Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GHA RepoRt 2012
Contents
Foreword 2
exeCutivesummary 3
Chapter1:humanitarianresponsetoCrises 9
WHeRe does tHe fundinG come fRom? 11
internationalcontributionsfromgovernments 11nationalgovernmentsprovidinghumanitarianassistancewithintheirborders 22privatecontributionsfromfoundations,companiesandindividualstonGos,unandtheredCross 25
WHeRe does tHe fundinG Go? 29
Countryvariations 29shiftingtrends 35
HoW does tHe fundinG Get tHeRe? 41
Fundingtofirst-levelrecipients 43Civilsocietyincrisis-affectedcountries 45pooledfunds 46themilitary 50
Chapter2:ForCesshapinGhumanitarianneed 55
driversofvulnerabilityandcrisis 56assessingthescaleofthecrisis 59responsetothecrisis–fundingappeals 62proportionalityinfinancingresponsestocrises 67
Chapter3:investmentstotaCklevulnerability 71
poverty,vulnerabilityandcrisis 73socialprotectionandcashtransfers 76investmentsindisasterriskreduction 78investmentsingovernanceandsecurity 80usingaidtoaddvalueinthecontextofotherresources 82
data&Guides 85
keydefinitions,conceptsandmethodology 87datasources 91acronymsandabbreviations 93referencetables 94
aCknowledGements 102
1
Foreword
welcometotheGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)report2012.
Ghatriestoanswersomeofthebasicquestionsaboutthewaythattheworldfinancesresponsetocrisisandvulnerability.howmuchisspentonhumanitarianassistance?wheredoesitgo?whatisitspenton?whospendsit?ouraimistoprovideclear,objectiveevidenceonresources,easilyaccessibleonpaperandonline,sothatdecisionsandpolicycanbebetterinformed.webelievethatbetterinformationmeansbetteraid.
Foranumberofyearsnow,wehavehighlightedthedataonresourcesforpeoplewholiveontheedgeofcrisis,inchronicpovertyandwhereviolentconflictiscommonandstatesarefragile.astheGhareport2012pointsout,buildingtheresilienceofvulnerablepopulationsisanessentialpartofachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andisnotwellservedbyresponsesthatcreateafalsepartitionbetweenchronicpovertyandvulnerabilitytocrisis.
sincetheG20inkoreain2010,buildingresiliencehasbecomeanincreasinglyvisiblepolicyconcern.theGhareport2012includesnewdatathatisofparticularrelevancetothisarea.Cash-basedprogramming,forinstance,enablespeopletomaketheirownchoicesaboutprioritiesandwhethertheyinvestfortheshortorlongerterm.between2008and2011humanitarianspendingoncashandvoucher-basedprogrammingrangedbetweenus$45millionandus$188million.spendingondisasterpreventionandpreparednessandriskreduction,essentialforbuildingresiliencetocriseslargeandsmall,remainsverylowatjust4%ofhumanitarianaidandlessthan1%ofdevelopmentassistance.
thelevelofunmethumanitarianneedin2011wastheworstforadecade:overathirdoftheneedsidentifiedintheunconsolidatedappealshaveremainedunfunded–leavingashortfallofus$3.4billion.theimpactofthisisexacerbatedbytheincreasingconcentrationofhumanitarianaidonasmallernumberofmega-crises.historicallythetopthreerecipientshaveabsorbedaround30%oftotalhumanitarianaid.in2010thatjumpedtonearlyhalf(49%)andothercountriesincrisiscollectivelysawareductionintheirshareoftotalfunding.
thegoodnewsisthat,at62million,thenumberofpeopleaffectedbycrisesin2011was12millionfewerthanin2010.totalspendingperpersonintheunconsolidatedappeal(Cap)hasfallenfromus$98perpersonin2010tous$90in2011.butthesecalculationsdonottellusenough.threeareaswherebetterdatacouldcontributetobetteraidarefundingaccordingtoneed,domesticresponseandaidinthecontextofotherresources.Fundingaccordingtoneedisaprincipleofgoodhumanitariandonorship,butitcannotbeimplementedwithoutbetterdataontargetpopulationsandmoretransparentandaccessibleinformationonneeds.localandnationalresponsestocrisisarevitallyimportantinsavinglivesandreducingvulnerability.ifbetterdatawasavailableonthescaleandnatureofdomesticresponse,theninternationalhumanitarianresourcescouldbeusedmoreefficientlytoaddvalue.humanitarianaidisjustoneoftheresourcesavailabletorespondtocrisesandbuildresilience:developmentassistance,militaryspending,domesticrevenues,remittances,peacekeeping,privateinvestmentaswellaspeople’sownresourcesareallpartofthepicture.betterinformationonallresourceshelpsmoreeffectiveallocations.Ghaisworkingtopublishmoredataintheseareasinordertocontributetothemoreeffectiveuseofresourcesforbuildingresilienceandreducingpovertyforveryvulnerablepopulations.
wehopethatyoufindthisreportandallthesupportingdataonlinehelpful.wearealwaysavailabletoanswerquestions,provideadditionalinformationorproducespecificgraphsandspreadsheetsthroughourphoneandonlinehelpdesk.pleasevisittheGhawebsite:www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org.
wewouldwelcomeyourfeedbackandsuggestionsaboutdatathatyouwouldfindmostuseful.
Judith Randelexecutivedirector,developmentinitiatives
2
3
eXecutiVe summARY
= 1 mill ion
Fewer people were in need of humanitarian assistance in 2011 than in 2010 – but numbers appear to be rising again in 2012.
Large volumes of international humanitarian aid are spent each year in places where people are acutely vulnerable to crises – where high proportions of the population live in absolute poverty, where violent conflict is common and where states are fragile.
2010 74million 2011 62million 2012 61million*
Source: UN consolidated appeals process (CAP)
*This includes 10 million
people in the Sahel affected by
food insecurity and added to
the appeal in May/June 2012
Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS, CRED, INCAF, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, SIPRI and World Bank data
39 countries receiving international
humanitarian aid had been affected by
conflict for five or more years over the previous
decade. They collectively
received US$10.7bn in 2010.
Just over US$8bn was spent in 46 countries
that had an above average share of their population affected by
natural disasters between 2001 and 2010.
In 2010, 53 of the 139 countries receiving
international humanitarian aid had higher than average
shares of their respective populations
living on less than US$1.25 a day.
45 states categorised as ‘fragile’ received 88.6% of the total
international humanitarian aid.
0%50% 60% 70% 80% 90%10% 20% 30% 40%
CONFLICT
STATE FRAGILIT
YPOVERTY
NATURAL DISASTER
100%
54.8%
85.9%
64.3%
88.6%
4
0%
50%
100%
US$0bn US$5bn US$10bn US$15bn US$20bn
The funding gap also widened for other appeals in 2011.
72.2%NEEDS MET
27.8%NEEDS UNMET
7 1.7%NEEDS MET
28.3%NEEDS UNMET
7 1.2%NEEDS MET
28.8%NEEDS UNMET
63.0%NEEDS MET
37.0%NEEDS UNMET
62.3%NEEDS MET
37.7%NEEDS UNMET
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Despite large increases in humanitarian financing, the gap between met and unmet needs in UN CAP appeals has widened by 10% over the last five years.
Source: UN OCHA FTS
Source: UN OCHA FTS and IFRC
Natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan drove sharp increases in both humanitarian needs and financing in 2010.
Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC data, UN OCHA FTS data and our own research
Major natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan contributed to a 23%
increase in international humanitarian aid in 2010.
The overall international humanitarian financing response fell back by 9% in 2011. Both private and government contributions remained
above 2009 levels.
Average level of needs met
Governments
Needs met in 2011
62%
67%
37%
47%50%67%
UN CAP appeal10-year average
UN non-CAP appeals10-year average
IFRC appeals5-year average
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
US$12.4bn
US$16.0bn
US$15.3bn
US$18.8bn
US$17.1bn
Private voluntary contributions
5
exeCutivesummary
in2010majornaturaldisastersinhaitiandpakistanhadwide-rangingeffectsonthecollectivehumanitarianresponse:drivingupoverallinternationalspendingby23%overthepreviousyear;drawinginnewgovernmentandprivatedonors;andinvolvingmilitaryactorsinresponsesonahugescale.thesecrisesalsoshiftedhistoricgeographicalconcentrationsofhumanitarianspending,exacerbatingthegapinunmetfinancingforanumberofothercountries.
in2011globalhumanitarianneedsweresmallerinscale,withtheun’sconsolidatedhumanitarianappealrequestingus$8.9billion,21%lessinfinancing,tomeetthehumanitarianneedsof62millionpeople,comparedwithus$11.3billionrequestedtomeettheneedsof74millionpeoplein2010.theoverallinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefellbackby9%,fromus$18.8billionin2010tous$17.1billionin2011.butdespitethereductioninneedsintheun’shumanitarianappeals,thegapinunmetfinancingwidenedtolevelsnotseenintenyears.
humanitariancrisesnotonlyoccurinpartsoftheworldwheremanypeoplearealreadypoor:theydeepenpovertyandpreventpeoplefromescapingfromit.buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskthereforeisnotonlytheconcernofaffectedcommunitiesandhumanitarians;itisoffundamentalimportanceinachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andintheeliminationofabsolutepoverty.
tHe Response to GlobAl HumAnitARiAn cRises
thecollectiveinternationalgovernmentresponsetohumanitariancrisesreachedanhistoricpeakin2010,growingby10%toreachus$13billion.basedonpreliminaryfigures,totalinternationalhumanitarianaidfromgovernmentsfellbyus$495million,or4%,in2011.humanitarianaidfromorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCd)developmentassistanceCommittee(daC)donorsincreasedbyus$1billionbetween2009and2010(9%)andfellbyus$266millionbetween2010and2011(2%).humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupincreasedbyus$156million(27%)between2009and2010,thenfellbyus$229million(31%)in2011.
privatefundinghasbecomeincreasinglyresponsivetoneedrelativetogovernmentsources.privatecontributionsgrewrapidlyin2010,upby70%(us$2.4billion)from2009levelsandreachingus$5.8billion.initialpreliminaryestimatesfor2011indicatethatlevelsofprivategivinghavefallenbackagainbutstillremainabove2009levels,atus$4.6billion.
theimpactoftheglobaleconomiccrisisisonlynowstartingtobefeltindevelopmentaidbudgets.officialdevelopmentassistance(oda)fromoeCddaCdonorsfellinabsolutetermsbyus$4.2billion(3%)in2011.humanitarianaidfellataslightlylowerrate(2%)thandevelopmentassistancemorewidely(3%)in2011,andthusgrewasashareoftotalodaby0.1%.intheyearfollowingthepakistanandhaiti‘mega-disasters’,whenoverallhumanitarianneedssubsided,areductionofjust2%demonstratedpartialresilienceinhumanitarianspendingamongstoeCddaCdonors,particularlywhenviewedagainstabackdropofaidbudgetcuts.theimpactoftheprospectofmoreseverecutsinodaonhumanitarianassistanceremainstobeseen.
whilesomedonorswereincreasingtheircontributionstomeetrisinglevelsofneedin2010,however,otherswerereducingtheirs,andoveraperiodofseveralyearsthedonordivisionoflabourhasgraduallyshifted.thetoptencountriesincreasingtheirhumanitarianaidspendingbetween2008and2010(theunitedstates,Canada,Japan,sweden,Germany,turkey,theunitedkingdom,norway,australiaandFrance)collectivelyincreasedtheircontributionsbyus$1.2billionovertheperiod.thetendonorswiththelargesthumanitarianaidspendingreductionsbetween2008and2010meanwhile(saudiarabia,theeuropeanunion(eu)institutions,thenetherlands,italy,kuwait,spain,ireland,austria,thailandandGreece)collectivelyreducedtheircontributionsbyus$1billion.
theoverallrisingtrendininternationalhumanitarianaidtorecipientcountriesin2010maskedanumberofshiftsinthetraditionaldistributionsofinternationalhumanitarianfunding.theus$3.1billionofhumanitarianfundschannelledtohaitiin2010wasofacompletelydifferentordertothevolumestypicallyreceived–morethandoubletheamountreceivedbythelargestrecipientinanyotheryeartodate.ineachyearsince2001,approximatelyone-thirdoftotalhumanitarianaidhasbeenconcentratedamongthetopthreerecipientcountries.in2010,however,theshareoftheleadingthreerecipientsjumpedtonearlyhalfofthetotal,withhaitireceiving25%andpakistan17%.
thereweresomeclear‘losers’amidsttheoverallgrowthininternationalhumanitarianaidspendingin2010.amongthe15countrieswiththegreatestreductionsinhumanitarianfundingbyvolume,five
6
experiencedanimprovementintheirhumanitariansituation;oftheremainingten,allexperiencedgreaterdifficultiesinraisingfundswithintheirunfundingappealsthaninthepreviousyear,withmanynotingseriousdifficultiesinraisingfundsinthefirsthalfoftheyear.inthemoststrikingexamples,theproportionoffundingneedsmetintheunappealsfornepalandChadwere33%and31%lower,respectively,in2010thanin2009.
foRces sHApinG HumAnitARiAn need And tHe miXed inteRnAtionAl Response
thescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesabatedin2011,with12.5millionfewerpeopletargetedtoreceivehumanitarianassistanceintheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap),andafurtherdropof10.4millionintheexpectednumbersofpeopleinneedofhumanitarianassistancein2012.in2011thenumberofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersfellto91million,substantiallylowerthanthe224millionin2010andthelowestfigureintenyears.
thestructuralvulnerabilitiesoftheglobaleconomicsystemthatgaverisetotheglobalfoodcrisisof2008remainlargelyunchanged,leadingtoasecondpricespikein2011,withenergypricesrisingby143%andfoodpricesby56%fromtheirlowestpointsin2009totheirpeaksin2011.pricevolatilityremainsacute,andtheoutlookisoneofcontinuedhighprices.
unmethumanitarianfinancingneedsroseacrosstheboardin2011,forunCapandotherappealsalike.theproportionofhumanitarianfinancingneedswithintheunCapappealthatremainedunmetin2011wasgreater,at38%,thaninanyyearsince2001,despiteoverallreducedrequirements.unappealsoutsideoftheCapin2011werefundedtojust37%overall,however,wellbelowtheaverageof46%fortheperiod2000–2011.internationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC)appealsin2009and2010hadunmetrequirementsof17%and21%respectively,comparedwithjust11%and10%inthetwoprecedingyears.internationalFederationoftheredCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)appealfundingrequirementswerejust50%metin2011againstanaverageof67%fortheperiod2006–2011.
in2010,consolidatedappeals–whichrepresentchronic,predictablehumanitariancrises–collectivelysawan11%reductionintheshareoftheirappealrequirementsmet.in2011regularconsolidatedappealsfaredslightlybetter,witha1%increaseintheshareofrequirementsmet,butthemajorityofthemwereworsefundedin2011thantheyweretwoorthreeyearspreviously.
inVestments to tAckle VulneRAbilitY
manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearecharacterisedascomplexcrises,withcountriesoftensufferingfromconflictandwithverylimitedcapacitytodealwithdisasters.allbutoneofthetoptenrecipientsbetween2001and2010areconsideredfragilestates,andallhavebeenaffectedbyconflictfor5–10years.
in2009,68%oftotalofficialhumanitarianassistancewasreceivedbycountriesconsideredlong-termrecipients,i.e.countriesreceivinganabove-averageshareoftheirtotalodaintheformofhumanitarianaidforaperiodof8ormoreyearsduringthepreceding15years.
buildingresiliencetocrisesintheseplacesisthemostefficientandcost-effectivewayofpreventingsufferingandprotectinglivelihoods,yetrelativelysmallsharesofinternationalresourcesareinvestedspecificallyinbuildingresilience.Just4%ofofficialhumanitarianaid(us$1.5billion)and0.7%(us$4.4billion)ofnon-humanitarianodawasinvestedindisasterriskreductionbetween2006and2010.
Conflict-affectedstatesreceivetheoverwhelmingmajorityofinternationalassistance:onaverage,between64%and83%ofinternationalhumanitarianassistancewaschannelledtocountriesinconflictorinpost-conflicttransitionbetween2001and2010.odainvestmentsinpeaceandsecuritysectorsgrewby140%overallbetween2002and2010–andby249%withinthetop20recipients.
aidisakeyresourcetomeettheneedsofpeoplevulnerabletoandaffectedbycrises.butmanyotherofficialandprivateresourceflowshavearoletoplayincreatingbroad-basedgrowth–growththathasthepotentialtoreducepovertyandvulnerability,provideditisequitableandbuiltoninvestmentsthatengagewithandsupportthepoor.
7
thestory
©vickiFrancis/departmentforinternationaldevelopment
in2010theinternationalhumanitariansystemwastestedbycrisesofenormousscale–notleastinpakistan,wheretenyearsofrainfellinoneweek,leaving20millionpeopleaffectedbywidespreadflooding.
traditionalresponsestohumanitariancrisesfallundertheaegisof‘emergencyresponse’:materialreliefassistanceandservices(shelter,water,medicinesetc.);emergencyfoodaid(short-termdistributionandsupplementaryfeedingprogrammes);reliefcoordination,protectionandsupportservices(coordination,logisticsandcommunications).buthumanitarianaidcanalsoincludereconstructionandrehabilitation,aswellasdisasterpreventionandpreparedness.
