preparedness presentation nov 18th 2011
DESCRIPTION
How much money is spent on emergency preparedness worldwide and what could be done to increase that funding to enable better resilienceTRANSCRIPT
The Big Picture
Emergency Preparedness Financing
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
Prepared for FAO on behalf of the IASCPresentation to OCHA, 18th November 2011,
New York
“Not all the solutions are within our [humanitarians] hands but perhaps we are best placed to ensure overall aid is targeted correctly, because we are otherwise left with the failure of not doing so.” Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) Donor
“In many countries development funding is declining whilst humanitarian funding is increasing at an alarming rate. Yet a number of these countries are not receiving any preparedness funding. How can this be addressed?” UN representative
“Preparedness is essential - it saves lives; and it is more cost-effective than response.”Emergency Relief Coordinator – Valerie Amos
The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
Estimated international humanitarian response, 2010
Humanitarian aid from governments went up to
US$12.4bn...(11.7)the highest year on record
Private contributions are estimated to have reached
US$4.3bn... (3.9)
Prompted by the ‘mega disasters’ in
Haiti and Pakistan US$3.6bn, US$2.9bn FTS
US$16.7bn United StatesLargest donor, US$4.4bn, 2009
SudanLargest recipient, US$1.4bn, 2009
Top 10 donors
United States 4,376
EU Institutions 1,613
United Kingdom 1,024
Germany 727
Spain 632
Sweden 573
Netherlands 508
France 406
Canada 396
Norway 375
Top 10 recipients
Sudan 1,422
Palestine/OPT 1,303
Ethiopia 692
Afghanistan 634
Somalia 573
Congo, Dem. Rep. 567
Pakistan 486
Iraq 468
Kenya 400
Zimbabwe 393
The big numbers
OECD DAC
Sudan: 11.2% 2000-2009
OECD DAC
Top 20 recipients of total official humanitarian assistance 2000-2009
The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
Overall, humanitarian aid is rising ...
International humanitarian response, 2006-2010e
OECD DAC and OCHA FTS
... and more donors are participating
Saudi ArabiaBrazil
Two largest donors to Haiti Emergency Response Fund (ERF), 2010
8 out of 10Largest government donors to the Haiti
ERF were not members of the OECD DAC
Some financing aspects of humanitarian reform are bearing fruit ...
129Governments outside the OECD DACD
contributing to the international response in 2010
89 in 2009
93 in 2008
71 in 2007
100 in 2005
...allowing non-OECD DAC governments (as well as private donors) increased visibility and
opportunities to participate
OCHA FTS
But at the same time, demand is also rising ...
Funding requirements for UN consolidated appeals process (CAP) appeals, 2000-2010
OCHA FTS
... and so are costs
Food and energy price index
2007-2011Food: 40%
Oil: 36%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Commodity Fuel (energy) Index - Monthly Price Commodity Food Price Index - Monthly Price
Supply(Humanitarian expenditure)
Escalating costsBudgetary constraints
Demand(Humanitarian need)
Escalating vulnerabilityIncreased demand
Unmet needs in UN CAP appeals are creeping up again
Shares of needs met and unmet in UN CAP appeals, 2000-2010
30.2%
OCHA FTS
... which types of emergencies will be funded ...
UN CAP appeals: requirements by type of emergency, 2000-2010
Winners: Flash, Haiti/Pakistan = 70% fundedLosers: Consolidated, drop from 70% to 60% funded OCHA FTS
... or how donors will prioritise
(declining?) aid budgets ...
