The Climate Benefits of Prioritising Contextual Expertise

An analysis of the GNC’s in-country support (2020-2024)

Background and Introduction

Since 2020, the Global Nutrition Cluster (GNC) has been steadily increasing the proportion of advisors (providers of technical nutrition support on behalf of the GNC) who are from the country or region where support is being provided. One perhaps overlooked benefit of prioritising contextual expertise is the reduction in carbon emissions from international flights when providing in-country support. 

This article aims to undertake a factual analysis of all in-country technical nutrition support provided by the GNC from 2020-2024, quantifying the carbon emissions savings from the provision of support by national and regional practitioners. 

The results may play a role in advocating for and influencing organisations and donors to prioritise contextual expertise, both for its operational value as well as its climate benefits.
 

What Is Contextual Expertise?

Contextual expertise can be defined as a comprehensive understanding of the environment, challenges, cultural nuances, and systemic dynamics to effectively and appropriately work within a specific context. This involves:

• Language and culture: Proficiency in local language(s) and deep cultural knowledge for a heightened communication style, including translating complex concepts for different audiences.
• Local systems expertise: Knowledge of the local social, political, and economic landscape, as well as insights into community structures and historical contexts that shape current conditions.
• Partnerships and networks: Understanding partnerships, including stakeholders, key actors and decision-makers, along with power dynamics and communication networks to better identify allies and opportunities for collaboration. This includes strong local connections and trust-based relationships for community engagement.
• Adaptive problem-solving and context-specific solutions: Ability to apply theoretical knowledge to practical challenges and understanding best practices compatible with the context.

Although contextual expertise is valuable for effective humanitarian response, it isn’t always valued. In November 2020, Peace Direct, Adeso, the Alliance for Peacebuilding, and Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security held a three-day online consultation with 158 activists, decision-makers, academics, journalists, and practitioners across the globe aiming to understand the current power dynamics and imbalances that exist within the humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding sectors. One participant quoted the work of Tindyebwa Agaba: 

‘National staff and Global South staff bring particular skills, competencies and experience to the sector. Often, we can offer special insight into the dynamics of a conflict, born of our lived experience*. In some cases, we speak local languages. Our backgrounds can mean we’re adaptable in maddening conditions.' 

Meanwhile, there is an unspoken assumption that the context can be learnt by international staff while theory can’t be learnt by national staff, as shared by Lorina McAdam, another participant: 

'Many NGOs for example, hire ‘technical expertise’ rather than ‘contextual expertise’, which – intentionally or otherwise – gives international staff an advantage over national staff… even though so many of the solutions to many complex issues will be found through an understanding of the context, rather than the theory.’

At the GNC, we recognise the importance of prioritising contextual expertise, and aspire to centre our work around local and national practitioners – who are the first responders in an emergency and are positioned to increase the quality and effectiveness of support. 

We actively prioritise contextual expertise when supporting countries by pushing back against the common notion that 'there is no capacity in-country', as well as perceptions of expertise and competency along racial lines. We do this by seeking out practitioners from the country or region of support – who have strong technical as well as contextual expertise – to provide in-depth technical nutrition support to countries.  

This follows a tiered approach, as summarised in the GNC Localisation Roadmap 2024-2025, and reflected in Figure 1 below – aiming to prioritise Tier 1 followed by Tier 2 and lastly Tier 3 candidates:

Although not specifically a localisation effort (as localisation involves the shifting of power from international agencies/organisations to local and national agencies/organisations) we  see this intentional prioritisation of advisors from the country or region of support as an important effort informed by anti-racist principles. 

Since we started our anti-racism and localisation journey in 2020, we have been steadily putting this into practice and the satisfaction reported through training evaluations and user satisfaction surveys has on average increased slightly over time**, indicating that the quality of support has remained strong – if not improved – through this shift towards prioritising local expertise.

Summary of key concepts: Climate Change, the Climate Crisis, and Carbon Footprint

Human-induced climate change alters weather patterns and increases the risk of extreme events, causing widespread adverse impacts, losses, and damages to ecosystems and human society. Further, the term 'climate crisis' has been used to stress the severe and potentially catastrophic nature of climate change. 

