ask your own family and your own friends wherever they are, just look, how many have moved? And chances are you will see, at least in my case, that we are the outliers who have moved.

大多数人仍留在原籍地。这是全世界普遍存在的现实。应该在人们现有的地方帮助他们。如果有选择，人们宁愿留在故土过体面生活，也不愿踏上充满未知与巨大风险的艰难旅程——无论是穿越地中海，还是明知可能在利比亚沦为奴隶却仍要穿越撒哈拉。

Most of the people are where they were. This is a reality which is common across the entire world. Help people where they are. Given the choice, they'd rather stay where they are and have a decent life, than make these hard, tough journeys to unknown places and big risks. Whether on the Mediterranean, passing through Sahara knowing that you may be enslaved in Libya, but you still do it.

人们这样做不仅为了自己，更是为了整个家庭。需要多么恶劣的生存环境，才会让理性思考者做出这样的选择？

And you do it not only for yourself, but together with your families. How bad things have to be where you are for somebody who's a rational thinker to make those choices?

在每周的Vox Dev Talks节目中，我采访那些勤奋工作的智者，他们在全球各地创造了惊人成果与美好项目。但与五年前我们上次交谈相比，你现在推动的事业犹如将更重的巨石推上更陡的山坡。你是否曾感到希望渺茫？

Every week on Vox Dev Talks, I speak to smart people who work incredibly hard and produce amazing results and often wonderful outcomes in individual projects in places around the globe. And yet, I talked to you, and compared to the last time we spoke five years ago, you are pushing an even bigger rock up an even bigger hill. And do you sometimes lose hope?

若失去希望，我根本不会起床行动。你必须坚持，因为你是无声者的代言人。绝大多数人都是正直的个体，他们不愿目睹苦难，这才是社会的主流。

If I lost hope, I wouldn't get out. Yeah. You can because you are the voice of people who have no voice. Vast majority of people are decent individuals, human beings, who want to do the right thing, who don't wanna see suffering. That's the majority.

对吧？但我们都困于自己的生活。有时我们的工作就是建立联系并指出：看看你在和谁对话，他们与你并无不同。唯一的区别或许只是出生地的不同。

Right? But we are all caught up in our own lives. Sometimes the job is just to connect the dots and say, look who you're talking to. They are no different than you are. And the only probably different is you were born in one place, and they were born in another place.

仅此而已。若你处于相同境遇，很可能也会做出同样选择。我们共同的使命是改善弱势群体的生活。我相信我们能做到。什么才是最严重的不平等？

But that's it. If you were there in that circumstance, you will probably be doing the same thing. Our collective role is to improve the lives of the less fortunate. And I think we can do that. What is the worst kind of inequality?

对我而言，那就是不平等与机遇。因为如果你拥有机遇，就能走得更远。若我获得机遇，便能克服收入不平等。不平等与人道主义援助。若我拥有机遇，就不再需要人道援助。

For me, that is inequality and opportunity. Because if you have that opportunity, then you can reach further on. If I have the opportunity, I can overcome income inequality. Inequality and humanitarian assistance. If I have the opportunity, I don't need humanitarian assistance.

因此我认为，这就是为何要投资公共基础设施——那些个人无法独自完成的事。回归到道路建设、灌溉系统、电气化。这些投资能最大限度减少不平等并创造机遇。这正是我们需要做的，其余的事人们自会完成。

So for me, this is why investing in public infrastructure, things which people cannot do by themselves Back to roads, back to irrigation, back to electrification. These are investments which minimize inequality and opportunity. And that's what we need to do, and people will do the rest.

阿里夫·侯赛因，谢谢。

Arif Hussain, thank you.

非常感谢邀请我。

Thank you so much for having me.

若想了解更多世界粮食计划署的激励性工作，请访问wfp.org。这里是Vox Dev Talk。确保不错过任何一期节目的最佳方式，是在您的播客平台订阅。无论您通过何种渠道获取播客，都能找到我们。往期节目一如既往可在voxdev.org收听。

If you want to know more about the inspiring work of the World Food Programme, then look on the Internet, wfp.org. This has been a Vox Dev Talk. The best way to make sure you don't miss an episode is to subscribe on your podcast platform. Wherever you get your podcasts, you will find us there. And our past episodes, as always, are at voxdev.org.