Changes in bilateral humanitarian aid, 2007-2010 (does not include multilateral ODA contributions to UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP)
Haiti/Pakistan OECD DAC
1 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go up
2 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go down
3. Humanitarian aid rises but other aid falls
4. Humanitarian aid goes down but other aid rises
US$m changes in bilateral humanitarian expenditure
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Australia 86.5 -12.2 -70.4 134.7 23.4 -42.5 Austria 23.2 -11.7 -4.1 27.7 -6.8 -12.9 Belgium 7.1 21.7 -4.3 27.1 -6.2 52.1 Canada 39.1 51.2 22.8 66.9 -8.6 129.2 Denmark 176.7 -10.7 -29.9 16.0 -33.7 -50.6 Finland 48.5 -6.5 27.6 -23.0 16.3 -4.4 France 10.1 22.3 -19.2 -14.4 16.3 16.5 Germany 145.4 42.2 -123.2 6.2 72.8 -32.9 Greece 8.0 1.8 -9.5 3.3 -1.6 -9.6 Ireland 30.0 21.4 90.6 -18.1 -67.5 -4.6 Italy -11.9 6.6 0.3 28.3 -3.2 -68.0 Japan -125.4 -378.1 -104.3 163.9 -20.1 275.2 Korea 10.6 -3.5 -6.6 8.2 -4.6 -2.6 Luxembourg -9.1 23.4 -12.2 0.3 5.8 9.6 Netherlands 216.9 -26.5 -106.1 36.3 -83.8 -72.7 New Zealand 34.8 -30.1 3.2 -1.8 -8.6 3.1 Norway 209.2 -102.0 38.5 -35.3 -43.5 67.7 Portugal -6.7 -7.1 -7.5 0.4 -0.0 -0.6 Spain 42.5 20.3 73.9 182.3 25.7 -64.5 Sweden 62.0 26.7 -21.2 38.4 36.5 -10.6 Switzerland 49.2 -21.6 -17.0 -28.8 -9.3 2.2 United Kingdom 94.6 163.4 -338.3 160.4 145.5 -8.8 United States 906.0 -510.4 -120.5 1,333.8 -45.0 430.5
EU Institutions 225.8 193.5 -27.7 295.9 -345.8 83.6
Total 2,273.0 -525.7 -765.0 2,408.6 -346.1 684.5
... or who will be most affected by their choices
Concentration of funding in top 3 and top 20 recipients, 2000-2009
OECD DAC
The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
What are the needs?19
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
050
100150200250300350400450500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Number of disasters Total number affected (millions)
Num
ber o
f dis
aste
rs
Num
ber o
f affe
cted
(mill
ions
)
And in which environments?
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Conflict-affected Non-conflict-affected (excluding China)
Donor priority growing slowly...
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4,251
6,731
4,985
4,672
5,223
5,414
1,756
2,612
2,214
2,247
3,604
3,286
6
70
41
99
333
455
Material relief assistance and services Emergency food aid
Relief co-ordination; protection and support services Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation
Disaster prevention and preparedness
Preparedness funding US$ millionDisaster prevention and preparedness 454.6Other humanitarian funding 73.7Development funding 130.2Total 658.5
But not uniformly...
Switzerland
Denmark
Canada
Sweden
Germany
Australia
Japan
UK
USA
EU
Norway
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2
3
6
23
25
28
46
53
59
77
22
USD million (constant 2009) Material relief assistance and services Emergency food aid Relief co-ordination; protection and support services Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation
2009
The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
The Definition• “The aim of emergency preparedness is to strengthen
local, national and global capacity to minimise loss of life and livelihoods, to ensure effective response, to enable rapid recovery and increase resilience to all hazards (including conflict and epidemics).
• This entails readiness measures (risk assessment, contingency planning, stockpiling of equipment and supplies, training, community drills and exercises) and institutional preparedness (coordination arrangements, early warning systems, public education) supported by legal and budgetary frameworks.”
Guiding Principles
• In the news, all the time.• Consensus on need.• Transformative power.• Linking humanitarian and development.• Including conflict.• National actors to the fore.
Positives... Despite the system• HCTs find ways of using CAP for preparedness funding in
the absence of clear guidance. • Humanitarian donors make preparedness a priority for
development counterparts – work around funding silos.• Some financing mechanisms do fund preparedness
activities of different types in different contexts. • Institutions formed both informal and formal relationships
to improve preparedness, especially for disasters.• The Nepal Consortium is an example of how a well
argued and articulated plan can garner both attention and funding.
Overall• Data reporting structures and practices are weak.• Slowly growing funding in increasingly uncertain financing
environment• Donor structures and policies are very variable and almost
always inadequate.• Financing mechanisms currently inadequate and do not fund
enough.• Little prioritisation and little analysis of all risks.• CAP has potential but is not at all a comprehensive solution.• Examples of best practice at country level are not used.• Considerable structural issues in the system, globally and at
country level.
Detailed look at donorsDonor Preparedness
definitionFunding mechanism Emergency preparedness policy
Own Adopted Hum. Aid
Dev. Aid
Other Integrated All Risk Policy
Nat. Disaster
Conflict Pandemic
HFA ISDR
Canada X Y Y Y Y X X Y Y YUSA** Y Y Y Y Y Y X Y Y YJapan X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* XUnited Kingdom X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* YGermany X Y Y Y Y Y X Y X* YEuropean Union X Y Y Y X X X Y X* XSwitzerland X Y Y Y X X X Y X* XSweden X Y Y Y X X X Y X* XAustralia X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* YDenmark X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* XNorway X Y Y Y X X X Y X* Y
[
Bifurcated donor structures dominate preparedness articulation and funding.