The primary human activities contributing to climate change, ordered by their impact, are:

1. Burning Fossil Fuels: The combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity, heat, and transportation is the largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for over 75 percent of global emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
2. Deforestation: Clearing land for agriculture, urban development, and other purposes reduces the number of trees that absorb CO2 during photosynthesis, leading to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Industrial Processes: Manufacturing materials such as cement and steel creates chemical reactions that release CO2 and other greenhouse gases. For instance, cement production is a significant source of CO2 emissions.
4. Agriculture: Agricultural activities emit methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), potent greenhouse gases. Livestock produce methane during digestion, and using synthetic fertilisers in crop production releases nitrous oxide.
5. Waste Management: Decomposing organic waste in landfills generates methane emissions. Improper waste treatment and disposal can exacerbate these emissions.

Different strategies exist to reduce emissions, adjust to the effects of climate change, and compensate for emissions:

• Climate mitigation focuses on reducing the flow of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at their source, through reduced use of fossil fuels and increasing our energy efficiency to slow climate change.
• Climate adaptation involves adjusting to current or expected climate changes, and developing the resilience to cope with and recover from hazardous climatic events.
• Carbon offsetting compensates for emissions by investing in projects like reforestation, renewable energy, or carbon capture to balance out carbon footprints.

'Carbon footprint' is an indicator that measures the environmental impact of human activities, specifically tracking the amount of CO2 emissions related to the activities of a person or organisation. Carbon footprints are generally reported in kilograms or metric tons of carbon footprint emissions equivalent or ‘CO2e'. 

To put this into perspective:

>> 1 metric ton of CO2e = driving 8,000 km in a gasoline car, or taking 70 high-speed train trips of 500 km each. 
>> Offsetting 1 metric ton of CO2e = growing 50 trees for 1 year
 

How Climate Change Impacts Nutrition in Emergencies Activities

In 2021, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) recognised climate change as a humanitarian emergency and delivered seven key messages and eight sector-specific messages to be used for advocacy. It highlighted the urgency for humanitarians to adapt to and contribute to mitigating climate change by developing climate-resilient approaches to their own operations, mitigating their climate footprint and reducing their environmental impact. 

The ways in which climate change impacts nutrition span the entire life cycle and affect all regions, worsening all forms of malnutrition. Specifically: 

• Time is running out for humanity to revert climate damages, and urgent action is needed to support sustainable development.
• There is increasing evidence of the interconnectedness between climate change, nutrition, and disaster risks, presenting an opportunity to prevent and mitigate the consequences of climate change.
• Global climate change initiatives offer new opportunities for action, funding, research, and tracking progress.
• At the same time, pressure on limited resources is growing, as humanitarian funding is inversely proportional to global needs.

Although it is clear the climate crisis worsens malnutrition, the bi-directional relationship between climate change and nutrition remains complex and further research is needed to understand how these pathways interact with each other.

For nutrition in emergencies (NiE) activities:

• Climate mitigation includes steps such as purchasing locally produced nutrition products or having NiE practitioners travel by train instead of flying.
• Climate adaptation actions include advising mothers on alternative nutritious complementary foods available during drought periods and encouraging resilience through local production of nutrition products.
• Carbon offsetting could include initiatives such as carbon taxes or reforestation taxes to offset emissions generated by NiE programming activities.

At the GNC, we are dedicated to understanding the impact of climate on nutrition, recognising that weather shocks and seasonality shifts have serious effects on nutritional risks and outcomes. These impacts are increasingly exacerbated by the continuous degradation of ecosystems. 

This article specifically examines the carbon footprint related to international flights used by GNC advisors to provide in-country support, as this mode of transportation is facilitated by burning fossil fuel – the largest contributor to climate change.

Methodology

An analysis was conducted of all GNC support involving in-person, in-country advisor deployments between January 2020 and December 2024, as documented by Terms of References.