8
Credit
HumAnitARiAn Response to cRises
theglobalresponsetohumanitariancrisesisthecollectiveoutputofacomplexecosystemofcommunities,organisationsandnationalandinternationalgovernments,eachfacingarangeofchoicesabouthow,where,whenandhowmuchtheycontributetomeethumanitarianneed.
eachyearseeschangesinthenatureofhumanitariancrisesandtheglobalcontextinwhichtheyarise.in2010majornaturaldisastersinhaitiandpakistanhadwide-rangingeffectsonthecollectiveresponse:drivingupoverallinternationalspendingby23%overthepreviousyear;drawinginnewgovernmentandprivatedonors;andinvolvingmilitaryactorsinresponsesonahugescale.thesecrisesalsoshiftedhistoricgeographicalconcentrationsofhumanitarianspending,exacerbatingthegapinunmetfinancingforanumberofothercountries.
in2011globalhumanitarianneedsweresmallerinscale,withtheun’sconsolidatedhumanitarianappealrequestingus$8.9billion,21%lessinfinancing,tomeetthehumanitarianneedsof62millionpeople,comparedwithus$11.3billionrequestedtomeettheneedsof74millionpeoplein2010.theoverallinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefellbackby9%,fromus$18.8billionin2010tous$17.1billionin2011.butdespitethereductioninneedsintheun’shumanitarianappeals,thegapinunmetfinancingwidenedtolevelsnotseenintenyears.
thischapterquantifiesthescaleofofficialandprivatehumanitarianaidcontributionsandattemptstoanswersomebasicquestionsaboutwherethemoneycomesfrom,whereitgoesandhowitgetsthere.
9
QUANTIFIED
PARTIALLY QUANTIFIED
UNQUANTIFIED
UNQUANTIFIABLE
GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
INTE
RNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE: US$17.1bnGovernmentsUS$12.5bn
(2011, preliminary estimate)
Private voluntary contributions US$4.6bn
(2011, preliminary estimate)
National institutions
National governments
People
DOMESTIC RESPONSE
Other types of aid
Other types of foreign assistance
Humanitarian aiddelivered by the military
OTHER INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES
Other international resources are discussed in Chapter 3, Investments to tackle
vulnerability. There is also a section on the military's delivery of humanitarian aid in
Chapter 1, Section 1.3.
Domestic response is difficult to quantify. The role of national governments in crisis-affected states is covered in
Chapter 1, Section 1.1. Their role in social protection is referenced in Chapter 3.
The international humanitarian response is the main focus of the
analysis in Chapter 1, Humanitarian response to crises.
10
internationalContributionsFromGovernments
between2001and2010,governmentdonorsprovidedus$99billioninhumanitarianaidfinancing.95%ofthiswasprovidedbygovernmentsthataremembersofthedevelopmentassistanceCommitteeoftheorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCddaC).5%wasprovidedbygovernmentsoutsidetheoeCddaCgroup.
thelargestdonorthroughoutthisperiodwastheunitedstates,whichprovidedoverathirdofthetotalfundingfromgovernments.thefivelargestdonorsbetween2001and2010(theunitedstates,theeuinstitutions,theunitedkingdom,Germanyandsweden)collectivelycontributed69%ofthetotal.
whilethecontributionsoftheleadingdonors–allofwhomareoeCddaCmembers–accountforthelargestshareofgovernmenthumanitarianaidfinancing,thedivisionoflabouramongdonorsiscontinuallyevolvingandothergovernmentsoutsideofthetraditionaloeCddaCgroupareplayinganincreasinglyprominentrole.notably,saudiarabiaandtheunitedarabemirates(uae)arenowmajorhumanitarianaiddonorsandrankamongthetop20,aboveanumberofoeCddaCdonorgovernments.
1.1 WHeRe does tHe fundinG come fRom?
HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments
ourdefinitionofhumanitarianfundingfromgovernmentsincludesfundingfrom:
• 24oeCddaCmembers–australia,austria,belgium,Canada,denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,ireland,italy,Japan,korea,luxembourg,thenetherlands,newZealand,norway,portugal,spain,sweden,switzerland,theunitedkingdom,theunitedstatesandtheeuropeanunioninstitutions–whichreporttotheoeCddaC.
• othergovernmentsthatreporttheirhumanitarianaidcontributionstotheunitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(unoCha)Financialtrackingservice(Fts).becausereportingisvoluntary,thenumberofgovernmentsreportingvariesfromyeartoyear.in2010,130governmentdonorsreportedtheirhumanitarianaidcontributionstotheFts,whilein2011only84governmentsreported.thelargestofthese‘non-oeCddaC’or‘othergovernment’donorsincludesaudiarabia,uae,russia,turkey,China,india,Qatarandsouthafrica.
seethedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofhowwecalculatehumanitarianaidcontributionsfromgovernments.
11
4. GermanyUS$6.3bn
3. United KingdomUS$8.5bn
1. United StatesUS$34.1bn
2. EU institutionsUS$14.6bn
5. SwedenUS$5bn
6. NetherlandsUS$4.8bn
7. JapanUS$4.4bn
8. NorwayUS$4.2bn
9. FranceUS$3.5bn
10. SpainUS$3.4bn
11. ItalyUS$3.2bn
12. CanadaUS$3.2bn
13. AustraliaUS$2.8bn
14. SwitzerlandUS$2.3bn
15. DenmarkUS$2.2bn
16. Saudi Arabia
US$2.1bn
17. BelgiumUS$1.5bn
18. FinlandUS$1.2bn
19. IrelandUS$1.1bn
20. UAE US$0.9bn
fiGuRe 1: top 20 GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
12
portugal us$24mkorea us$24miranislamicrep. us$16mthailand us$12mmexico us$11mkuwait us$11malgeria us$10mindonesia us$7moman us$5mCzechrepublic us$5mbahrain us$5m
unitedstates us$4.9bneuinstitutions us$1.7bn
spain us$496mnorway us$470mnetherlands us$459mFrance us$435maustralia us$390m
italy us$283mdenmark us$259msaudiarabia us$256mbelgium us$227mswitzerland us$211mFinland us$167mireland us$128muae us$114m
austria us$65mturkey us$61mluxembourg us$54mrussia us$40mGreece us$39mChina us$38mindia us$37mnewZealand us$31mbrazil us$29mkazakhstan us$25m
unitedkingdom us$943mGermany us$744msweden us$690mJapan us$642mCanada us$550m
overus$1bn
us$500mtous$1bn
us$300mtous$500m
us$100mtous$300m
us$5mtous$25m
‹1%
1%
underus$5m
fiGuRe 2: GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid in 2010
note:datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases;thereforefordetailedanalysisweuse2010asthelatestavailableyear.153governmentsplusinstitutionsundertheeuparticipatedintheinternationalhumanitarianresponsetocrisesin2010,contributingus$13billionintotal.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
poland us$4mmorocco us$3mGhana us$3msudan us$3mazerbaijan us$3mnigeria us$3mdrC us$3megypt us$2mbangladesh us$2mequatorialGuinea us$2mQatar us$2miraq us$2mestonia us$1mafghanistan us$1mslovenia us$1mmalaysia us$1mslovakia us$1mGuyana us$1mtrinidadandtobago us$1mhungary us$1mukraine us$1mCongo,rep. us$1mGabon us$1mGambia us$1msenegal us$1msuriname us$1mtunisia us$1m
afurther13governments
‹us$1m
us$25mtous$100m
13
45%
25%
15%
11% 3%
inresponsetoincreasedneed(seeChapter2),thecollectiveinternationalgovernmentresponsetohumanitariancrisesreachedahistoricpeakin2010,growingby10%toreachus$13billion.basedonpreliminaryfigures,totalinternationalhumanitarianaidfromgovernmentsfellbyus$495million,or4%,in2011.thisfallwassignificantlylessthanthe21%reductioninfinancingrequestedthroughunhumanitarianappealsinthesameyear.
thispatterncorrespondswiththe‘ratcheteffect’onhumanitarianfundinglevelsobservedaroundothermajorhumanitariancrisesinthepastdecade,wherebyhumanitarianfundinglevelsincreasesharplyinpeakcrisis
years,butdonotfallbacktopre-crisislevelsinsubsequentyears.in2005,forexample,theinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefromgovernmentsincreasedby36%toathenrecordhighofus$11.4billioninresponsetomajordisasters(theindianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandthesouthasia(kashmir)earthquake)andremainedwellabovepre-2005levelsthereafter,fallingbyjust12%in2006.similarly,in2008theinternationalhumanitarianresponsescaledupby33%tomeetincreasedhumanitarianneeds–stemmingfromtheglobalfoodpricecrisis,cyclonesaffectingmyanmarandbangladeshandthesichuanearthquakeinChina–toanewhighofus$12.4billion,fallingbackbyjust5%in2009.
7.1 6.8
8.1 8.5
11.4
10.2 9.3
12.4 11.8
13.0 12.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N
Total from OECD DAC membersTotal from other governments
fiGuRe 3: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnment donoRs, 2001–2011
note:dataformembersoftheoeCddaCincludestheirbilateralhumanitarianaidcontributionspluscoreodatotheunitednationshighCommissionerforrefugees(unhCr),unreliefandworksagencyforpalestinerefugeesintheneareast(unrwa)andtheworldFoodprogramme(wFp)upto2010.datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleasesandestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.dataforoeCddaCmembersisbasedon2010constantprices.datafornon-oeCddaCmembergovernmentsincludesallothergovernmenthumanitarianaid,ascapturedbytheunoChaFts(currentprices).ourdistinctionbetweenthesetwogroupsofgovernmentdonorsisdrivenentirelybythedata.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
14
inresponsetoincreasedneed(seeChapter2),humanitarianaidfromoeCddaCdonorsincreasedbyus$1billionbetween2009and2010(9%)and(basedonpreliminaryfiguresfor2011)fellbyus$266millionbetween2010and2011(2%)–substantiallylessthanthefallinfinancingrequestedbytheun.
theimpactoftheglobaleconomiccrisisisonlynowstartingtobefeltindevelopmentaidbudgets.despitea4%fallingrossnationalincome(Gni)acrossoeCddaCeconomiesinaggregatein
2009,odafromoeCddaCgovernmentscontinuedtogrowin2009and2010.however,whileGnirecoveredslightlyin2010,growingby3%andagainby1%in2011,oeCddaCodafellinabsolutetermsbyus$4.2billion(3%)in2011.italsofellby0.1%asashareofGni.
6.5 6.7
8.0 8.3
10.8 9.9
9.0
11.5 11.3
12.3 12.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
) fiGuRe 4: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom oecd dAc membeRs, 2001–2011
note:datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases(constant2010prices)andestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
15
humanitarianaidfellataslightlylowerrate(2%)thandevelopmentassistancemorewidely(3%)in2011,andthusgrewasashareoftotalodaby0.1%.intheyearfollowingthepakistanandhaiti‘mega-disasters’,whenoverallhumanitarianneedssubsided,areductionofjust2%demonstratespartialresilienceinhumanitarianspendingamongstoeCddaCdonors,particularlywhenviewedagainstabackdropofaidbudgetcuts.theimpactoftheprospectofmoreseverecutsinodaonhumanitarianassistanceremainstobeseen.
humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgrouphasbeenmorevolatilethanthatoftheirdaCcounterparts.humanitarianassistancefromthisgroupincreased
byus$156million(27%)between2009and2010,thenfellbyus$229million(31%)in2011.trendssince2000showthatcontributionsfromgovernmentsoutsideofthedaCgrouphavefluctuatedconsiderably,withannualvariationsofupto222%.anoverallupwardtrendisneverthelessapparent,withsharpincreasesinyearsofmajoremergencies,suchasthesecondpalestinianintifadain2001,theindianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandthekashmirearthquakein2005,andtheChinaearthquakeandyemenfloodsin2008(seefigure7).
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
)
GNIODA as % of GNI
fiGuRe 5: oecd dAc GoVeRnment Gni And odA GRoWtH, 1990–2011
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
16
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
) Total ODA Total official humanitarian aidHumanitarian aid as a share of total ODA
fiGuRe 6: oecd dAc membeRs’ HumAnitARiAn Aid As A sHARe of tHeiR totAl odA, 2001–2011
note:thelineonthisgraphshowsclearpeaksinthehumanitarianshareofodain2003(afghanistan,iraq),2005(indianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandsouthasia(kashmir)earthquake)and2008(foodinsecurity,Chinaearthquake,cyclonesinmyanmarandbangladesh).datafor2011isbasedonpartialpreliminarydata(constant2010prices).source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
664
2001
98
2002
155
2003
192
2004
619
2005
287
2006
311
2007
941
2008
582
2009
738
2010
509
2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
fiGuRe 7: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments outside tHe oecd dAc GRoup, 2001–2011
note:thenumberofdonorsreportingvariesinthisperiodfromaminimumof40in2003toamaximumof130in2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
17
wedonotyethaveanindicationof2011developmentassistanceflowsfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCbut,asagroup,theyexperiencedaverageannualgrowthratesintheirodaandoda-likeconcessionalflowsfordevelopmentcooperationof8%between2006and2010,comparedwithannualgrowthratesinoda(excluding
debtrelief)foroeCddaCmembersof6%.severalofthelargestdonorsexperiencedparticularlyrapidgrowthduringthisperiod,withChina’soda-likeconcessionalflowsincreasingbyanannualaverageof19%between2006and2010,whiletheodaflowsofbothsaudiarabiaandindiaincreasedannuallyby14%.
GrowthindevelopmentassistanceflowsfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupshouldalsobeconsideredinthecontextofrobusteconomicgrowth,particularlyinChina,whereaverageannualgrowthratesingrossdomesticproduct(Gdp)between2006and2010reached10%inrealterms.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N
Saudi ArabiaChinaUAETurkey India 20 other government donors
fiGuRe 8: odA And odA-like concessionAl floWs fRom otHeR GoVeRnments outside tHe oecd dAc GRoup, 2006–2010
note:includesnetdisbursementsofodaflowsforoeCdmemberswhicharenotmembersofthedaCgroup(Czechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,poland,slovakrepublic,sloveniaandturkey)andothernon-oeCdgovernments(Chinesetaipei,Cyprus,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,romania,saudiarabia,thailandanduae),plusdataforconcessionaloda-likeflowsfordevelopmentcooperation,whichmaynotcorrespondwithstrictodadefinitionsforbriCsgovernments(brazil,russia,india,Chinaandsouthafrica).source:oeCddaCdata
note:includesGdpforbrazil,China,Cyprus,Czechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,india,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,poland,romania,russia,saudiarabia,slovakrepublic,slovenia,southafrica,thailand,turkeyanduae,incurrentprices.dataforuaeisreportedonlyfor1992–2007andforliechtensteinforallyearsupto2009;thelatestavailableyearhasbeensubstitutedinyearswherenocurrentdataisavailable.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbankdata
fiGuRe 9: Gdp GRoWtH of otHeR GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of deVelopment AssistAnce floWs, 1990–2010
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2000
PR
ICES
)
Other government donors IndiaTurkeyUAESaudi ArabiaChina
18
theoverallhumanitarianaidfinancingresponsefromgovernmentdonorshasprovedresilienttotheglobalfinancialandeconomiccrisis,withgovernmentdonorscontinuingtorespondtorisingdemandupto2010.whilesomedonorswereincreasingtheircontributionstomeetrisinglevelsofneedin2010,however,otherswerereducingtheirs,whichoveraperiodofseveralyearshasgraduallyshiftedthedonordivisionoflabour.
thetoptencountriesincreasingtheirhumanitarianaidspendingbetween2008and2010(theunitedstates,Canada,Japan,sweden,Germany,turkey,theunitedkingdom,norway,australiaandFrance)collectivelyincreasedtheircontributionsbyus$1.2billionovertheperiod.thetendonorswiththelargesthumanitarianaidspendingreductionsbetween2008and2010meanwhile(saudiarabia,theeuinstitutions,thenetherlands,italy,kuwait,spain,ireland,austria,thailandandGreece)collectivelyreducedtheircontributionsbyus$1billion(seefigure10overleaf).
insomecases,thesereductionsreflectarebalancingofaidspendingfollowingexceptionalcontributionsin2008inresponsetotheglobalfoodcrisis–notably,fortheeuinstitutionsandsaudiarabia.butinothercountries–includingGreece,irelandandthenetherlands–alonger-termtrendofreducedhumanitarianspendinghasemerged.
spaindoubleditsshareoftotalcontributionsfromgovernments,from2.5%in2005to5%in2009,butithasalsobeguntofollowadownwardtrendinitshumanitarianspending,beginningin2010,andsawitssharefallbackto3%in2011(basedonpreliminaryfigures).thisreflectsrevisionsinitsaidbudgetmorebroadly,whichfellbyalmostathirdin2011aspartofitsdomesticausteritymeasures.
theunitedstatesmeanwhilehasexperiencedgrowthinitsalreadydominantshareofthetotal,contributing36–37%ofthetotalprovidedbyallgovernmentsbetween2008and2011,comparedwithaten-yearaverageof35%.
absolutevolumeisnottheonlywaybywhichonecanmeasurethesignificanceofhumanitarianassistancewithindonorbudgets.theunitedstates,forexample,providedthelargestoverallshareofhumanitarianaidcontributionsin2010,andhumanitarianaidisaprioritywithinitsaidspending.butincomparisonwithitsnationalwealth,theunitedstatesisnotamongstthemostgenerousdonors,withhumanitarianaidspendingequivalenttojust0.03%ofGniin2010orjustus$15peruscitizen.
themostgeneroushumanitarianaiddonorsin2010weresweden(0.15%ofGni)andluxembourg(0.14%ofGni).oeCddaCeumemberstatesasagroup,however,providedhumanitarianaidequivalenttojust0.02%oftheirGni.in2010,contributionstothehaitiandpakistancrisesdrewinnewgovernmentdonorsandtheGambia,whichdonatedus$1milliontothehaitiresponse,rankedasthethirdmostgenerousdonoronthismeasure,givingtheequivalentof0.13%ofitsGniashumanitarianaid.
ofthetop30donorsbyvolumein2010,theuaeallocatedthelargestshare(28%)ofitsaidbudgettowardshumanitarianaid,followedbytheunitedstates(16%)andsweden(15%).Chinaallocatedthelowestshareofitsaid-likeflowstowardshumanitarianaid(0.1%),followedbysaudiaarabia(3%)andFrance(4%).