The Three Tensions and the one major issues
• 1) conflict and natural disaster• 2) local/national and institutional• 3) short-term preparedness and long-term
risk reduction.
• Joining all these together into a single question and answer.
The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
The Evidence Base– Forensic analysis of spending.– Support ongoing initiatives to improve coding and reporting.– Promote introduction of a marker in databases.– Track preparedness within all CAP appeals. – Advocate for much better preparedness reporting by all
actors (visibility) and all methods.
– This work will help detail what is meant by conflict preparedness, working towards a clear consensus.
Enabling environment • Establish programme of engagement with donors.• Work with the GHD to develop policies/practices;
examples: large-scale multi-country crisis, developing principles, combating bifurcation, encourage multi-year funding.
• Widen partnerships, especially beyond humanitarians. • Communicate relevance, evidence, benefits of improved
financing to all, including beyond IASC. • Donors undertake policy work on conflict preparedness
Need, Prioritisation and Risk• Conflict preparedness, both short- and long-term.• Comprehensive risk analysis that addresses multi-
hazards• Use prioritisation to bridge the aid divide. • Analyse first those countries most in need, not those
easiest to fund. • Include likely scenarios/trends: food prices,
urbanisation, scarcity, climate change.
Leadership, Champions, Role Clarification
– IASC and UNDG should resolve issues of mandate and leadership, duplications and gaps.
– National ownership and conflict scenarios. – Clearer leadership on preparedness amongst the
donor community and constituencies such as G20 and GHD.
– Single institution responsible for articulating, presenting, and developing policy within the CAP.
Financing MechanismsExisting pooled fund mechanisms• Increase financing using existing funds: GFDRR• CHFs for national leadership.• Expand ERFs to include preparedness & country
number. • Consider expansion of CERF.
Vertical fund• Consider added value in context of challenge
presented by combining disaster/conflict, and divide between humanitarian and development assistance.
Financing Mechanisms IIRole of the CAP• Work to make CAP more strategic includes emergency
preparedness. • Take the steps to make emergency preparedness a
specific element within the CAP. • Assess the possibility of a marker for tracking levels of
preparedness funding within individual projects.
Quality of Activities: • Investigate how good current activities are and what
can be improved.
Phase II• Country-level work essential• All actors examined and partnerships developed• Forensic data examination• Data and reporting advocacy• Risk analysis and prioritisation• Financing mechanisms investigated• Advocacy and engagement with those can make
decisions• Improvement of the preparedness system
• Bifurcated donor structures undermine attempts to move forward.
The Big Picture
Why is this important?
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations
Preparedness expenditures where it matters... are minimal
Palestine/OPT (2)
Jordan (3)
Angola (4)
Iraq (5)
Sri Lanka (5)
Kenya (5)
Burundi (5)
Zimbabwe (5)
Somalia (5)
Liberia (5)
Lebanon (5)
Chad (5)
Serbia (5)
Average (5.5)
Ethiopia (6)
Uganda (6)
Sudan (6)
DRC (7)
Pakistan (8)
Afghanistan (8)
Indonesia (9)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
1.9
0.2
0.5
47.411.6
11.1
5.5
4.2
3.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
9.3
16.5
8.8
3.6
11.4
15.6
11.9
30.0
1,602
2,585
6,081
1,996
1,454
Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation Disaster prevention and preparedness Total remaining humanitarian
US$ million
OECD DAC 2005-2009
... And investments on tackling vulnerability to risk are poor
OECD DAC
... of all kinds...
Afghanistan
Angola
Burundi
ChadDRC
Ethiopia
Indonesia Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Lebanon
Liberia OPT
Pakistan
Serb
ia
Somalia
Sri La
nkaSu
dan
Uganda
Zimbabwe
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
8%
10%
4%
2%
4%
0%
2%
6%
1% 1%
4%
13%
2%
0%
13%
4% 4%
7%
1% 1%
Child soldiers (prevention and demobilisation) Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolutionLand mine clearance Post-conflict peace building (un)Reintegration and salw control Security system management and reform% of ODA
US$
mill
ion
(con
stan
t 20
09 p
rice
s)
Our aim is to provide access to reliable, transparent and understandable information so that we can all work to ensure better outcomes for people affected by humanitarian crises.
Global Humanitarian Assistance is a Development Initiatives programme, funded by the governments of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom
Humanitarian financing. Clarity Counts.
Name: Lisa Walmsley
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +44 (0)1749 671343
Web: globalhumanitarianassistance.org
Global Humanitarian Assistance, Development Initiatives, Keward Court, Jocelyn Drive, Wells, Somerset, BA5 1DB, UK