• Fully remote support during this period was excluded from the analysis. The support was categorised by year, based on the year the support officially began.
• For the purposes of this article, an ‘advisor’ is a practitioner providing technical nutrition support on behalf of the GNC and may be identified from among the GNC Team, among GNC Global Partners, or brought on as a consultant for a specific piece of work. In cases where in-country support was provided jointly by two advisors, both advisors were included in the analysis.
• In alignment with GNC monitoring and evaluation approaches, advisors were categorised as being national, regional, or global, in relation to the country of support.
  • Advisors were categorised as ‘national’ if they held nationality from the same country they were supporting.
  • Advisors were categorised as ‘regional’ if they held nationality in a country in the same UN region (see Figure 2 below) or that shared a border with the country of support.
  • All remaining advisors were categorised as ‘global' in relation to the country they were supporting. In this sense, national and regional designations are used as a proxy for higher contextual expertise relevant to the country of support.
     

• The estimated carbon footprint for international flights by GNC advisors was estimated using the online MSF Carbon Travel App developed by Epicentre Data Science. Using the Single Travel Estimation tab, each international flight was assessed for a single passenger from the international airport where the advisor began their trip to the international airport where they arrived in the country of support, accounting for any airports transited through.
• The results were calculated by applying Agence de la transition écologique (ADEME) emission factors and are presented as metric tons of CO2e.

Limitations

1. The analysis focused uniquely on the carbon footprint of international flights and did not consider the carbon footprint of domestic flights or domestic travel by any other mode of transport, including transport taken to arrive at airports to take international flights.
2. Even with standardised tools, assessing carbon footprints remains challenging due to data gaps, supply chain complexities, and variations in emission factors across different contexts. Therefore, these results are estimates that should be interpreted with care.
3. Hypothetical estimates are based on mean carbon emissions from past in-country support, and are not a precise reflection of the carbon footprint of future support provision.
4. The terms national, regional, and global are used as proxies for contextual expertise although exceptions exist outside of this framing – such as a national practitioner who has never resided in the country or region of support, or a global practitioner who has spent substantial time in a specific context.

Results: In-country Support Volume, Carbon Footprints, and Emissions Savings by GNC advisors

1/ Number of in-country technical nutrition support requests fulfilled by GNC advisors (2020–2024)

Between 2020 and 2024, GNC advisors provided 52 pieces of in-country technical nutrition support, as reflected in Figure 3 below. In 2020, national practitioners accounted for the highest overall proportion of support provided, at 33 percent. However, this likely reflects that just three in-country requests could be supported during the intense COVID-19 pandemic period, when significant travel barriers existed l for regional and global practitioners. 

In both 2020 and 2021, most in-country support was provided by global advisors, while the in-country support provided by regional advisors increased steadily through to 2023. In 2022, for the first time, an equal proportion of in-country support was provided by regional and global advisors, 45 percent in each case. In 2023, regional advisors provided more in-country support than global advisors for the first time. 

Although fewer in-country support missions were carried out in 2024 compared to previous years –and half of them were still provided by global advisors– that year marked the first time national and regional advisors each contributed equally to technical nutrition support on behalf of the GNC.
 

2/ Carbon footprints by advisor type

Global advisors had the greatest variation in carbon impact from international flights: the carbon footprint was as high as 2.95 metric tons of CO2e in the case of a global advisor flying from Colombia to Mozambique, and the carbon footprint as low as 0.32 metric tons of CO2e in the case of a global advisor flying from the United Arab Emirates to Afghanistan (as presented in Figure 4 below). The average carbon footprint among global advisors was 1.17 metric tons of CO2e.

Regional advisors demonstrated less variation than global advisors, but with two clear outliers: The cases of a regional advisor flying from the United States to Burundi, resulting in an estimated carbon footprint of 2.08 metric tons of CO2e, and another regional advisor flying from the United Kingdom to Honduras, with a carbon footprint of 1.64 metric tons of CO2e. When assessed jointly, the average carbon footprint among regional advisors was 0.63 metric tons of CO2e.

All ten national advisors providing technical support were already in-country and did not require international flights to provide support. Therefore, their contribution from international flights was collectively 0.00 metric tons of CO2e.

3/ Carbon emissions savings

As reflected in Figure 5 below, the 10 national advisors collectively contributed 0.00 metric tons of CO2e, the 18 regional advisors contributed 22.56 metric tons of CO2e (29 percent), and the 24 global advisors contributed 56.08 metric tons of CO2e (71 percent) to the overall estimated carbon footprint of 78.64 CO2e from 2020-2024.