19
us$ million incReAse/decReAse sHARe of HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments
donoR 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2008 2009 2010 2011*
Governmenttotal 3076 -572 1168 -495
daCtotal 2446 -213 1012 -266 92.4% 95.1% 94.3% 95.9%
non-daCtotal 630 -359 156 -229 7.6% 4.9% 5.7% 4.1%
10 lARGest incReAses 2008-2010
unitedstates 1350 -52 444 -228 36.1% 37.4% 37.4% 37.1%
Japan 166 -6 332 169 2.5% 2.6% 4.9% 6.5%
Canada 73 -24 152 -86 3.4% 3.4% 4.2% 3.7%
sweden 64 38 76 24 4.6% 5.2% 5.3% 5.7%
Germany 75 -9 66 -59 5.5% 5.7% 5.7% 5.5%
turkey -1 -5 56 3 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
unitedkingdom 140 131 -86 157 7.2% 8.7% 7.2% 8.8%
norway -34 -14 55 1 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8%
australia 157 45 -11 49 2.9% 3.4% 3.0% 3.5%
France 40 -30 63 -98 3.2% 3.1% 3.3% 2.7%
10 lARGest decReAses 2008-2010
saudiarabia 353 -484 174 -173 4.6% 0.7% 2.0% 0.7%
euinstitutions 287 -330 114 74 15.1% 13.0% 12.7% 13.8%
netherlands 65 -95 -27 -121 4.7% 4.1% 3.5% 2.7%
italy 38 -49 -51 35 3.1% 2.8% 2.2% 2.5%
kuwait 85 -55 -30 3 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
spain 207 21 -101 -88 4.6% 5.0% 3.8% 3.3%
ireland -5 -72 -3 1 1.6% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%
austria 35 -17 -7 -12 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%
thailand 29 -28 11 -11 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Greece 5 -4 -7 -7 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
fiGuRe 10: incReAses And decReAses in HumAnitARiAn Aid eXpendituRe, 2008-2011
note:*datafor2011foroeCddaCmembersisanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases(constant2010prices)andestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
20
Char
t not
to s
cale
Leas
t pri
ority
Nor
way
10.
3%
Ital
y 10
.2%
Irel
and
14.3
%EU
inst
itut
ions
13.
1%C
anad
a 10
.7%
Swit
zerl
and
9.3%
Swed
en 1
5.2%
Luxe
mbo
urg
13.3
%
Finl
and
12.5
%
Aus
tral
ia 1
0.2%
UA
E 27
.6%
Uni
ted
Stat
es 1
6.1%
Mos
t pri
ority
to h
uman
itari
an a
id w
ithin
ove
rall
aid
prog
ram
mes
in 2
010
(%O
DA)
Mos
t pri
ority
Leas
t
Mon
aco
US$
23Sw
itze
rlan
d U
S$28
Liec
hten
stei
n U
S$19
UA
E U
S$24
Irel
and
US$
28
Den
mar
k U
S$47
Bel
gium
US$
21N
ethe
rlan
ds U
S$28
Finl
and
US$
31
Swed
en U
S$74
Luxe
mbo
urg
US$
109
Nor
way
US$
97
Mos
t gen
erou
s co
untr
ies
in 2
010
(per
citi
zen)
Mos
t
Leas
tBel
gium
0.0
5%Fi
nlan
d 0.
07%
Nor
way
0.1
1%
Gre
at B
rita
in 0
.04%
Net
herl
ands
0.0
6%
Irel
and
0.07
%
Den
mar
k 0.
08%
Guy
ana
0.05
%
Saud
i Ara
bia
0.06
%
Swed
en 0
.15%
Gam
bia
0.13
%Luxe
mbo
urg
0.14
%
Mos
t gen
erou
s co
untr
ies
in 2
010
(%G
NI)
Mos
t
Smal
lest
Net
herl
ands
US$
459m
Can
ada
US$
550m
Ger
man
y U
S$74
4m
Aus
tral
ia U
S$39
0mN
orw
ay U
S$47
0mSw
eden
US$
690m
Fran
ce U
S$43
5mSp
ain
US$
496m
Japa
n U
S$64
2m
US
US$
4.9b
nU
K U
S$94
3m
EU in
st. U
S$1.
7bn
Big
gest
don
ors
in 2
010
Big
gest
GOVERNMENTS
21
domesticactorsareoftenamongthefirsttorespondtocrises,inthemostcriticalfirsthoursanddays.thegovernmentsofcrisis-affectedcountriesmoreoverhavetheprimaryresponsibilitytotakecareofvictimsofdisastersontheirownsoil,anditisonlywhenanaffectedgovernmentdoesnothavethecapacitytomeetalloftheneedsarisingfromacrisisthatinternationalactorsshouldbecalledupontorespond.
inhigh-incomedevelopedcountries,governmentsanddomesticcivilsocietytypicallytaketheleadindisasterresponse(see‘domesticresponsetodisasterinJapan’onpage24).
manygovernmentsindevelopingcountriesalsoplaycriticalrolesinprovidingmaterialassistance,andinensuringsecurity,lawandorderandanenablingenvironmentforinternationalassistance.inseptember2011,forexample,anearthquakemeasuring6.8ontherichterscalehittheindia/nepalborderarea.thenextday,theindiangovernmentdeployed5,000armypersonnel,searchandrescueteams,ateamofarmydoctorsandninetonnesofreliefsuppliestotheaffectedarea.thegovernmentofnepalearmarkedrs25,000(aroundus$283)tobespenton‘temporaryrelief’foreachaffectedpersonandallowedvictimsaccesstomedicaltreatmentfreeofcharge.similarly,inethiopia,thegovernment
hasplayedapivotalroleinthetargeting,managementandimplementationoftheproductivesocialsafetynetsprogramme(psnp)whichprovedtobethemosttimelyandefficientresponseintheregionduringthe2011hornofafricafoodsecuritycrisis(seeChapter3foranin-depthdiscussionofethiopia’spsnp).
thedomesticcontributionsofcommunities,organisationsandgovernmentsincrisis-affectedcountriesarelargelyinvisibleinassessmentsofglobalresponsetocrises.whilesomegovernmentshavereportedthefinancialcostofsomeoftheirdomesticresponsestocrisestotheunoChaFts,thisrepresentsatinyfractionoftherealinvestments.
withoutabetterunderstandingofthecontributionsofdomesticactorstocrisisresponse,theinternationalhumanitariansystemisunlikelytobeabletoimprovecoordination,complementarityoreffectivesupporttodomesticcrisisresponse.
theunhumanitarianresolution,resolution46/182of1991,says:
‘eachstatehastheresponsibilityfirstandforemosttotakecareofthevictimsofnaturaldisastersandemergenciesoccurringonitsterritory.hence,theaffectedstatehastheprimaryroleintheinitiation,organisation,coordination,andimplementationofhumanitarianassistancewithinitsterritory’.
nationalGovernmentsprovidinGhumanitarianassistanCewithintheirborders
22
fiGuRe 11: RepoRted domestic finAncinG contRibutions to HumAnitARiAn cRises, 2007–2011
source:unoChaFtsdata
NepalUS$52m
IraqUS$59.2m
LesothoUS$1m Burkina
FasoUS$1.3m
KenyaUS$22.4bn
VietnamUS$0.8m
SwitzerlandUS$0.8m
PeruUS$0.7m
LebanonUS$0.6m
BurundiUS$0.6m
MalawiUS$0.5m
MozambiqueUS$0.2m
Laos US$0.2m
Zimbabwe US$0.2m
DRCUS$0.04m
Chad US$0.03m
Pakistan US$27.9m
AfghanistanUS$25.2m
SudanUS$68.4m
EthiopiaUS$8.9m
Philippines US$3.5m
Colombia US$18.8m
23
Nicaragua floodingUS$33
El Salvador floodingUS$12
Sri Lanka floodingUS$21
Japan floodingUS$486,758
fiGuRe 12: fundinG peR disAsteR-Affected peRson in 2011 (us$)
note:nicaragua,elsalvadorandsrilankafiguresarebasedonnumberoftargetedbeneficiariesandfundingreceivedinunflashappealsin2011.source:unoChaFtsandministryofFinance,Japan
source:developmentinitiativesbasedondatafromthefirstandthirdsupplementarybudgetsofthefiscalyear2011,ministryofFinance,Japan
fiGuRe 13: JApAn’s nAtionAl fundinG foR its 2011 eARtHquAke And tsunAmi Response (us$ billion)
Disaster reliefDisposal of disaster wasteAdditional public works for reconstruction and recoveryDisaster-related public financing programmesLocal allocation tax grantsReconstruction grantsExpenses related to reconstruction from the nuclear disasterNational disaster prevention measuresOther expenses related to the earthquakeCompensation for extraordinary financing from pension fund
7.2 9.3
33.6
16.5
22.4 19.6
14.5
7.2
36.1
31.2 Disaster reliefDisposal of disaster wasteAdditional public works for reconstruction and recoveryDisaster-related public financing programmesLocal allocation tax grantsReconstruction grantsExpenses related to reconstruction from the nuclear disasterNational disaster prevention measuresOther expenses related to the earthquakeCompensation for extraordinary financing from pension fund
7.2 9.3
33.6
16.5
22.4 19.6
14.5
7.2
36.1
31.2
domestic Response to disAsteR in JApAn
theearthquakeandtsunamithathitnortheasternJapanon11march2011andthesubsequentdamagetotheFukushimadaiichinuclearpowerplantcausedadisasterwhichexceededallcontingencyplansoftheJapanesegovernment.however,inahigh-income
country,thewell-resourcedJapanesegovernmenttooktheleadroleinrespondingtothedisaster.
thegovernmentapprovedseveralextraordinarybudgetsamountingtous$198billionforthenationalreliefandreconstructionresponse
totheearthquakeandtsunami.thetotalinvestmentfromtheJapanesegovernmentperaffectedpersondwarfedtheinternationalcontributionsreceivedinunflashappealsfornaturaldisastersin2011.
24
note:allfiguresfor2011arepreliminaryestimates.privatecontributionfiguresfor2006–2010arebasedonourownresearchofastudysetofnGos,unagenciesandredCrossorganisations;thefigurefor2011isapreliminaryprojectionbasedontheextrapolationofsharesofprivatefundingtomsFin2011.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata,annualreportsandourownresearch(seedata&Guidessection)
fiGuRe 14: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Response, 2006–2011
10.2
2.1 12.3
2006
9.3
3.0 12.4
2007
12.4
3.6
16.0
2008
11.8
3.4 15.3
2009
13.0
5.8
18.8
2010
12.5
4.6
17.1
2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N
Private voluntary contributionsGovernmentsPreliminary estimateInternational humanitarian response
privatefundinghasbecomeincreasinglyresponsivetoneedrelativetogovernmentsources.privatecontributionsgrewrapidlyin2010inthefaceofurgentneed,upby70%(us$2.4billion)from2009levelsandreachingus$5.8billion.theproportionofthetotalinternationalhumanitarianresponsedrawnfromprivatefundinghasalsoincreasedover
recentyears,from17%in2006to31%by2010.initialpreliminaryestimatesfor2011indicatethatlevelsofprivategivinghavefallenbackagainbutstillremainabove2009levels,atus$4.6billion.
privateContributionsFromFoundations,CompaniesandindividualstonGos,unandtheredCross
25
morethanthree-quartersofprivategivingbetween2006and2010,anestimated76%,camefromprivateindividuals.Foundationsandprivatecorporationsaccountedfor7%and8%respectively.afurther9%camefromotherprivatedonors,themajorityofwhichwerenationalcommitteesofunorganisations,suchasuniCeF,andredCrossandredCrescentnationalsocieties.
therearedatalimitationsinassessingtheresponseofthesedifferentsourcesofprivatefinancetospecificemergenciesandappeals.Forexample,largestreamsofprivateincome,includingfundsraisedbyplatformssuchastheuk’sdisastersemergencyCommittee(deC),arenotalwaysincluded,andsomemajorhumanitarianorganisations,notablymsF,donotreporttheirprivateincometounoCha’sFts.
13.3
1.2
1.4
1.7
IndividualsPrivate foundationsCompanies and corporationsOther private donors
fiGuRe 15: totAl pRiVAte VoluntARY contRibutions bY donoR tYpe, 2006–2010 (us$ billion)
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonourownresearch(seedata&Guidessection)
pRiVAte GiVinG to medecins sAns fRontieRes (msf)
msFconsistentlyraiseslargevolumesofprivatefundingtosupportitshumanitarianwork,anditincreaseditsprivateincomefromus$613millionin2006tous$1.1billionin2011.onaverage,lessthan10%ofmsF’sfundingcomesfromdonorgovernmentsandinstitutions.moreover,themajorityoftheorganisation’sprivatefunds–86%–aredonatedbysomefivemillionprivatesupportersaroundtheworld.
despiteitsheavyrelianceonprivategiving,msFrarelylaunchesspecificemergencyappealsandfundsmosthumanitarianoperationsfromtheregulardonationsitreceives.infact,whenamajorhumanitariandisasteroccurs,spontaneousdonationsoftenexceedoperationalrequirements.onlyfivedaysafterthe2004indianoceanearthquake/tsunami,msFpubliclyannouncedahaltinitsfundraisingasthefundingreceived(us$137million)alreadyexceeded
thecostofitsplannedemergencydeployment.thisdecisionprovedcontroversialbothamongthemediaandthehumanitariancommunity,whowerefearfulthatitwouldundercutanunprecedentedwaveofprivategiving.however,msF’sdecisionwasperfectlyalignedwithitsneeds-drivenfundraisingstrategy,bywhichitseekstoraiseonlyasmuchmoneyasitcanreasonablyspendontheemergencyresponse,takingintoaccountitscapacity,thescaleofneedsandconstraintsinhumanitarianaccess.
large-scaleemergenciestypicallytriggerspontaneousgivingforthecrisisathandandalsotendtoattractnewdonors,whothenbecomeregularmsFsponsors.msFestimatesthatnearlyonemillionnewdonorssupporteditsresponsetothehaitiearthquakeandcholeraoutbreak,andthemajorityofthemremainregularsupporterstwoyearsafterthecrisis.
26
HoRn of AfRicA cRisis us$m sHARe of totAl pRiVAte contRibutions
private charities and foundations 69.5 13%
ikeaFoundation 62.0 12%
bill&melindaGatesFoundation 7.2 1%
Jolie-pittFoundation 0.3 0%
private corporations 1.0 0%
Coca-ColaCompany 1.0 0%
unicef national committees 103.7 20%
uniCeFnationalCommittee,Germany 17.5 3%
uniCeF nationalCommittee,France 14.3 3%
usaFundforuniCeF 13.9 3%
others 58.0 11%
private individuals and organisations 349.5 67%
total private funding 523.7
JApAn eARtHquAke us$m sHARe of totAl pRiVAte contRibutions
private charities and foundations 4.7 0.8%
starbucksFoundation 1.2 0.2%
bill&melindaGatesFoundation 1.0 0.2%
bpFoundation 1.0 0.2%
GeneralmillsFoundation 0.7 0.1%
GeneralmotorsFoundation 0.5 0.1%
private corporations 41.6 7.2%
JefferiesGroupinc. 5.3 0.9%
CanonGroup 3.7 0.6%
toyotamotorCorporation 3.7 0.6%
Glaxosmithkline 3.4 0.6%
abbottlaboratories 3.0 0.5%
unicef national committees 0.0 0.0%
private individuals and organisations 532.2 92.0%
total private funding 578.4
fiGuRe 16: pRiVAte donoRs to tHe HoRn of AfRicA cRisis And JApAn eARtHquAke, 2011
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
inspiteoftheselimitations,theFtsprovidesdetailedinformationonthetypesofprivatedonorsrespondingtoparticularcrises.thesharesoftotalprivatefundingreportedtotheFtscomingfromprivatecharitiesandfoundationsrangefromaslittleas0.8%inthecaseoftheJapanearthquakeandtsunamiin2011toasmuchas13%inthehornofafricacrisis.Corporate
givingvariesfrom0.2%inthecaseofthehornofafricaemergencyto8%fortheearthquakesinhaitiandJapan.thecontributionsofuniCeFnationalcommitteesandprivateindividualsandorganisationsamountedtoanaverageof13%and71%respectivelyacrossmajorhumanitariancrisesin2010and2011.
27
28
©mattdunham/ap/pressassociationimages
28
thetohokuearthquakeandtsunamithathitnorth-easternJapanon11march2011affected400,000peopleanddevastatedlocalinfrastructure.theJapanesegovernmentledtheresponse,whileinternationalactorsprovidedadditionaltechnicalcapacityandresources.(inthispicture,amemberofabritishsearchandrescueteamlooksfortrappedsurvivorsinofunato.)
thecontributionsofcommunities,civilsocietyandthegovernmentsofcrisis-affectedstatesareoftenoverlookedinassessmentsofcrisisresponse.
Credit
thestory
inthetenyearsbetween2001and2010,151countriesreceivedus$86billioninhumanitarianassistance.Fundingwasconcentratedamongarelativelysmallgroupofrecipients,withthetop20recipientsreceiving75%ofthetotalovertheperiod;25%wasreceivedbythethreelargestrecipientsalone.
manyoftheleadingrecipients,whichaccountedforthelargestshareofhumanitarianassistanceoveranextendedperiod,experiencedcomplexcrisesaffectedbybothconflictandnaturaldisaster,withahighincidenceoflong-term,chronicpoverty.eighteen
ofthetop20recipientsofhumanitarianaid,forexample,wereaffectedbyconflictfor5ormoreyearsinthe10yearsbetween2001and2010;14ofthemhadpopulationsofoveramillionpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisasters;and14countriesareconsideredlong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianaid(seeChapter3).whilethetop20recipientsaccountfor13%oftheworld’spopulation,theyarehometo21%oftheworld’spopulationlivingonlessthanus$1.25aday.
1.2 WHeRe does tHe fundinG Go?
Countryvariations
tRAckinG fundinG to Recipient countRies
ourcalculationofinternationalhumanitarianresponsereliesondatafromtheoeCddaCforcontributionsfromoeCddaCdonors,whoprovided95%ofthetotalfundsfromgovernmentsbetween2001and2010.in2012,thelatestavailabledatafromtheoeCddaConhumanitarianaidflowstorecipientcountrylevelisavailableupto2010.whiledataonresourceflowstrackedwithintheoChaFtsisavailablefor2011,thesetwosourcesarenotdirectlycomparable.analysisinthissectionthereforefocusesoninternationalhumanitarianresponseuptoandincluding2010.
wealsodistinguishhumanitarianfundingthatisallocabletorecipientcountries.whilegovernmentdonorsprovidedus$99billioninhumanitarianaidbetween2001and2010,us$86billionwasreceivedatrecipientcountrylevel;thebalancewaschannelledtoregional-levelprogrammesandotheractivitiessupportingthehumanitariansectorthatwerenotattributabletoaspecificcountry.
seethedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourmethodologyandcalculations.
