Yemen faces world’s worst famine, needs $3.85 billion
CAMEROON, Cameroon — Conflict-torn Yemen “is falling off a cliff” and will face the worst famine the world has seen for decades unless donors, and especially its Gulf neighbours, contribute generously to this year’s U.N. humanitarian appeal for $3.85 billion, the U.N. humanitarian chief warned Wednesday.
Mark Lowcock said Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which contributed generously to U.N. appeals in 2018 and 2019, cut back drastically last year. This forced aid agencies to reduce the number of Yemenis receiving food and other humanitarian aid from 13-14 million every month in 2019 to just 9 million in 2020, he said.
The 4 million people who didn’t receive food last year “are among those essentially in the long, slow, brutal, painful, agonizing process of starving to death,” Lowcock told a virtual briefing for a group of reporters.
He spoke ahead of Monday’s pledging conference co-hosted by Sweden and Switzerland where Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will appeal for $3.85 billion.
“Without that funding, a lot more people will die, there could be catastrophic prospects unleashed in the country,” Lowcock warned. “Because of the state in the country now, where there (are) already pockets of famine, what we’re going to see is the worst famine the world has seen for decades. So, there is a lot at stake and there’s an urgency.”
The devastating conflict in the Arab world’s poorest country erupted in 2014, when Iranianbacked Houthi rebels seized Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, and much of the country’s north. That prompted a U.S.-backed Arab military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to intervene months later in a bid to restore the government of Yemeni President Abed Rabu Mansour Hadi to power.
The conflict has killed some 130,000 people and spawned the world’s worst humanitarian disaster.
Lowcock said U.S. President Joe Biden’s new Yemen policy aimed at ending the six-year war and halting support for the coalition, and the way it has been welcomed especially by Saudi Arabia, “does create a major opportunity for peace and progress in Yemen.”
It appears we need to put a “no vacancy” sign up in the Okanagan.
This month, Penticton council rejected a rezoning request for the Vinterra development of over 300 houses on the Naramata Bench. There were several reasons for opposing the project, but top of mind was developing on hillsides and the effect on wildlife and agritourism.
If building on hillsides is bad, the alternative is not popular either. There is not a lot of available land on the valley floor not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The famous Summerland “Land Swap” saw council proposing to change land protected by the ALR near downtown to housing in exchange for poor quality land west of town.
It resulted in that council chased out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Since I moved to Summerland, we have rejected the Land Swap, the Banks Crescent seniors development and an 1,100 home golf course proposal west of town. Apparently, we Summerlanders do not like housing on a grand scale.
All of these proposals had their flaws and I opposed every one of them.
As an aside, arguments supporting the Vinterra development promoted the benefits of an increased tax base. Studies suggest the cost of servicing a new single-family home (especially on large hillside lots) is far greater than new tax revenue. This deficit is forever versus a one-time tax infusion gained from development charges and other fees. For instance, the studies submit, for every dollar of property tax I pay for my home, Summerland probably incurs costs of around $1.40 to upkeep the services I demand.
My planner friend from Toronto, says at least half of a successful municipality’s tax base has to be commercial/industrial as it is much less expensive to service. (Summerland is nowhere near this split and is further hobbled by so many farms within the district paying very low taxes).
Unless Vinterra created new commercial and industrial buildings in Penticton, it would be a constant money loser.
The question then becomes where and what do we build to accommodate a growing population. Some of my friends are happy making it difficult to increase the housing stock, as they like the Okanagan just the way it is.
The problem with this thinking is, with an aging population we will need workers to look after us. These workers will be able eyeing a range of housing types, as they will be doctors, nurses, lawyers, auto mechanics, clerks, cleaners, caregivers and landscape maintainers etc. Housing options range from McMansions on hills through row housing to multi-story apartments (for sale or rent).
The goal of builders on the hillsides is to maximize building size to maximize profits on expensive view lots. If there is no space on the valley floor to build multi-family housing, we are hooped, as it is not likely to be built on the hillsides.
Municipal leaders now wait for out-of-town developers (viewed as carpet-baggers by the locals) to come forward with proposals. Maybe leaders should stick to their expensive OCP, then decide the housing mixes needed and finally find developers willing to help.
We need to figure this out.