Using the average metric tons of CO2e per advisor type – global (1.17), regional (0.63), and national (0.00) –we can estimate that the total CO2e emissions could have been approximately 121.52 metric tons if all support had been provided by global advisors. In other words, regional advisors resulted in an estimated savings of 19.51 metric tons of CO2e, national advisors saved 23.37 metric tons, and together they contributed to a combined savings  of 42.88 metric tons of CO2e.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our prioritisation of contextual expertise began as an effort to recognise the value of understanding the context and people we support. One perhaps overlooked benefit of this approach has been the reduction in carbon emissions from international flights when providing in-country support. This analysis aims  to demonstrate how the increased involvement of national and regional advisors in providing in-country support has not only resulted in more contextually appropriate support but also led to carbon emissions savings for the GNC.

The results demonstrate that, on average, a regional advisor contributes approximately half the carbon footprint (0.63 metric tons of CO2e) of a global advisor (1.17 metric tons of CO2e) when providing in-country support. Hypothetically, this would require one year of growth of approximately 31.5 trees to offset the emissions from a regional advisor’s international travel, compared to  58.5 trees for a global advisor. National advisors, who are already located in-country when support is needed, do not contribute carbon emissions from international flights and, in most cases, bring a very high level of contextual expertise to ensure the success of the support. In addition, global or regional advisors with specific technical expertise can offer remote support to local or regional advisors through partnering, mentoring, or backstopping.

This approach and analysis rely on the assumption that nationality is a meaningful proxy indicator for contextual expertise in a given country or region, as it often reflects a meaningful connection to and experience within that context. 

However, it is an imperfect proxy for carbon footprint. As we discussed in the results section, the highest regional advisor carbon footprint was produced from traveling from the United States to provide support in Burundi, resulting in an estimated carbon footprint of 2.08 metric tons of CO2e. Although holding nationality from a country in the Eastern and Southern African region, and possessing many years of experience working in Burundi, the advisor was based in the United States – leading to a carbon footprint that was higher than most global advisors. 

Conversely, the lowest carbon footprint from a global advisor was produced from traveling from the United Arab Emirates to provide support in Afghanistan, resulting in an estimated carbon footprint of 0.32 metric tons of CO2e – lower than many regional advisors' carbon footprints. In this example, the advisor held nationality from and was based in a different region than the country of support, but the 3-hour direct flight from Dubai to Kabul had a relatively small carbon footprint. These examples demonstrate that although on average prioritising contextual expertise leads to carbon emissions savings, there are exceptions, and these should be considered if reducing carbon emissions is a primary objective.

As previously noted, the largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions is burning fossil fuels, including for transport. According to Climate Action Accelerator, a non-profit dedicated to helping organisations accelerate their climate action:

‘The best way to drastically reduce travel-related CO2 emissions is to minimise the number of kilometres flown. By carefully planning and being mindful of their reasons for travel, organisations can fulfil their mission while reducing flights and emissions’. 

This advice highlights that considering the climate impact of flights in the humanitarian sector – particularly when in-country actors possess strong technical, contextual, and cultural expertise – is a worthwhile endeavour.

In line with the IASC urgent call for humanitarians to mitigate their climate footprint and environmental impact, we propose that reinforcing the prioritisation of national and regional practitioners is an effective strategy.

Recommendations for Donors and Organisations

• Acknowledge the presence of bias in how expertise is defined and whose expertise is valued, particularly along racial lines and towards practitioners from the Global South.
• Embed appreciation for contextual expertise into your ways of working at all levels.
• Include contextual expertise as key criterion in recruitment processes for roles that will support humanitarian contexts, either in-person or remotely.
• Estimate carbon footprint using as tool such as MSF Carbon Travel App, and apply it as a factor when deciding who will provide a piece of in-country support.
  
   

AUTHORS: Alexandra Humphreys, Rita Abi Akar, and Etel Godwill Fagbohoun.
 

*  ‘Lived experience’ is the knowledge and understanding you get when you have personally lived through something

** Satisfaction from both training evaluations and user satisfaction surveys has remained about 90 percent annually and has demonstrated a slight upward trend