29
Sudan US$9.7bn
Palestine/OPT US$6.5bn
AfghanistanUS$5.6bn
EthiopiaUS$5.3bn
IraqUS$5.2bn
PakistanUS$4.6bn
HaitiUS$3.7bn
DRCUS$3.7bn
SomaliaUS$2.7bn
IndonesiaUS$2.4bn
KenyaUS$1.9bn
Sri LankaUS$1.8bn
LebanonUS$1.7bn
ZimbabweUS$1.7bn
UgandaUS$1.6bn
ChadUS$1.4bn
JordanUS$1.3bn
AngolaUS$1.2bn
BurundiUS$1.2bn
MyanmarUS$1bn
fiGuRe 17: top 20 Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
30
1.0 1.
2 1.2 1.3 1.
4 1.6 1.
7
1.7 1.8 1.9
2.4
2.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
5.2
5.3
5.6
6.5
9.7
0 2
4 6
8 10
Mya
nmar
Bur
undi
Ang
ola
Jord
an
Cha
d
Uga
nda
Zim
babw
e
Leba
non
Sri L
anka
Ken
ya
Indo
nesi
a
Som
alia
DR
C
Hai
ti
Pak
ista
n
Iraq
Ethi
opia
Afg
hani
stan
Pal
esti
ne/O
PT
Suda
n
US$
BIL
LIO
N
inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid (us$bn)
% of tHe totAl inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY
% of tHe populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY
numbeR of people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs (million)
totAl populAtion of conceRn to unHcR oR unRWA (million)
YeARs conflict-Affected
1su
dan
9.7
11.3
%19
.8%
5.9
2.0
10
2p
ales
tine/
op
t6.
57.
6%0.
04%
0.00
14.
610
3af
ghan
ista
n5.
66.
5%no
dat
a3.
21.
310
4et
hiop
ia5.
36.
1%39
.0%
29.1
0.2
10
5ir
aq5.
26.
1%2.
8%0.
071.
810
6p
akis
tan
4.6
5.3%
21.0
%37
.94.
010
7h
aiti
3.7
4.3%
61.7
%5.
00.
017
8d
rC
3.7
4.3%
87.7
%0.
32.
410
9so
mal
ia2.
73.
2%no
dat
a8.
21.
510
10in
done
sia
2.4
2.8%
18.1
%11
.10.
016
11k
enya
1.9
2.2%
43.4
%14
.90.
85
12sr
ilan
ka1.
82.
1%7.
0%5.
70.
48
13le
bano
n1.
72.
0%no
dat
a0.
00.
0110
14Zi
mba
bwe
1.7
2.0%
nod
ata
9.8
0.01
0
15u
gand
a1.
61.
8%38
.0%
3.2
0.6
10
16C
had
1.4
1.6%
61.9
%3.
70.
58
17Jo
rdan
1.3
1.5%
0.1%
0.0
0.5
0
18an
gola
1.2
1.4%
54.3
%1.
00.
026
19b
urun
di1.
21.
3%81
.3%
2.5
0.2
8
20m
yanm
ar1.
01.
2%no
dat
a3.
20.
99
fiG
uR
e 18
: keY
dAt
A f
oR
tH
e to
p 2
0 R
ecip
ien
ts o
f in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
, 200
1–20
10
not
e:t
hen
umbe
rof
peo
ple
livin
gon
less
than
us$
1.25
ad
ayis
exp
ress
edto
the
late
sta
vaila
ble
year
.our
defi
niti
ono
f‘co
nflic
t-af
fect
ed’i
nclu
des
both
inci
denc
eof
con
flict
and
/or
the
pres
ence
ofa
mul
tilat
eral
pea
ceke
epin
gop
erat
ion.
sou
rce:
dev
elop
men
tini
tiativ
esb
ased
on
oeC
dd
aC,u
no
Ch
aFt
s,w
orld
ban
k,C
red
em
dat
,un
hC
r,u
nr
wa,
upp
sala
Con
flict
dat
aan
dsi
pr
imul
tilat
eral
pea
ceke
epin
gop
erat
ions
dat
a
us$
bil
lio
n
1.0 1.
2 1.2 1.3 1.
4 1.6 1.
7
1.7 1.8 1.9
2.4
2.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
5.2
5.3
5.6
6.5
9.7
0 2
4 6
8 10
Mya
nmar
Bur
undi
Ang
ola
Jord
an
Cha
d
Uga
nda
Zim
babw
e
Leba
non
Sri L
anka
Ken
ya
Indo
nesi
a
Som
alia
DR
C
Hai
ti
Pak
ista
n
Iraq
Ethi
opia
Afg
hani
stan
Pal
esti
ne/O
PT
Suda
n
US$
BIL
LIO
N
inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid (us$bn)
% of tHe totAl inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY
% of tHe populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY
numbeR of people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs (million)
totAl populAtion of conceRn to unHcR oR unRWA (million)
YeARs conflict-Affected
1su
dan
9.7
11.3
%19
.8%
5.9
2.0
10
2p
ales
tine/
op
t6.
57.
6%0.
04%
0.00
14.
610
3af
ghan
ista
n5.
66.
5%no
dat
a3.
21.
310
4et
hiop
ia5.
36.
1%39
.0%
29.1
0.2
10
5ir
aq5.
26.
1%2.
8%0.
071.
810
6p
akis
tan
4.6
5.3%
21.0
%37
.94.
010
7h
aiti
3.7
4.3%
61.7
%5.
00.
017
8d
rC
3.7
4.3%
87.7
%0.
32.
410
9so
mal
ia2.
73.
2%no
dat
a8.
21.
510
10in
done
sia
2.4
2.8%
18.1
%11
.10.
016
11k
enya
1.9
2.2%
43.4
%14
.90.
85
12sr
ilan
ka1.
82.
1%7.
0%5.
70.
48
13le
bano
n1.
72.
0%no
dat
a0.
00.
0110
14Zi
mba
bwe
1.7
2.0%
nod
ata
9.8
0.01
0
15u
gand
a1.
61.
8%38
.0%
3.2
0.6
10
16C
had
1.4
1.6%
61.9
%3.
70.
58
17Jo
rdan
1.3
1.5%
0.1%
0.0
0.5
0
18an
gola
1.2
1.4%
54.3
%1.
00.
026
19b
urun
di1.
21.
3%81
.3%
2.5
0.2
8
20m
yanm
ar1.
01.
2%no
dat
a3.
20.
99
fiG
uR
e 18
: keY
dAt
A f
oR
tH
e to
p 2
0 R
ecip
ien
ts o
f in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
, 200
1–20
10
not
e:t
hen
umbe
rof
peo
ple
livin
gon
less
than
us$
1.25
ad
ayis
exp
ress
edto
the
late
sta
vaila
ble
year
.our
defi
niti
ono
f‘co
nflic
t-af
fect
ed’i
nclu
des
both
inci
denc
eof
con
flict
and
/or
the
pres
ence
ofa
mul
tilat
eral
pea
ceke
epin
gop
erat
ion.
sou
rce:
dev
elop
men
tini
tiativ
esb
ased
on
oeC
dd
aC,u
no
Ch
aFt
s,w
orld
ban
k,C
red
em
dat
,un
hC
r,u
nr
wa,
upp
sala
Con
flict
dat
aan
dsi
pr
imul
tilat
eral
pea
ceke
epin
gop
erat
ions
dat
a
us$
bil
lio
n
31
in2010,forthefirsttimeinfiveyears,sudanwasovertakenasthelargestrecipientbyhaitiwhich,inabsolutevolumeterms,receivedoverthreetimesasmuch.theus$3.1billionofhumanitarianfundschannelledtohaitiin2010wasofacompletelydifferentordertothevolumestypicallyreceived–morethandoubletheamountreceivedbythelargestrecipientinanyyeartodate(seereferencetablessectionforvolumesoffundingtoleadingrecipientsfrom2001to2010).
thevolumesofassistancereceivedcanbeputintoperspectivewhenviewedalongsidelevelsofneed.pakistan,for
example,alsoreceivedalargevolumeofhumanitarianfundsin2010–us$2.1billion–inresponsetothefloods(seeChapter2).intermsoffundingreceivedperaffectedpersontargetedinunappeals,however,fundingtopakistan(us$115)wassubstantiallylowerthanpalestine/opt(us$319),thedemocraticrepublicofCongo(drC)(us$228),therepublicofCongo(us$139)orsudan(us$134).haiti,bycontrast,receivedthreetimesmorefundingpertargetedbeneficiary(us$1,022)thanpalestine/optandmorethan100timesmorepertargetedbeneficiarythannepal(us$9).
fiGuRe 19: sHARes of tHe us$12.5 billion in inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY in 2010
25%
17%
7%
HaitiPakistanSudanEthiopiaPalestine/OPTAfghanistanDRCKenyaChadSomalia133 others
26%
5%5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
25%
17%
7%
HaitiPakistanSudanEthiopiaPalestine/OPTAfghanistanDRCKenyaChadSomalia133 others
26%
5%5%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
32
internationalassistancetorecipientcountriesvariesnotonlyinvolumebutalsointhetypeofhumanitarianassistancereceived.thislargelyreflectsthenatureofthecrisis.ethiopia,forexample,whichischaracterisedbychronicfoodinsecurity,received80%ofitshumanitarianaidintheformofemergencyfoodaidbetween2006and2010,comparedwithjust3%iniraqand10%inpalestine/opt.afghanistan,whichhasexperiencedseveredamagetoinfrastructureasaconsequenceofwar,receivedoverone-thirdofitshumanitarianaidbetween2006and2010inreconstructionrelief.
sourcesofhumanitarianfinancingalsovaryconsiderablybetweencrisesandrecipientcountries.Forexample,whiletheoverwhelmingshareofinternationalhumanitarianaidoverallisprovidedbyoeCddaCdonors(90%between2001and2010),haitireceived37%ofitshumanitarianaidfromprivatedonorsbetween2006and2010.thistrendwasdrivenprimarilybytheus$1.3billioninprivatefundingreceivedinresponsetothe2010earthquake.
fiGuRe 20: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid peR beneficiARY tARGeted in un cAp AppeAls in 2010 (us$ peR peRson)
Palestine/OPT US$319
HaitiUS$1,022
Sudan US$134
AfghanistanUS$86
MongoliaUS$16
ZimbabweUS$44
DRCUS$228
KenyaUS$44
YemenUS$44
ChadUS$111
KyrgyzstanUS$98
CARUS$34
UgandaUS$41
Congo, Rep.US$139
NepalUS$9
SomaliaUS$74
PakistanUS$115
GuatemalaUS$44
note:targetbeneficiarynumbersarethehighestbeneficiarynumberstatedineachcountry-levelconsolidatedorflashappealin2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCapappeals,oeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
33
pakistanreceivedjust72%ofitshumanitarianaidfromoeCddaCdonorsbetween2006and2010,with17%(us$576million)providedbyothergovernments,ofwhichus$435millionwascontributedin2010alone.majornon-oeCddaCgovernmentdonors
topakistanincludedtheuae(us$182million),saudiarabia(us$231million)andturkey(us$54million).
lebanonalsoreceivedarelativelylargeshare(13%)ofitshumanitarianaidfromothergovernmentsbetween2006
and2010.thistrendwasinfluencedbycontributionsofus$136millionfrom30non-oeCddaCgovernmentsin2006,withmajorcontributionsfrommiddleeasterngovernments,includingus$65millionfromsaudiarabiaandus$25millionfromtheuae.
fiGuRe 21: HumAnitARiAn Aid bY eXpendituRe tYpe to tHe leAdinG Recipients, 2006–2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Suda
n
Pak
ista
n
Hai
ti
Pal
esti
ne/O
PT
Ethi
opia
Afg
hani
stan
DR
C
Som
alia
Iraq
Ken
ya
Disaster prevention and preparednessReconstruction relief Relief coordination; protection and support services Emergency food aid Emergency/distress relief
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
fiGuRe 22: donoR sHARes of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Response to tHe 20 lARGest Recipients, 2006–2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Afg
hani
stan
Ang
ola
Bur
undi
Cha
d
DR
C
Ethi
opia
Hai
ti
Indo
nesi
a
Iraq
Jord
an
Ken
ya
Leba
non
Mya
nmar
Pak
ista
n
Pal
esti
ne/O
PT
Som
alia
Sri L
anka
Suda
n
Uga
nda
Zim
babw
e
PrivateOther governmentsOECD DAC members
34
theoverallrisingtrendininternationalhumanitarianaidtorecipientcountriesin2010maskedanumberofshiftsinthetraditionaldistributionsofinternationalhumanitarianfunding.theregionaldistributionofhumanitarianaidalsoshiftedin2010.africa’sshareofthe
totalfellfrom55%to34%(areductioninvolumeofus$1.3billion),andthemiddleeast’ssharefellfrom20%to10%(areductioninvolumeofus$846million).theshareoftheamericas,meanwhile,grewfrom4%in2009to26%in2010(anincreaseinvolumeofus$3billion).
ineachyearsince2001,approximatelyone-thirdoftotalhumanitarianaidhasbeenconcentratedamongthetopthreerecipientcountries.in2010,however,theshareoftheleadingthreerecipientsjumpedtonearlyhalfofthetotal,withhaitireceiving25%andpakistan17%.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N Africa
AsiaAmericasMiddle EastEurope
fiGuRe 23: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid bY ReGion, 2001–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
top3recipients 31.7% 28.7% 36.1% 36.8% 32.2% 30.1% 30.7% 30.1% 31.0% 48.5%
next10recipients 26.4% 29.1% 31.7% 31.7% 39.0% 42.2% 36.5% 38.0% 42.9% 30.2%
allotherrecipients 42.8% 42.1% 32.2% 31.5% 28.8% 27.7% 32.8% 31.9% 26.1% 21.4%
fiGuRe 24: concentRAtion of HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce WitHin Recipient countRies, 2001-2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
shiFtinGtrends
35
8 top 10 recipientsAll other recipientsHaitiPakistan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N
fiGuRe 25: sHiftinG Volumes of HumAnitARiAn Aid AmonGst tHe leAdinG Recipients And tHe Rest, 2001–2010
notonlydidhumanitarianaidbecomemoreconcentratedinjusttwocountriesin2010,butallotherrecipientscollectivelysawareductionbothintheirsharesofthetotalandintheabsolutevolumestheyreceived.
thereweresomeclear‘losers’amidsttheoverallgrowthininternationalhumanitarianaidspendingin2010.amongthe15countrieswiththegreatestreductionsinhumanitarianfundingbyvolume,5experiencedanimprovementintheirhumanitariansituation(Zimbabwe,indonesia,Georgia,ethiopiaandmyanmar).amongtheremainingten,someexperiencedanimprovement
intheirhumanitariansituation,butallexperiencedgreaterdifficultiesinraisingfundswithintheirunfundingappealsthaninthepreviousyear,withmanynotingseriousdifficultiesinraisingfundsinthefirsthalfoftheyear.inthemoststrikingexamples,theproportionoffundingneedsmetintheunappealsfornepalandChadwere33%and31%lower,respectively,in2010thanin2009.
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
36
2009
-201
0u
s$m
in
cR
eAse
eXp
lAn
Atio
n20
09-2
010
us$
m
dec
ReA
seeX
plA
nAt
ion
Hai
ti2,
921
ove
rth
ree
mill
ion
peop
le(3
0%o
fthe
pop
ulat
ion)
affe
cted
by
the
7.0
mag
nitu
dee
arth
quak
eon
12
Janu
ary
2010
.un
is
sued
afl
ash
appe
alr
eque
stin
gu
s$1.
5bi
llion
.
suda
n-5
28
Gra
dual
shi
ftto
war
dsr
econ
stru
ctio
nan
dde
velo
pmen
tfu
ndin
g,b
uth
uman
itari
ans
ituat
ion
rem
aine
dse
riou
sw
ithd
eter
iora
tion
ins
outh
sud
an.t
hep
erce
ntag
eof
hu
man
itari
anfu
ndin
gne
eds
met
inth
eu
na
ppea
lfel
lby
5%
in2
010.
pak
ista
n1,
498
maj
orfl
oodi
nga
ffect
edm
ore
than
20
mill
ion
peop
le.t
he
un
laun
ched
the
larg
este
ver
flash
app
ealr
eque
stin
gu
s$2
billi
on.
pal
estin
e/o
pt
-485
Fu
ndin
gne
eds
inu
na
ppea
lwer
ere
vise
ddo
wna
rds
by
us$
61m
illio
nat
the
mid
-yea
rpo
intf
ollo
win
gpo
orfu
ndin
gre
spon
se.F
undi
ngr
equi
rem
ents
met
fell
by2
4%in
201
0.
nig
er18
1u
ne
stim
ated
ove
r7
mill
ion
peop
le,4
6%o
fthe
pop
ulat
ion,
w
ere
affe
cted
by
mod
erat
eto
sev
ere
food
inse
curi
ty
follo
win
gha
rves
tfai
lure
inla
te2
009.
ac
oup
d’ét
ate
arly
in
the
year
allo
wed
gre
ater
hum
anita
rian
acc
ess
and
scal
e-up
of
res
pons
e.
som
alia
-338
w
hile
the
cris
isr
emai
ned
seri
ous
with
3.2
mill
ion
peop
lein
ne
edo
fass
ista
nce,
un
app
ealr
equi
rem
ents
–a
lrea
dy1
9%
low
erth
an2
009
–w
ere
revi
sed
dow
nard
sby
us$
93m
illio
now
ing
tos
hrin
king
hum
anita
rian
acc
ess
and
poor
fund
ing
resp
onse
inth
efir
sth
alfo
fthe
yea
r.
kyr
gyz
Rep
ublic
70vi
olen
tcla
shes
bet
wee
net
hnic
kyr
gyz
and
uzb
eks
inth
eco
untr
y’s
sout
hle
dto
400
dea
ths
and
disp
lace
men
tof
375,
000
peop
le.
iraq
-293
ac
ute
hum
anita
rian
nee
dss
ubsi
ded
in2
010,
but
un
app
eal
for
iraq
(non
-Cap
)was
just
38%
fund
eda
ndth
ere
gion
al
resp
onse
app
ealf
orir
aqir
efug
ees
just
29%
fund
ed.u
n
repo
rted
this
had
‘pro
foun
d’e
ffect
son
abi
lity
tod
eliv
era
ssis
tanc
e.
chi
le69
an8
.8m
agni
tude
ear
thqu
ake
affe
cted
1.8
mill
ion
peop
le.
Zim
babw
e-2
01
hum
anita
rian
situ
atio
nim
prov
eda
fter
cho
lera
out
brea
kan
dfo
odin
secu
rity
in2
009
and
form
atio
nof
incl
usiv
eG
over
nmen
tin
2009
led
tog
reat
ere
cono
mic
sta
bilit
y.
Gua
tem
ala
37tr
opic
als
torm
aga
tha
stru
ckG
uate
mal
aan
dth
ep
acay
avo
lcan
ole
ftn
earl
y40
0,00
0pe
ople
inn
eed
ofh
uman
itari
an
assi
stan
ce.
indo
nesi
a-1
56
had
rec
eive
din
crea
sed
fund
ing
in2
009
due
toa
nea
rthq
uake
and
aft
ersh
ocks
.no
un
fund
ing
appe
alw
as
mad
ein
201
0.
Jord
an35
Jord
anc
ontin
ued
toh
ostr
efug
ees
from
iraq
and
pal
estin
e/o
pt.
d
Rc
-118
h
uman
itari
anc
risi
sre
mai
ned
wid
espr
ead
plus
190
,000
ne
wly
dis
plac
edin
equ
ator
pro
vinc
e.p
erce
ntag
eof
fund
ing
need
sin
un
app
ealm
etfe
llby
2%
in2
010.
Yem
en28
inse
curi
ty,d
ispl
acem
enta
ndfo
odin
secu
rity
left
an
estim
ated
2.5
mill
ion
peop
lein
nee
dof
hum
anita
rian
as
sist
ance
.
ken
ya-1
14
per
cent
age
offu
ndin
gne
eds
inu
na
ppea
lmet
fell
by1
8%in
201
0.
fiG
uR
e 26
: tH
e 10
lA
RG
est
cH
An
Ges
in in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
flo
Ws,
200
9–20
10
37
2009
-201
0u
s$m
in
cR
eAse
eXp
lAn
Atio
n20
09-2
010
us$
m
dec
ReA
seeX
plA
nAt
ion
pap
ua n
ew
Gui
nea
23an
est
imat
ed2
0,00
0pe
ople
inr
emot
epa
rts
ofe
asts
epik
p
rovi
nce,
nor
thw
este
rnp
apua
new
Gui
nea,
affe
cted
by
flood
ing.
Geo
rgia
-90
impr
ovem
ents
inth
ehu
man
itari
ans
ituat
ion
follo
win
g20
08
confl
ict.
tim
or-l
este
18C
ontin
ued
reco
very
nee
dsa
ndc
hron
icp
over
ty.
uga
nda
-70
impr
ovem
ents
inth
ehu
man
itari
ans
itutio
nw
ithm
any
idp
sre
turn
ing
hom
e.b
utd
espi
tem
uch
low
erfu
ndin
gre
quir
emen
tsin
the
un
app
eal,
the
appe
alw
asth
ew
orst
fu
nded
ith
adb
een
ins
ixy
ears
att
hem
id-y
ear
poin
t.
thai
land
17es
timat
ed4
.2m
illio
npe
ople
affe
cted
by
flood
ing.
et
hiop
ia-6
0r
educ
tion
inp
eopl
ein
nee
dof
food
ass
ista
nce
follo
win
gbe
tter
than
exp
ecte
dha
rves
tin
earl
y20
10.
mal
i13
incr
ease
dfo
odin
secu
rity
with
mor
eth
an2
50,0
00p
eopl
efo
odin
secu
rein
201
0.
syri
a-5
51.
3m
illio
naf
fect
edb
ydr
ough
tin
2010
.Fun
ding
re
quir
emen
tsfo
ru
n(n
on-C
ap)a
ppea
lrev
ised
dow
nard
sby
18%
follo
win
gpo
orfu
ndin
gre
spon
se.
solo
mon
is
land
s13
am
agni
tude
7.2
ear
thqu
ake
gen
erat
eda
tsun
ami,
dam
agin
gor
des
troy
ing
appr
oxim
atel
y10
0to
200
hom
esa
nd
affe
ctin
gan
est
imat
ed5
00p
eopl
e.
mya
nmar
-52
impr
ovem
enti
nth
ehu
man
itari
ans
ituat
ion
follo
win
gcy
lone
nar
gis
in2
008,
alt
houg
hpe
ople
affe
cted
by
flood
s,
land
slid
esa
ndc
yclo
neG
irii
n20
10.
sam
oa13
eart
hqua
kea
nda
ssoc
iate
dts
unam
iin
dec
embe
r20
09le
ft
appr
oxim
atel
y10
00in
divi
dual
sdi
spla
ced.
nep
al-4
8G
radu
alim
prov
emen
tin
hum
anita
rian
situ
atio
nan
dsh
ift
tow
ards
tran
sitio
nac
tiviti
esfo
llow
ing
sign
ing
ofp
eace
ag
reem
enti
n20
06.h
owev
er,f
undi
ngr
equi
rem
ents
met
in
nep
al’s
un
app
eal(
non-
Cap
)fel
lby
33%
in2
010.
iran
12ea
rthq
uake
sin
Jul
yan
dd
ecem
ber.
cha
d-4
4in
add
ition
toe
xist
ing
need
sof
1.2
mill
ion
peop
le,1
.6
mill
ion
wer
ene
wly
affe
cted
by
drou
ghta
ndfo
odin
secu
rity
in
201
0.p
erce
ntag
eof
fund
ing
need
sin
un
app
ealm
etfe
llby
31%
in2
010.
sour
ce:d
evel
opm
enti
nitia
tives
bas
edo
no
eCd
daC
,un
oC
ha
Fts
and
un
fund
ing
appe
ald
ocum
ents
38
trendsintheformofhumanitarianassistancehavebeenrelativelyconstant,with50–60%ofoeCddaChumanitarianaidspentonemergencyrelief,includingprovisionofemergencyhealthcare,shelter,waterandsanitation.responsehasbeendrivenbythenatureofneed,illustratedbythesharpincreaseintheproportionofassistancedeliveredasemergencyfoodaidin2008followingtheglobalfoodcrisis.however,proportionssubsequentlyfellbacktopre-2008levelsin2010(25%).
despiteconsiderablerhetoric,spendingondisasterpreparednessandpreventionhasnotreachedabove4%ofthetotalhumanitarianspendingbyoeCddaCmembersinanyofthefiveyearsbetween2006and2010.whilelevelshaverisenslightlyovertheperiod,thismaybeafunctionofimproveddonorreportingasmuchasshiftingdonorpriorities(seeChapter3foradetaileddiscussionofgovernmentfundingfordisasterpreparednessanddisasterriskreduction).
fiGuRe 27: officiAl HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom oecd dAc membeRs bY ActiVitY tYpe, 2006–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Emergency/distress relief Emergency food aidReconstruction reliefRelief coordination; protection and support servicesDisaster prevention and preparedness
39
40
©Gettyimages/CiCr/depardon,mathias
40
politicalunrestinthemiddleeastexemplifiesthecomplexconsequencesofcrisesinagloballyconnectedworld.Civilconflictandnatomilitaryinterventioninlibyaaffectednotonlythelibyanpopulationbutalsopromptedtheflightoftensofthousandsofmigrantworkersintoneighbouringcountries.armedcombatantsfledfromlibyaintomali,creatingunrestthatcontributedtoamilitarycoupinearly2012.theinterruptioninoilproductionandexportcontributedtorisingenergyandconsequentlyfoodprices.
Credit
thestory
humanitarianfundingfollowsavarietyofpathways,sometimespassingthroughmultipletransactionsbetweendonors,fundsanddeliveryagenciesenroutetocrisis-affectedpopulations.
donorsfacearangeoffchoiceswhendecidinghowbesttospendtheirhumanitarianfundingenvelopestobestmeettheneedsofpeopleincrisis,whilealsorespectingtheirowncommitmentstoprinciplesandpolicies.theymayprovideunearmarkedfundingtomultilateralorganisations–typicallyunagencies–tospendastheydeterminefit,ortheymayprovidetightlyearmarkedbilateralfundstomultilateralagenciesstipulatingwhereandonwhattypeofactivitiesthefundsmustbespent.theymaychoosetocontributetopooledhumanitarianfunds,whichhavebeenestablishedtopromotemoretimelyandneeds-basedallocationsoffundingandaremanagedbytheunsystem.donorsmayalsochoosetodirectlyfundinternationalnGos,theinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovementornGosincrisis-affectedcountries.lessfrequently,donorsmayprovidefundsdirectlytoanaffectedgovernmentortheymayimplementtheirfundsdirectlythemselves,often,forexample,throughtheirownmilitaryforces.
inpractice,donors’humanitarianbudgetsarespreadwidelyacrossthespectrumofpossiblechannels.however,beyondthisfirstleveloftransactions,wherefundspassfromdonorstotheirfirstrecipients,weknowrelativelylittleabouttheroutesandsubsequentlevelsoftransactionsthroughwhichhumanitarianfundspasstoreachaffectedpopulations(seeinfographiconpage42).withoutbetterinformationontheflowthroughoutthesystemtothepointofdeliverytoaidrecipients,there
islittlescopetoassesstheefficiencyofthesystemortomeaningfullyholdthechainofdeliveryofassistancetoaccount.however,theinternationalaidtransparencyinitiative(iati)hasthepotentialtoprovidetransaction-leveldatainrealtimethatwouldfillinmanyofthesecurrentinformationblanks.
1.3 HoW does tHe fundinG Get tHeRe?
dAtA And tHe inteRnAtionAl Aid tRAnspARencY initiAtiVe
trackingthehumanitariandollarthroughthesystemiscurrentlyhinderedbythelackinformationonwhathasbeendeliveredtowhomandtheabsenceofafeedbackloopthatenablesthepeopleaffectedbycrisestosaywhattheyhavereceived,andwhen.withoutthisfeedbackoraggregateddataonwhatcommoditiesandserviceshavebeendelivered,theeffectivenessandefficiencyofthehumanitarianresponseishardtomeasure.
transparencywasakeyissueatthehighlevelForumonaideffectivenessheldinbusan,koreainlate2011,wheredonorssigneduptoimplementacommon,openstandardforelectronicpublicationofaidinformation,basedontheinternationalaidtransparencyinitiative(iati)andoeCddaCstatisticalreportingstandards.Forty-twoorganisationshavenowpublisheddataontheiraidprojectsinlinewiththeiatistandard.theseincludebilateralandmultilateralaidorganisations,animplementingorganisation(theunitednationsofficeforprojectservices–unops),philanthropicfoundationsand
27nGosandinGos.sofar,organisationshavebeenfocusingonpublishinginformationontheirdevelopmentaid;however,theiatistandardappliestoallresourceflowsandasdonorsimplementtheirbusancommitmenttopublishtoacommonstandardby2015,itwillbeappliedtomanymorehumanitarianactors.iati’sconsultationwithdevelopingcountrystakeholdershasindicatedademandforbetterinformationonhumanitarianassistanceandalsoonsouth–southandtriangularcooperationflows.
Focusingonhumanitarianactorswillencourageiatitoconsiderfurtherhowdetailedinformationcanbepublishedinastimelyamanneraspossibletomeettheoperationaldatarequirementsofhumanitarianstakeholders.unopsbecamethefirstpublishertoshareitssub-nationalgeographicinformationintheiatiopendataformat,andasthenumberoforganisationsprovidingthistypeofinformationincreases,thiscouldsupporthumanitarianeffortstoensurethatassistancereachesthecommunitiesmostinneedofit.
41
US$1
8.8bn
Inte
rnat
iona
lhu
man
itari
anre
spon
se
Oth
er g
over
nmen
tsU
S$0.
7bn
Priv
ate
fund
ing
US$
5.8b
nO
ECD
DAC
don
ors
US$
12.3
bn
Oth
erU
S$0.
5bn
Red
Cro
ss /
Cre
scen
tU
S$1.
4bn
Publ
ic s
ecto
rU
S$1.
8bn
CER
FU
S$42
9mC
HF
US$
261m M
ultil
ater
al a
genc
ies
and
fund
s
ERF
US$
165m
Mul
tilat
eral
ag
enci
esU
S$7.
9bn
NG
Os
and
CSO
sU
S$?
143m
US$
?US$
98m
US$
61m
US$48m
US$
415m
US$
HU
MAN
ITAR
IAN
FU
ND
ING
CH
ANN
ELS
Trac
king
hum
anita
rian
fund
ing
thro
ugh
the
hum
anita
rian
resp
onse
sys
tem
from
don
or to
inte
nded
be
nefic
iari
es is
pro
blem
atic
. Fur
ther
dow
n th
e ch
ain
of
tran
sact
ions
, inf
orm
atio
n be
com
es in
crea
sing
ly s
pars
e.
With
out t
rans
actio
n-le
vel d
ata,
the
impa
ct a
nd e
ffici
ency
of
the
syst
em c
anno
t be
held
to a
ccou
nt.
Inflo
ws
may
not
alw
ays
mat
ch o
utflo
ws
due
to re
port
ing
inco
nsis
tenc
ies
in s
ome
case
s an
d be
caus
e no
t all
fund
s re
ceiv
ed w
ill b
e di
sbur
sed
in th
e sa
me
cale
ndar
yea
r. O
nly
US$
1.7b
n of
pri
vate
fina
ncin
g is
trac
eabl
e.
Sour
ces:
Dev
elop
men
t Ini
tiativ
es b
ased
on
OEC
D D
AC, U
N O
CH
A FT
S,
UN
CER
F
Cor
e un
earm
arke
dO
ther
bila
tera
l
3.2bn
US$
6.1bn
US$
1bnUS$
IN 2
010
42
FundinGtoFirst-levelreCipients
First-levelrecipientsreceivehumanitarianfundingdirectlyfromthedonorsource(thisbeingadaCgovernment,othergovernmentorprivatedonor).First-levelrecipientscanbethepublicsector,includinginstitutionsofdonorandlocalgovernments;multilateralorganisations,rangingfromunagenciestotheworldbankandothersupranationalinstitutions;international,donorcountry-basedandlocalnGosandcivilsocietyorganisations(Csos);theinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovement;andanyothertypeofhumanitarianorganisationthatcanchanneldonorfinancing.inturn,thesefirst-levelrecipientscanchoosetopassthefundingreceivedontoanotherorganisationtoimplement,thusmovingbeyondthefirst-levelrecipientchoicecontrolledbythedonor.
oeCddaCmembersprovidedthelargestshareoffundingtofirst-levelrecipients(83%)in2010,9%morethantheirshareofoverallhumanitarianassistance;however,thiswasnearly10%lessthaninthepreviousyear.privatedonorsincreasedtheirshareofthetotalfrom2%in2009to12%in2010,driven
mainlybythehugemobilisationofpublicandprivatesectorgivingforthehaitiemergency.othergovernmentdonorscontributed5%,aslightincreaseof0.7%from2009levels.
duringtheperiod2006–2010,multilateralorganisationsreceived,onaverage,justoverhalfofallfundingtraceabletofirst-levelrecipientorganisations(54%).overthesameperiod,nGosandCsosreceivedanaverageof17%ofthefunding,risingto21%in2010.representationbytheredCrossandredCrescentmovementalsoincreasedovertheperiod,fromjust4%in2006to10%in2010.Finally,publicsectorinstitutionsreceivedonaverage14%oftheinternationalhumanitarianfinancingbetween2006-2010.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
OtherPublic sectorRed Cross MovementNGOs and CSOsMultilateral organisations
fiGuRe 28: fiRst-leVel Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2006–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandoChaFtsdata
43
differentdonorsfavourdifferentfirst-levelrecipientorganisationswhenitcomestodecidinghowtochanneltheirhumanitarianfinancing.oeCddaCmembercountriesconcentrated55%ofalltheirfundingthroughmultilateralorganisations,with17%tonGos,13%tothepublicsector,7%totheredCrossand8%tootherchannelsduringthe2006–2010period.thisaveragehidesvariationsamongstindividualdonors:theunitedstates,forexample,channelledonaverageover60%ofitsfundingthroughmultilateralorganisations,whileswitzerlanddedicatedlessthenone-third.Conversely,aquarterofallswitzerland’sfundingwaschannelledthroughtheredCross,comparedwithjust3.5%fromtheunitedstates.Francechannelledthebulkofitshumanitarianfunding(80%)throughtheeu,comparedwithonly26%bytheuk.Finally,euinstitutionsspent65%ofthefundingthroughonlytwochannels:multilateralorganisations(37%)andthepublicsector(28%).
GovernmentsoutsidethedaCgroupsplittheirfinancingamongthepublicsectorandmultilateralorganisationsevenly,at37%and40%respectivelyonaverage.Furthermore,theywerefourtimesmorelikelytofundaredCross/redCrescentorganisationthanannGo.theuaechannelled,onaverage,40%ofitsfundingthroughtheuaeredCrescentsociety,whilebrazilchannelledoverhalfofitshumanitarianmoneythroughgovernmentalinstitutionsinrecipientcountries.
privatedonorsfavouredmultilateralorganisations,mainlyuniCeF,tochannel46%oftheirfunding.another34%and14%respectivelywereallocatedtonGosandtheredCross/redCrescent,whilethepublicsectorreceivedascanty0.3%ofallprivatefunding.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DAC donors Non-DAC donors Private funding
OtherMultilateral organisationsRed Cross MovementNGOs and CSOsPublic sector
fiGuRe 29: fiRst-leVel Recipients As A sHARe of donoRs’ HumAnitARiAn finAncinG, 2006–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata
44
thecontributionsofCsosincrisis-affectedcountries,includinglocalnGos,faith-basedorganisationsandlocalredCrossandredCrescentsocieties,isextremelydifficulttoquantify,althoughtheircontributionsareconsideredvital.inmanycrises,theseorganisationsoftenplayacriticalrole,respondingbeforetheinternationalcommunityarrives,accessingpopulationsthatinternationalactorsmaynotbeabletoreachandcontinuingtosupportcommunitiesastheyrecoverfromcrisis,aftertheinternationalresponsehaswaned.
domesticactorsoftenstruggletoaccessinternationalfunding,anditiscurrentlynotpossibletotrackcomprehensivelythevolumesoffundspassedonthroughtheinternationalsystemtosuchactors.manydonorgovernmentscannot,bypolicy,ordonot,bypreference,funddomesticnGosdirectly.domesticnGos,therefore,receiverelativelysmallvolumesofinternationalhumanitarianaidcontributionsdirectlyfromdonorgovernments.however,since2006,country-levelhumanitarianpooledfundshaveenableddomesticnGostoaccessfundingdirectly,withthetotalfundschannelledthroughemergencyresponse
funds(erFs)andcommonhumanitarianfunds(ChFs)growingten-fold,fromus$1.7millionin2007tous$17.8millionin2011.in2011,contributionsfromdonorsandpooledfundsincreasedby77%and263%respectively.thelargestincreasewasinsomaliawheredomesticnGos,whichplayamajorroleincrisisresponse,accessinginsecureareasthatinternationalactorscannot,receivedus$10.9millionviapooledhumanitarianfunds,andus$6.7millionfromgovernmentdonors.
accesstointernationalhumanitarianresponsefundsfordomesticnGosisoftenmediatedbyunagenciesandinternationalnGos,whopassonaproportionoftheirdonorandprivatefundingtonationalnGostoimplementhumanitarianprogrammes.thisfinalstepinthejourneyofhumanitarianfundsislargelyuntraceablewithintheoeCddaCandoChaFtsdata,makingitextremelydifficulttofullyaccountforfundsandtoassesstheextenttowhichdonorsandinternationalorganisationsareworkinginpartnershipwithlocalactors.
wealsoknowverylittleaboutthevolumesofresourcesraiseddomesticallybytheseorganisations.asanindication,
Good HumAnitARiAn donoRsHip commitment to suppoRt locAl ActoRs
‘principle 8:strengthenthecapacityofaffectedcountriesandlocalcommunitiestoprevent,preparefor,mitigateandrespondtohumanitariancrises,withthegoalofensuringthatgovernmentsandlocalcommunitiesarebetterabletomeettheirresponsibilitiesandco-ordinateeffectivelywithhumanitarianpartners.’
fiGuRe 30: HumAnitARiAn Aid to nAtionAl nGos in cRisis-Affected countRies fRom inteRnAtionAl donoRs And pooled HumAnitARiAn funds, 2007–2011
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
OtherUN agenciesERFsCHFsGovernments
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
basedonasurveyof42localredCrosssocietyannualfinancialreports,anestimated10%oftheirtotalcollectivebudgetsofus$251millionbetween2007and2010wasraisedfromdomesticsources.theJapaneseredCrossnationalsocietyraisedus$483millionfromprivatesourceswithinthecountry–ofthis,us$122millionalonecamefromprivatedonationsfromJapanesecitizens.
CivilsoCietyinCrisis-aFFeCtedCountries
45
fiGuRe 31: top 10 donoR contRibutoRs to HumAnitARiAn pooled funds, 2006–2011
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsandunCerFdata
29.2%
15.3%
13.9% 11.0%
6.0% 4.7% 4.3%
2.3% 1.7% 1.6%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Net
herl
ands
Swed
en
Nor
way
Spai
n
Can
ada
Irel
and
Den
mar
k
Ger
man
y
Aus
tral
ia
US$
MIL
LIO
N
CERFCHFERF% of total contributions to pooled funds 2006-2011
pooledFunds
pooledhumanitarianfundswerecreatedtofacilitatemoretimelyandefficientfundingforcrises,proportionatewithneedsandinlinewithprioritiesidentifiedbyunhumanitariancoordinators.
sincetheinceptionofpooledhumanitarianfunds,increasingvolumesoffinancinghavebeenchannelledviathesemechanisms,fromus$583millionin2006tous$900millionin2011.in2011,5%oftotalinternationalhumanitarianaidfinancingfromgovernmentsandprivatedonorswaschannelledviapooledfunds.
pooledhumanitarianfundsprovideaconduitfordonorswhohavelittleexperienceorcapacitytoallocateandadministerpooledfundstochannelfundstowardspriorityhumanitarianneeds.in2010arecord161donors,includinggovernments,privateindividuals,corporationsandfoundations,
contributedtotheCerF,56donorstoerFsand16toChFs.however,overthelifetimeofthefundstodate,theleadingtendonorshaveprovided90%ofthetotalfundsreceived.
theCerFhasreceivedthelargestshare(52%)ofthetotalchannelledviapooledfunds,followedbycountry-levelChFs(37%)anderFs(11%).
inanumberofrecipientcountries,primarilythosewiththelargestChFsanderFs,asignificantproportionofhumanitarianfundsisreceivedviapooledfunds.thedrCandsudan,inparticular,benefitfromsubstantialpooledmechanisms,whichconstituted46%and15%respectivelyoftheirtotalhumanitarianfundsbetween2006and2010.
pooled HumAnitARiAn funds
• theun’sCentralemergencyresponseFund(CerF)allowsdonors(includinggovernments,privatecorporations,individuals,trustsandfoundations)topooltheirfinancingonagloballeveltoenablemoretimelyandreliablehumanitarianassistancetopeopleaffectedbyhumanitariancrises.
• Commonhumanitarianfunds(ChFs)aremanagedandfundsareallocatedaccordingtotheneedsandprioritiesidentifiedatrecipientcountrylevel.ChFstypicallyallocatefundstoprojectswithinaunhumanitarianworkplanoractionplan.
• emergencyresponsefunds(erFs)arealsomanagedatcountrylevelandexistincountriesthatmaynothaveaunhumanitarianworkplanandmaynotregularlyparticipateintheunappealsprocess.erFsareabletofinancesmall-scaleprojects,allowingnationalnGostoaccessfundsdirectly.
46
fiGuRe 32: totAl fundinG to pooled funds, 2006–2011
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsandunCerFdata
299
385
453
392
429
467
263
284
295
243
261
362
21
44
106
96
165
71
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
US$ MILLION
ERF CHF CERF
fiGuRe 33: sHARes of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid ReceiVed ViA HumAnitARiAn pooled funds, 2006–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,oChaFtsandunCerFdata
15.3%
45.9%
9.5%
9.7%
4.4% 3.6% 7.8% 2.8%
7.2% 6.3%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Suda
n
DR
C
Ethi
opia
Som
alia
Hai
ti
Pak
ista
n
Ken
ya
Afg
hani
stan
Sri L
anka
Zim
babw
e
US$
BIL
LIO
N
Other international humanitarian aidCERFCHFERFPooled funds as % of total international humanitarian response
47
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
fiGuRe 34: contRibutions to countRY-leVel common HumAnitARiAn funds
2 11 9 8
92
118
143
111 99
20
93
171 167
150
122 132
164
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
SudanSomaliaDRCCAR
fiGuRe 35: contRibutions to emeRGencY Response funds, 2006–2011 (us$ million)
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl
Afghanistan 6.3 4.8 11.1
cAR 5.8 6.2 12.0
colombia 1.4 2.1 2.4 5.9
ethiopia 15.7 16.4 68.2 45.6 16.7 43.4 206.0
Haiti 5.5 81.9 0.5 87.8
indonesia 0.5 0.3 1.5 3.0 2.3 7.6
iraq 2.1 6.1 15.6 4.9 28.7
kenya 2.6 3.7 6.3
nepal 0.1 0.1
pakistan 36.6 0.9 37.6
palestine/opt 5.4 2.5 7.5 3.2 3.8 22.4
somalia 5.1 13.0 12.5 13.4 8.9 52.8
uganda 0.3 0.6 0.9
Yemen 2.6 5.7 8.3
Zimbabwe 1.3 3.4 3.9 0.7 0.9 10.1
total 21.3 44.3 105.9 93.3 164.5 68.5 497.7
48
FourChFswereoperationalin2011,inCentralafricanrepublic(Car),drC,somaliaandsudan.Followingtheindependenceofsouthsudanin2011,thesudanChF,theoldestandlargestofthefunds,wasseparatedatthebeginningof2012intotwoseparatefundsforsudanandsouthsudan.
theoverallincreaseinfundsreceivedbytheChFsin2011wasaresultofasharpincreaseincontributionstotheChFsforsomaliaandsudan,withbothcountriesexperiencinganincreasedburdenofhumanitarianneedsassociatedwithinsecurityanddrought.
FundingtoerFs,bycontrast,fellin2011,followingapeakin2010drivenbycontributionstotheerFsinhaitiandpakistan.ContributionstotheerFforethiopiamorethandoubledin2011inresponsetoincreasedhumanitarianneedsarisingfromthefoodsecuritycrisis.
theerFsinCarandsomaliawereconvertedtoChFsin2008and2010respectively.theerFforugandawasclosedin2011.newerFsforpakistanandyemenwerecreatedin2010.
theCerFreceivedus$467millioninfundingforhumanitariancrisesin2011,providinganimportantinjectionoffundstocrisesboththroughitsrapidresponsewindow,whichallocated66%ofthetotalfundsin2011,andtounder-fundedemergencies,whichreceived34%offunds.
fiGuRe 36: top 10 Recipients of tHe centRAl emeRGencY Response fund, 2006–2011 (us$ million)
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCerFdata
Recipient countRY
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 drC 38.0 drC 52.5 drC 41.1 somalia 60.5 pakistan 51.8 somalia 53.0
2 sudan 35.5 bangladesh 26.7 ethiopia 31.5 drC 30.4 haiti 36.6 ethiopia 46.5
3 afghanistan 32.3 sudan 25.5 myanmar 28.4 Zimbabwe 26.8 niger 35.0 pakistan 32.4
4 kenya 27.2 somalia 15.7 kenya 26.0 kenya 26.3 drC 29.1 southsudan 22.8
5 somalia 16.6 uganda 13.0 pakistan 18.7 sudan 25.8 sudan 23.9 kenya 22.7
6 srilanka 10.0 ethiopia 12.4 afghanistan 18.2 srilanka 23.5 Chad 22.8 Chad 22.6
7 ethiopia 10.0 mozambique 12.2 haiti 16.0 dprk 19.0 kenya 20.0 sudan 18.3
8 Chad 9.4 Zimbabwe 12.0 sudan 16.0 ethiopia 15.6 ethiopia 16.7 Côted’ivoire 16.3
9 eritrea 5.9 dprk 11.1 nepal 12.6 philippines 11.9 srilanka 15.7 srilanka 16.1
10Côted’ivoire 5.8 srilanka 10.9 srilanka 12.5 niger 11.7 yemen 14.5 niger 15.7
% of total 73.5% 54.7% 51.6% 63.3% 64.1% 62.5%
total top 10 190.7 192.0 221.2 251.7 266.2 266.3
total recipients 259.3 350.9 428.8 397.4 415.2 426.2
49
themilitary
militaryactorshavealonghistoryofprovidingsupportintimesofemergency–bothathomeandabroad.however,thefrequencyandscaleofforeignmilitaryinvolvementinhumanitarianactionhaveincreasedinthepastdecade,drivenbybothcapacityneedsandlogisticalexpediency.
naturaldisastershaveincreasedinfrequencyandseverityand,insomecircumstancescivilianagenciessimplydonothaveadequatecapacitytorespondtohumanitarianneedsonalargescale,especiallywhereinfrastructureisbadly
damaged.bothdomesticandforeignmilitarieshaveplayedasignificantroleinrespondingtolarge-scaledisasters,includingthe2004indianoceanearthquake/tsunami,the2005kashmirearthquakeand,morerecently,theearthquakeinhaitiin2010–when34foreignmilitariesarethoughttohavedeployedtroops,assetsandsuppliesintheresponse.
Foreignmilitaryactorshavealsofoundthemselvesincreasinglypresentinareasofhumanitarianneedinthepastdecade,duetotheexpansioninmultilateral
100
200
300
400
500
600
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
MIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
)
United StatesAustraliaSpainAustriaKoreaGreeceCanadaFinlandDenmarkPortugalSwitzerlandBelgiumIreland
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 totAl 2006-2010
united states 161.5 129.0 176.2 117.8 528.2 1,112.6
Australia 11.7 32.0 71.3 114.9
spain 15.0 0.3 41.4 1.4 58.2
Austria 1.2 27.0 18.4 46.6
korea 7.9 8.1 5.1 1.6 22.6
Greece 18.7 0.2 2.7 21.7
canada 0.1 3.0 3.1
finland 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.8
denmark 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.1
portugal 0.3 0.3
switzerland 0.2 0.3
belgium 0.1 0.2
ireland 0.1 0.1
total 200.8 186.7 280.6 185.5 530.0 1,383.5
fiGuRe 37: HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA donoR defence AGencies RepoRted to tHe oecd dAc, 2006–2010
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
50
peacekeepingoperations,aswellasthemajorforeignmilitaryinterventionsiniraqandafghanistan.
theoeCddaCcriteriaforodaallows‘additionalcostsincurredfortheuseofthedonor’smilitaryforcestodeliverhumanitarianaidorperformdevelopmentservices’tobecountedtowardsagovernment’sodacontributions.aproportionofmilitaryhumanitarianactivityisthereforecapturedwithindaCstatistics.
theunitedstateschannelsthelargestvolumesoffundsviaitsdefenceapparatus.thevolumeofthesecontributionsincreaseddramaticallyin2010,reflectingtheusGovernment’smajorcontributionsofmilitaryassetsandpersonneltothereliefeffortfollowingtheearthquakeinhaiti.
theusdepartmentofdefense(dod)actsbothasanimplementingagencyinhumanitariancrisesandasadonor.alargeproportionoftheusGovernment’s
militaryhumanitarianaiddoesnot,however,involveactivitiesdirectlyimplementedbythedod;alargeportionofthefundsreportedtotheoeCddaCisinfactfundschannelledviatheusdodtothirdpartyimplementingpartnerstocarryoutprojectactivities,inparticularthroughtheusCommander’semergencyresponseprogram(Cerp).
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 totAl 2006-2010
pakistan 86.4 afghanistan 54.0 afghanistan 108.8 afghanistan 69.6 haiti 380.8 haiti 380.8
afghanistan 19.7 iraq 47.1 iraq 41.2 Chad 18.4 afghanistan 22.9 afghanistan 275.1
lebanon 13.3 lebanon 20.1 Chad 27.3 iraq 11.0 iraq 18.7 iraq 125.9
iraq 7.9 america,regional
6.1 myanmar 12.9 Georgia 9.1 pakistan 14.8 pakistan 104.6
indonesia 7.3 sudan 1.6 america,regional
8.8 myanmar 2.6 indonesia 4.4 Chad 46.9
america,regional
5.8 Chad 1.2 lebanon 7.0 kosovo 2.6 Chile 1.1 lebanon 42.1
timor-leste 3.6 pakistan 1.0 China 2.1 lebanon 1.6 kosovo 0.4 america,regional
21.3
bosnia-herzegovina
2.5 ethiopia 0.8 pakistan 1.9 China 0.9 Guatemala 0.1 myanmar 15.5
drC 1.9 southofsahara,regional
0.7 Georgia 1.7 bolivia 0.9 Chad 0.04 indonesia 12.2
Guatemala 0.2 serbia 0.6 europe,regional
0.6 america,regional
0.5 Georgia 10.8
fiGuRe 38: Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA militARY ActoRs, 2006-2010 (us$ million)
51
fiGuRe 39: HumAnitARiAn contRibutions fRom militARY ActoRs RepoRted to un ocHA fts, 2007–2011
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
United StatesTurkeySwitzerlandSwedenSurinameSpainRussia IndonesiaGreeceGermanyFranceChinaBrazil
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
United StatesTurkeySwitzerlandSwedenSurinameSpainRussia IndonesiaGreeceGermanyFranceChinaBrazil
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl
brazil 0.5 0.5
china 4.6 4.6
france 17.0 17.0
Germany 6.0 3.8 10.0 19.8
Greece 1.4 0.1 1.8 3.2
indonesia 2.0 2.0
Russia 2.0 2.0
spain 4.8 4.8
suriname 1.0 1.0
sweden 0.1 0.1
switzerland 0.3 0.1 0.4
turkey 0.6 0.6
united states 3.4 25.0 8.7 559.2 89.7 685.9
total 9.5 26.3 12.8 594.6 98.7 741.9
52
militaryhumanitariancontributionsthatarenotoda-eligiblemaybetrackedwithintheoChaFtsdata,thoughmanyofthecontributionsreportedaredescriptionsofin-kindreliefgoodsandservices.theunitedstatesisthelargestdonorreflectedintheFtsdatabutthecontributionsofagreaterdiversityofdonors,includingmanydonorsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgrouping,arealsovisibleinthedata.inadditiontomajorcontributionsfromtheunitedstatesin2010,France,nicaragua,Chile,Colombia,brazil,suriname,uruguay,
Jordan,italyandJamaicaallreportedmilitaryhumanitariancontributionstothehaitiearthquakeresponse,whileegypt,indonesiaandrussiareportedcontributionstothepakistanfloodingresponse.
in2011,thelargestcontributionofmilitaryhumanitarianassistancewastoJapan,withcontributionstotallingus$89.6millionfromtheusdodandus$4.6millionfromChina.
fiGuRe 40: Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA militARY ActoRs RepoRted to un ocHA fts, 2007–2011 (us$ million)
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl 2007-2011
afghanistan 6.0 Georgia 21.0 indonesia 4.3 haiti 506.4 Japan 94.2 Haiti 509.0
dominicanrep. 1.8 haiti 2.6 afghanistan 3.8 pakistan 70.0 libya 3.8 Japan 94.2
nicaragua 1.0 myanmar 1.4 pakistan 3.0 afghanistan 10.0 pakistan 0.6 pakistan 73.6
peru 0.6 China 1.3 philippines 0.8 Chile 6.1 tajikistan 0.1 Georgia 21.0
bolivia 0.1 elsalvador 0.6 drC 0.8 honduras 0.1 Afghanistan 19.8
Jordan 0.3 Guatemala 0.8 chile 6.1
kyrgyzstan 0.2 indonesia 4.3
region 0.1 libya 3.8
China 0.1 dominican Rep. 1.8
china 1.4
53
©tonkoene
multiplecrisesinpakistanandneighbouringafghanistanhaveledtotheforceddisplacementofmillionsofpeople.pakistanhosted1.7millionrefugeesand453,000internallydisplacedpeoplein2011.
manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianaidareaffectedbymultiple,overlappingcrises.pakistanishometo35.2millionpeoplelivinginabsolutepoverty.itexperiencesdomesticandregionalconflictandhasenduredlarge-scalefloodingfortwoconsecutiveyears.
thestory
54
Credit
55
foRces sHApinG HumAnitARiAn need
thescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesabatedin2011,with12.5millionfewerpeopletargetedtoreceivehumanitarianassistanceintheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap),andafurtherdropof10.4millionintheexpectednumbersofpeopleinneedofhumanitarianassistanceatthebeginningof2012.
irrespectiveofthismostrecentdownwardtrendinpeopleaffectedbycrises,however,majorstructuralglobalcrisisrisks–includinghighfoodpricesandmarketvolatilityandtheincreasingthreatofweather-relatedhazards–meanthatlargenumbersofpeople,particularlythepoorandthoseinfragilestates,areacutelyvulnerabletocrises.
theinternationalresponsetohumanitariancriseshasbeenmixed.despitelowerfinancerequeststhaninpreviousyears,thegapbetweenneedsandfundingwidenedin2011,withtheunCapappealreportingthelowestproportionoffundingrequirementsmetinadecade.timelinessandinequitableresponsesbetweencrisesarealsoofcontinuedconcern.
thischapterconsidersrecenttrendsindriversofhumanitariancrisesandreflectsontheinternationalresponsetomeetingthosefinancingneeds.
andthemixedinternationalresponse
driversoFvulnerabilityandCrisis
theprimarydriversofhumanitariancrisesaretypicallynaturaldisastersand/orconflict,intersectingwithpeople’svulnerabilityto,andabilitytocopewith,theimpactofsuchevents.
in2011thenumberofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersfellto91million,substantiallylowerthanthe224millionin2010andthelowestfigurein10years.thenumberofpeopleaffectedinlow-incomecountriesin2011wasthelowestin5years,at11million.similarly,inlowermiddle-incomecountries,18millionpeoplewereaffectedin2011,thelowestnumberin8yearsandhalfthatof2010.
theestimatedcostofdamagesassociatedwiththesenaturaldisasters,however,rosesubstantiallytous$290billionin2011,upfromus$127billionin2010.themajorityofthesedamages,someus$210billion,wereincurredinJapan,wherearound400,000peoplewereaffectedbythetohokuearthquakeandtsunami,illustratingthehugefinancialcostofnaturaldisastersinahigh-incomeoeCdcountry.
173
109
658
255
162 160 126
211 222 199
224
91
2000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PEO
PLE
AFF
ECTE
D (M
ILLI
ON
)
High-income: non-OECD countriesHigh-income: OECD countriesUpper middle-income countriesLower middle-income countriesLow-income countriesTotal
fiGuRe 1: people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs, 2000–2011
note:incomegroupsareattributedusingworldbankclassification,april2012.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonCentreforresearchontheepidemiologyofdisasters(Cred)em-dat
56
fiGuRe 2: tRends in tHe incidence of Violent conflict, 2001–2010
source:uppsalaConflictdataprogram(datasetsuCdp/prioarmedConflictdatasetv.4-2011,1946–2010;uCdpnon-stateConflictdatasetv.2.3-2011,1989–2010;uCdpone-sidedviolencedatasetv1.3-2011,1989–2010)
34
31
30
2001
30
35
46
2002
28
37
42
2003
30
26
44
2004
30
29
33
2005
31
27
31
2006
32
18
28
2007
35
35
27
2008
34
26
19
2009
28
26
18
2010
NU
MB
ER O
F C
ON
FLIC
T IN
CID
ENTS
One-sidedNon state-basedState-based
datafor2011mayyetreversethistrend,withnewconflictsinlibyaandsyriaandincreasedlevelsofviolenceinanumberofcountries,includingsomalia,sudan,southsudan,pakistanandyemen.however,thenumberofincidentsofviolentconflict(violentincidentswhichresultinatleast25deaths)wasinrelativelysteadydeclinebetween2002and2010–withtheexceptionof2008.therehavebeennotablereductionsintheincidenceofone-sidedattacksoncivilians,from46eventsin2002to18in2010.
themajorproximatecausesofhumanitariancrisesmayhaveeasedin2011,butglobalforcescontributingtovulnerability,particularlyforthepoorestpeople,remainverymuchpresent.
57
thestructuralvulnerabilitiesoftheglobaleconomicsystemthatgaverisetotheglobalfoodcrisisof2008remainlargelyunchanged,leadingtoasecondpricespikein2011,withenergypricesrisingby143%andfoodpricesby56%fromtheirlowestpointsin2009totheirpeaksin2011.pricevolatilityremainsacute,andtheoutlookisoneofcontinuedhighprices.Foodproductionremainssensitivetoweatherandtoagriculturalandenergypolicies,includingcontinuedinvestmentinbiofuelsinpreferencetofoodproductioninmanycountries.politicalunrestinthemiddleeast,particularlyinlibyain2011,hasdisruptedoilproduction.volatilityinenergymarketsalsohasanimpactonfoodprices,withproductiondependentonfertiliser,anddistributionandprocessingdependentonfuel.Forcountriesdependentonfoodimports,thiscombinationofhighpricesandvolatilityleavespoorpopulations,whospendlargeproportionsoftheirhouseholdincomeonfood,extremelyvulnerabletoshocksofbothanidiosyncraticandco-variantnature.
disastersrelatedtoincreasinglyunpredictableweatherpatternsandextremeweathereventsarepredictedtooccurwithincreasingfrequency.the2011droughtinthehornofafricacannotbedefinitivelyattributedtoclimatechange,althoughaffectedcommunitiesreportthatdroughtnowoccursatshorterintervals,reducingtheiropportunitiestorecover.whatthehornofafricacrisisdemonstratesveryclearly,however,isthatwherethereisweakgovernance,orwheregroupsofvulnerablepeople,suchaspastoralists,aremarginalisedfromthesupportmechanismsofthestate,andwherepeopledependonlivelihoodsthatareacutelysensitivetotheweather,weather-relatedhazardscanhavedevastatingconsequences.Giventhatthesehazardsareincreasinglylikely,dealingwiththesevulnerabilitiesisessential.
fiGuRe 3: cHAnGes in commoditY pRices, 1990–2012
note:Foodandenergypriceindiceshereshowvariationfrom2005,whentheindexvalueissetatus$100.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbankGlobaleconomicmonitordata
58
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
MO
NTH
LY IN
IDIC
ES B
ASE
D O
N N
OM
INA
L U
S D
OLL
AR
S, 2
005=
100
Food price index Energy price index
membersoftheGoodhumanitariandonorship(Ghd)grouphavemadeaclearcommitmenttofundonaproportionatebasisandinaccordancewithassessedneeds.thisambitionisconstrained,however,bythelimitedavailabilityofobjectiveandcomparableevidenceabouthumanitarianneeds.thisinevitablyhasconsequencesforthedecisionsultimatelymadeabouthowresourcesaredirected.withoutrobustandcomparableevidence,peoplelivingincrisiscannotbeassuredaproportionateshareoftheavailableglobalhumanitarianfundsandprovidersofassistancecannotbeeffectivelyheldtoaccount.
therehasbeenmuchgreaterattentiontothisprobleminrecentyears,andimprovementsintheevidencebasearebeginningtofilterintotheunCap,whichremainstheprimaryglobalassessmentofhumanitarianneedsandfundingallocationguidancetoolfordonors.
in2011theinter-agencystandingCommittee(iasC)needsassessmenttaskforceproducedandfield-testednew‘operationalGuidanceforCoordinated
assessmentsinhumanitarianCrises’,apolicydocumentwhichestablishesrolesandresponsibilitiesforactorsincoordinatedassessments.italsopublishedthe‘multi-Cluster/sectorinitialrapidassessment(mira)manual’,designedtopromotethecollectionofmorereliableandtimelydataonhumanitarianneedsintheearlystagesofcrises.inaddition,globalclustershaveagreedasetofkeyhumanitarianindicatorsagainstwhichthescaleandseverityofcrisescanbemonitoredonanongoingandcomparablebasis.
in2012severalunconsolidatedappealsincludehumanitarian‘dashboards’,whichprovidesummaryanalysisofhumanitarianneeds,coverageandgaps.manyofthesedashboardsincorporatethebasicoutcome-levelindicatorsagreedbytheiasCin2011–crudemortalityrate,under-5mortalityrate,morbidityrate,under-5globalacutemalnutritionandunder-5severeacutemalnutrition–whichenablecomparisonsofhumanitarianneedsacrosscrisesandovertime.kenya,somalia,Chad,yemen,thephilippinesandafghanistancarriedoutmulti-clusterassessments
Good HumAnitARiAn donoRsHip (GHd)
theGhdinitiativeisaninformaldonorforumthataimstopromoteasetofagreedprinciplesandgoodpractices,including:
• principle 5:whilereaffirmingtheprimaryresponsibilityofstatesforthevictimsofhumanitarianemergencieswithintheirownborders,strivetoensureflexibleandtimelyfunding,onthebasisofthecollectiveobligationofstrivingtomeethumanitarianneeds.
• principle 6: allocatehumanitarianfundinginproportiontoneedsandonthebasisofneedsassessments.
• principle 11:strivetoensurethatfundingofhumanitarianactioninnewcrisesdoesnotadverselyaffectthemeetingofneedsinongoingcrises.
• principle 14:Contributeresponsibly,andonthebasisofburden-sharing,tounitednationsConsolidatedinter-agencyappealsandtointernationalredCrossandredCrescentmovementappeals,andactivelysupporttheformationofcommonhumanitarianactionplans(Chaps)astheprimaryinstrumentforstrategicplanning,prioritisationandcoordinationincomplexemergencies.
Ghdmembersin2012include(oeCddaCmembersarehighlighted):Australia, Austria, belgium,brazil,bulgaria,canada,Croatia,Cyprus,Czechrepublic,denmark,estonia,european commission, finland, france, Germany, Greece,hungary,ireland, italy, Japan,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,luxembourg,malta,mexico, the netherlands, new Zealand,norway, poland, portugal, Republic of korea,romania,slovakrepublic,slovenia,spain, sweden, switzerland, the united kingdom, the united states.
assessinGthesCaleoFtheCrisis
59
thatinformedtheir2012Capappeals,andmanycountriesnowcompiletheirappealsusingtheonlineprojectsystem(ops)whichmapsprojectsbygeographiclocationandnumbersofbeneficiariestargeted.thisallowscoordinatorstobettertrackgapsandduplication.innovationsinvolvinghumanitarianactorsatrecipientcountrylevelarealsoimprovingtheevidencebase,enablingmorestrategicmatchingofhumanitarianfundingtoneeds(seeaboveboxonColombia’shsri).
improvementsintheevidencebaseonthescaleandseverityofhumanitarianneedsarebeginningtobearfruit,yetdisproportionateandlateresponsestohumanitariancrisessuggestthatthereareothersubstantialbarrierstofundingaccordingtoneeds,asidefrominsufficientinformation.
manydonorscontinuetouseanarrowdefinitionofhumanitarianneedsthatprioritisesacutehumanitarianneeds(whereacleartriggeringeventmeansthathumanitarianthresholdsarerapidlybreached)abovechronicneeds(where
crisesareprotractedandhumanitarianindicatorsareoftenatoraroundcrisisthresholdlevels)andabovetheriskofcrisis.whencriseswithchronicneedsormountingriskandvulnerabilityareforcedtocompetewiththosewithmoreacuteneeds,thelatterwilloftenreceivefundingpriority(seediscussioninChapter1on‘winners’and‘losers’in2010andthediscussionbelowontrendsinfinancingforchroniccriseswithintheunCap).inaddition,theprevailinginstitutionalandconceptualdividebetweenhumanitariananddevelopmentprogrammingandfundingstreamsleavesnoclearresponsibilityforaddressingunderlyingvulnerabilitytocrises.thiscombinationoffactorspermitspreventablecrisestoescalateintosituationsofacuteneed,asevidencedveryclearlyin2011bytheslowdonorresponsetoclear,earlyevidenceofabuildingcrisisinthehornofafrica.
colombiA’s HumAnitARiAn situAtion Risk indeX (HsRi)
unofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(oCha)andtheuniversidadsantotomásinColombiabeganworkingtogetherin2006andhavecreatedacountry-levelhumanitarianriskindextoassistdecisionmakersinrationalisingawiderangeofcomplexinformation,inacontextwhereaccesstoaffectedareasisoftenrestricted,tobetterprioritiseandcoordinatehumanitarianresponse.
Colombiaisarelativelydata-richcountry,withinformationoneconomicandsocialconditionscollectedbythegovernment.theindexcombinesthisinformationfrommunicipalitylevelwithinformationonconflictandresponsecapacitytoassessvulnerabilityandthreataswellasthelikelyimpactofcrises.
aswithothercompositeriskindices–forexample,theeCdirectorateGeneralforhumanitarianaidandCivilprotection(eCho)GlobalneedsassessmentindexandoCha’sGlobalFocusmodel–thehsricannotprovidereal-timeinformationontheevolutionofcrisesorprovidenumbersofaffectedpeopleforresponseplanningpurposes,andsomustbecomplementedbyup-to-datesituationanalysisfrompeopleontheground.however,thehrsihasprovedvaluableinachievingconsensusonpriorityareasforearlyactionandresourceallocationandisacoretoolusedinallocatingfundingwithintheColombiaemergencyresponseFundandthecountry’sCommonhumanitarianFrameworktoselectbeneficiaries.
thehsrihasprovedextremelysuccessfulinpredictinglikelymassdisplacementandindicatingwherethegreatestnumberofaffectedpeoplearelikelytobe.Followingasurveyofavailablemethodologies,theGovernmentofColombiaoptedtobuilduponhsritocreateavictimizationriskindex,withthegoalofestimatingareaswithriskdifferentiatedbytypeofharmsuffered.thistoolwasdesignedtoinformgovernmentrestitutionprocessesunderthe2011victimsandlandrestitutionlawandwillincludetheconstructionofaninformationsystemdesignedtosystematisetheprocessofcalculatingtheindexandproducingonlinemaps.
www.colombiassh.org/irsh
foReWARned is not AlWAYs foReARmed
tHe finAncinG Response to tHe HoRn of AfRicA food cRisis in kenYA And somAliA in 2011
thefoodcrisisinthehornofafricawasanticipatedwellinadvanceofitreachingcrisisproportions.asearlyasaugust2010,usaid’sFamineearlywarningsystemsnetwork(Fewsnet)issuedwarningsthattheeffectsoflaniñacouldhavesignificantfoodsecurityimplicationsineastafrica.thefailureoftwoconsecutiverainyseasons(october–december2010andmarch–may2011)broughtthatpredictiontopass,givingrisetoadangerouscombinationofverylowcropyields,highlivestockmortalityrates,diminishedopportunitiesforwork,fallinglivestockpricesandrisingstaplefoodandfuelprices.
despiteclearwarningsofabuildingcrisis,initialunconsolidatedappealrequirementsforsomaliafor2011wererelativelymodestatjustus$530million.thesefailedtoanticipatethescaleoftheunfoldingcrisis.thedonorresponsetothehumanitarianappealswasslowanddisappointinginthefirsthalfof2011,hamperingtheabilityofagenciestoscaleupprogrammesthatcouldhavepreventedormitigatedsomeoftheeffectsofthecrisisonpeople’slivesandlivelihoods.Just38%ofrevisedrequirementsfortheappealforkenyaand28%ofrevisedfundingrequirementsforsomaliahadbeenmetbyJune2011,weeksbeforefaminewasofficiallydeclaredinpartsofsomalia.
inJuly2011,fundingrequirementswererevisedupwardsforbothkenyaandsomalia,andweresubsequentlyrevisedupwardsagainforsomaliainaugust.Fundingforbothappealsbegantorapidlyincreaseaftertheofficialdeclarationoffamine.
60
US$ MILLION
Ken
ya
69
78
222
172
192
209
230
256
283
514
675
777
814
848
902
244
256
275
280
385
444
467
483
512
526
51
Som
alia
Dec
201
1N
ov 2
011
Oct
201
1Se
p 20
11A
ug 2
011
Jul 2
011
Jun
2011
May
201
1A
pr 2
011
Mar
201
1Fe
b 20
11Ja
n 20
11D
ec 2
010
feb
Ru
AR
Y 20
11
mA
Rc
H 2
011
mAY
201
1
Jun
e 2
011
JulY
201
1
Au
Gu
st 2
011
sep
tem
beR
201
1
oct
ob
eR 2
011
dec
emb
eR 2
011
the
un
say
sth
atth
ree
area
sof
som
alia
are
no
long
er
cons
ider
edfa
min
ezo
nes.
h
owev
er,i
twar
nsth
atth
esi
tuat
ion
iss
tillf
ragi
lea
nd
appe
als
for
cont
inue
dsu
ppor
t.
the
un
201
2hu
man
itari
an
appe
alfo
rk
enya
is
laun
ched
,see
king
$76
4m
illio
n;u
s$1.
5bi
llion
is
requ
ired
tom
eett
hen
eeds
of
four
mill
ion
som
alis
stil
lin
nee
dof
ass
ista
nce.
Few
sn
etw
arns
that
,w
ithp
oor
wea
ther
fo
reca
sts,
cri
sis
isli
kely
to
wor
sen.
exi
stin
gre
lief
effo
rts
are
note
noug
hto
pre
vent
am
ajor
cri
sis
and
agen
cies
are
urg
ed
tob
egin
pla
nnin
ga
larg
e-sc
ale
hum
anita
rian
re
spon
se.
Few
sn
etw
arns
of
wor
seni
ngc
ondi
tions
in
the
hor
nof
afr
ica,
w
ithp
oor
apri
lrai
ns
brin
ging
maj
orfo
od
secu
rity
con
cern
s.
the
un
say
sth
ats
ix
regi
ons
ofs
omal
ia
are
now
fam
ine
zone
s,a
ddin
gth
eso
uthe
rnb
ayr
egio
nto
the
list.
the
un
dec
lare
sth
atfa
min
eha
sre
ache
dth
ree
new
reg
ions
ofs
omal
ia:
the
afgo
yec
orri
dor
idp
set
tlem
ent,
the
mog
adis
huid
pc
omm
unity
and
th
eb
alaa
dan
dad
ale
dist
rict
sof
m
iddl
esh
abel
le.t
heu
nr
evis
esit
s20
11a
ppea
lreq
uire
men
tsfo
rso
mal
ia
upw
ards
aga
in,t
ou
s$1.
1bi
llion
.
the
un
form
ally
dec
lare
sfa
min
ein
the
sout
hern
bak
ool
and
low
ers
habe
llere
gion
sof
so
uthe
rns
omal
ia.t
hem
id-y
ear
revi
ewo
fun
app
eals
revi
ses
requ
irem
ents
for
som
alia
up
war
dsto
us$
562
mill
ion
and
ken
yato
us$
605
mill
ion.
aid
agen
cies
war
nth
at
the
dad
aab
refu
gee
com
plex
ink
enya
is
full,
aft
erth
ousa
nds
of
new
som
alir
efug
ees
cros
sth
ebo
rder
.
fiG
uR
e 4:
fu
nd
inG
to
un
co
nso
lid
Ated
Ap
peA
ls f
oR
ken
YA A
nd
so
mA
liA
, 201
1
sour
ce:u
no
Ch
aFt
s
the
un
and
aid
ag
enci
esw
arn
that
se
vere
dro
ught
in
som
alia
has
left
nea
rly
one
inth
ree
child
ren
acut
ely
mal
nour
ishe
din
som
ear
eas.
61
evaluatingtheresponsetoglobalhumanitariancrisesisreliantonmeasuringtheextenttowhichhumanitarianneedsexpressedinpublicrequestsorappealsforfundinghavebeenmet.inreality,theseappealsareonlyapartialrepresentationofthetotalglobalneeds.inthecaseoftheunhumanitarianappeal,onlycrisesconsideredhigh-priorityareincluded,andnotallneedswithinacrisisaretargetedwithinanappeal.Forexample,accordingtounoChaFts,therewere35naturaldisastersthatinvolvedinternationalhumanitarianresponsesin2011but,ofthose,only5weresubjecttoanappealortoaspecificfinancialtrackinginitiative.nevertheless,fundingappealsremainthemostcomprehensiveandwidelyreferencedsourceofinformationonhumanitarianfundingrequirements.inordertoconsideramorecomprehensivepictureoffundingrequirements,theunCapappealmaybeconsideredalongsideunappealsoutsideoftheCapandappealsfromothermajorhumanitarianorganisationsnotparticipatingintheunappeals,suchastheinternationalFederationofthe
responsetotheCrisis–FundinGappeals
tHe un consolidAted AppeAls pRocess
Coordinatedbytheunitednations,theconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap)isundertakeninacountryorregiontoraisefundsforhumanitarianactionaswellastoplan,implementandmonitoractivities.twodifferentkindsofappealaregeneratedbytheCap:consolidatedappealsandflashappeals.
Consolidatedappealsincludeprojectedactivitiesforthefollowingyear,ofteninconflictandpost-conflictsituationswhereneedsarerelativelypredictable.thesecountryandregionalconsolidatedappealsareamalgamatedbytheun,withthelaunchofthehumanitarianappealeachnovember.
Flashappealsarearapidstrategicandfundraisingtoolbasedon
immediatelyidentifiedneeds,andmaybeissuedfollowingsudden-onsetdisasterssuchasearthquakesorcyclones.Flashappealsareaddedtotheoverallunhumanitarianappealasnewcrisesoccur.
thefundingrequirementsoftheentireunCapappeal–includingbothconsolidatedandflashappeals–arerevisedandupdatedatthemid-yearpoint.
theunalsocoordinatesappealsoutsideoftheunCapforcountriesandcriseswhosefundraisingneedsareconsideredtobeofalowerpriority,orwherethegovernmentofthecrisis-affectedstateelectsforanappealnottobeincludedintheunCap.
1.1 0.8
1.9
2000
1.4
1.1
2.6
2001
3.0
1.4
4.4
2002
4.0
1.3
5.2
2003
2.2
1.2
3.4
2004
4.0
2.0
6.0
2005
3.5
1.7
5.2
2006
3.7
1.4
5.1
2007
5.1
2.0
7.1
2008
6.9
2.8
9.8
2009
7.3
4.0
11.3
2010
5.5
3.4
8.9
2011
US$
BIL
LIO
N
Unmet needsFundingRequirements
fiGuRe 5: un cAp RequiRements, fundinG And unmet needs, 2000–2011
note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:unoChaFtsdata
62
redCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)andtheinternationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC).
in2011,theinternationalresponsetohumanitariancriseswithintheunhumanitarianappealfellfurthershortofmeetingglobalhumanitarianneedsthanithadformorethanadecade.humanitarianfundingrequirementsexpressedintheunhumanitarianappealfelltous$8.9billionin2011,followinganhistorichighinrequirementsin2010drivenbythehugeflashappealsforhaitiandpakistan(withrequirementsofus$1.5billionandus$1.9billionrespectively–seeChapter1).buttheproportionofhumanitarianfinancingneedswithintheunappealthatremainedunmetin2011wasgreater,at38%,thaninanyyearsince2001,despiteoverallreducedrequirements.
outsidetheunCapprocess,unoChaFtstrackshumanitarianfundingtoaseriesofnon-Capappeals.thesearemainlyjointunandnationalgovernmentappealsforcriseswhichdonotundergo
thesamecoordinationandconsolidationastheCapappeal.theboundariesbetweenwhatmakesaCapandanon-Capappeal,however,arequiteflexible.sometimesnon-CapappealsbecomeCapappeals(forinstance,theinitialpakistanFloodsflashappealandthemongoliadzudappealsin2010),bringingfurtherattentiontobearontheirlevelsoffunding.Fromadonorpointofview,thismeansthataconsiderableproportionofthefinancialeffortofsomedonorsgoeslargelyunnoticed,despitebeingalignedwiththecorehumanitarianprincipleoffundingonthebasisofneedandwheneverandwhereverneedsarise.evenmoreimportantly,suchnomenclatureishardlyrelevantforaffectedpopulations,whohavethesameexpectationsaspeoplelivingincountriesthatareapriorityfortheunCap.
source:unoChaFts
fiGuRe 6: un AppeAls needs met And unmet As A peRcentAGe of ReVised RequiRements, 2000–2011
59.2
%
55.4
% 67
.5%
75.8
%
64.3
%
67.2
%
66.5
%
72.2
%
71.7
%
71.2
%
63.0
%
62.3
%
40.8
%
44.6
%
32.5
%
24.2
% 35
.7%
32.8
%
33.5
%
27.8
%
28.3
%
28.8
%
37.0
%
37.7
%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
% needs met% needs unmet
63
non-CapappealstendtobeconsiderablymoremodestinrequirementsthantheCap:between2000and2011theaverageCapappealsoughtus$262million,comparedwithjustus$132milliononaveragerequestedbyanon-Capappeal.however,thereweretwosignificantexceptions:in2006,us$2billion,or94%ofallfundingrequirementsfornon-Capappeals,wassoughtforthetransitionalassistanceprogrammeforafghanistan(afghanistantapa)appeal.similarly,in2010,asingleappeal–thepakistanhumanitarianresponseplan–represented40%oftherequirements,amountingtous$661million.
non-CapappealfundingtrendsalsotendtobemuchmorevolatilethanthoseoftheunCap.non-Capappealsarealsomorepoorlyfunded.onaverage,Capappealshaveseen66%oftheirneedsmetintheperiod2000–2011,comparedwithonly46%inthecaseofnon-Capappeals.non-Capappealsin2011werefundedtojust37%overall,however,wellbelowtheaverage.
2,117
73 14
707
461
929
214
1,645
542
204
2,500
2,000
1,500
1000
500
163
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
Unmet needsFundingRequirements
fiGuRe 7: non-cAp AppeAl RequiRements, fundinG And unmet needs, 2000–2011
source:unoChaFts
64
fiGuRe 8: non-cAp AppeAl needs met And unmet As A peRcentAGe of AppeAl RequiRements, 2000–2011
source:unoChaFts
58.0
%
31.0
%
17.5
%
36.4
%
28.2
%
61.3
%
56.3
%
61.9
% 74
.3%
43.7
%
37.1
%
42.0
%
69.0
% 82
.5%
63.6
%
71.8
%
38.7
%
43.7
%
38.1
%
25.7
%
56.3
%
62.9
%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Needs metNeeds unmet
theiFrCandtheiCrChavetheirownappealsystems,whicharenotalignedwithorintegratedintheunCap.theiCrCmanagesoneofthesinglelargesthumanitarianbudgetsinthesector,regularlyexceedingus$1billioninfunding,thebulkofwhichgoestowards
itsannualemergencyappeal.theiCrC’shumanitarianworkfocusesonconflictandprotractedcrises.appealsin2009and2010hadunmetrequirementsof17%and21%respectively,comparedwithjust11%and10%inthetwoprecedingyears.
630
200
830
2006
709
91
800
2007
891 93
985
2008
858
178
1,036
2009
863
233
1,097
2010
US$
MIL
LIO
N
Unmet requirementsIncome Requirements
fiGuRe 9: fundinG to icRc emeRGencY AppeAls AGAinst RequiRements, 2006–2010
note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:developmentinitiativesbasedoniCrCannualfinancialreports
65
81
32
112
2006
117
59
176
2007
284
129
413
2008
54
39
93
2009
392
73
466
2010
84
83
167
2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
Unmet needsFunding Requirements
fiGuRe 10: fundinG to ifRc emeRGencY AppeAls AGAinst RequiRements, 2006–2011
note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:developmentinitiativesbasedoniFrCfinancialdata
thehumanitarianworkoftheiFrCisfocusedonrespondingtonaturaldisasters;thereforefundingrequirementsaremuchmorevolatileinrelationtothepeaksinhumanitarianneedsassociatedwithnaturaldisasterevents.exceptionallyhighiFrCemergencyappealrequirementsin2008werepromptedbyChina’ssichuanearthquake,myanmar’sCyclonenargisandafoodsecuritycrisisinthehornofafrica.in2010,requirementswerepropelledbythehaitiandChileearthquakesandthepakistanfloods.theaverageleveloffundingrequirementsmetbetween2006throughto2011was67%.theleveloffundingneedsmetin2011,however,wasthelowestinthe2006–2011period,atjust50%.
unmethumanitarianfinancingneedsroseacrosstheboardin2011,forunCapandotherappealsalike.however,therearesomeindicationsthatprivatefundingmayhaveprovedmoreresilientandmoreresponsivetoneeds,withprivatefundingtomédecinssansFrontières(msF),forinstance,stayingcloseto2010levelsin2011(seeboxonpage26inChapter1).donationsfromprivateindividualsactuallyroseby4%andonlyfundingfromprivatecharitiesandcorporationsexperiencedasignificantdecrease(around40%)fromtheheightsofthehaitiresponsein2010.thepredominanceofprivategivingfromindividualsalmostcancelledtheslumpinprivatefinancingfrominstitutions.
66
atthesametimeastheoverallfundinggapwidened,fundingtoindividualcrisisappealswithintheunconsolidatedappealwasdistributeddisproportionately,withanumberofcrisesfaringworsethanothers.moreover,manyofthecountriesinprotractedcrisis,whichareregularparticipantsintheunappealsprocess,haveexperiencedasustaineddownwardtrendinthesharesoftheirappealrequirementsmetoverthepastfiveyears.
everyyearthereiswidevariationbetweenthebest-andworst-fundedappeals.in2011somaliawasthebest-fundedwith89%ofneedsmet,althoughfundswerelatetoarrive(seefigure4onpage62),followedbytheflashappealforlibya,whichwas82%funded.theworst-
fundedappeal,theflashappealforfloodresponseinnicaragua,wasjust30%fundedagainstrequirements.
in2010,consolidatedappeals–whichrepresentchronic,predictablehumanitariancrises–collectivelysawan11%reductionintheshareoftheirappealrequirementsmet.in2011regularconsolidatedappealsfaredslightlybetter,witha1%increaseintheshareofrequirementsmet,butthemajorityofthemwereworsefundedin2011thantheyweretwoorthreeyearspreviously.
source:unoChaFts
fiGuRe 11: sHARes of needs met in tHe best- And WoRst-funded un cAp AppeAls, 2000–2011
proportionalityinFinanCinGresponsestoCrises
82% 89% 95%
121%
96% 89%
123%
100%
100% 91%
74%
89%
59% 55%
67% 76%
64%
67%
67%
72%
72% 71%
63% 62%
17% 22%
18% 22% 14%
30% 36%
12%
35% 32%
19% 30%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Highest level of needs metOverall level of needs met (all appeals)Lowest level of needs met
ZIMBABWE ZAMBIA FLOODS
GREAT LAKES AND CENTRAL AFRICA LEBANON CRISIS
HAITI EARTHQUAKESUDAN
CONGO, REP.
MONGOLIA DZUD
SOMALIA
NICARAGUA FLOODS
BOLIVIA LA NIÑA
HONDURAS FLOODS
CHAD INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI
67
fiG
uR
e 12
: sH
AR
es o
f A
pp
eAl
Req
uiR
emen
ts m
et in
ReG
ulA
R c
on
soli
dAt
ed A
pp
eAls
, 200
7–20
11
sour
ce:u
no
Ch
aFt
s
20
07
2
00
8
20
09
2
01
0
20
11
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
cH
An
Ge
2007
-201
1
afgh
anis
tan
76.4
%65
.2%
59.5
%-1
6.9%
Car
74.6
%90
.4%
73.0
%46
.3%
50.1
%-2
4.5%
Cha
d10
0.0%
81.0
%91
.3%
60.0
%56
.5%
-43.
5%
dr
C65
.7%
76.6
%63
.8%
62.2
%63
.2%
-2.6
%
ken
ya66
.0%
84.4
%66
.2%
70.7
%4.
7%
pal
estin
e/o
pt
65.1
%74
.5%
79.1
%54
.9%
56.6
%-8
.5%
som
alia
80.2
%73
.9%
65.6
%68
.9%
89.4
%9.
2%
suda
n81
.4%
70.1
%70
.3%
65.5
%68
.8%
-12.
6%
wes
tafr
ica
56.9
%67
.4%
64.3
%54
.4%
40.2
%-1
6.7%
Zim
babw
e57
.9%
68.6
%63
.2%
47.6
%46
.1%
-11.
8%
68
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaandunoChaFtsdata
fiGuRe 13: fundinG to tHe un AppeAls foR pAkistAn 2010-11 And 2011-12
2010 2011
totalnumberofpeopleaffected 20.6millionaffected 9.2millionaffected
18millioninneed 5.2millioninneed
numberofdeaths 1,985 520
homesdamaged/destroyed 1.7million 0.8million
FundinGaCCordinGtoneedsinpakistan
theinternationalfinancingresponsetohumanitarianneedsassociatedwithmajorfloodinginpakistanacrosstwoconsecutiveyearshasbeeninconsistent,withquitedifferentlevelsofresponsetoneedsin2010,whenthedisasterwashigh-profile,andin2011,whenthecrisisreceivedlittlemediaattention.
pakistanwasstillrecoveringfromtheeffectsofthe2010floodswhennewfloodsbeganinmid-august2011.inthefollowingmonthsoverfivemillionpeoplewereaffected,mostlyintheprovincesofsindhandbalochistan,bothofwhichwerealsoseverelyaffectedthepreviousyear.
anestimated35%ofthecommunitiesaffectedin2011werealsoaffectedthepreviousyear,meaningthatmorethanamillionpeoplehadbarelyrecoveredorwerestilltryingtorecoverfromtheimpactofthepreviousyear’sfloodingwhenthemostrecentfloodshit.
the2011unconsolidatedappealwasrelativelymodestcomparedwiththatof2010,seekingjustus$66perpersoncomparedwiththeus$97perpersonrequestedthepreviousyear.however,afarlowerproportionofthosereducedfundingneedsweremetin2011.
Pakistan Floods Relief and Early Recovery ResponsePlan (August 2010 - July 2011)
Pakistan Rapid Response Plan Floods 2011(September - March 2012)
US$
MIL
LIO
N Revised requirements
Funding within the appealFunding outside of the appeal
1,380 1,282
357 170 105
1,963
PER PERSON
2010
PER PERSONUS$53US$148
2011
PER PERSON
2010
PER PERSONUS$53US$148
2011
total funding to the crisis
69
70
millionsofpeopleliveinsituationsofextremevulnerabilityyetinvestmentstobuildresilienceremainsmallinscaleanddisconnected.spendingondisasterpreventionandpreparednesswasjust4%oftotalofficialhumanitarianaidbetween2006and2010.humanitarianaidalonecannotaddressthesesituationsoffragility.
thesetreesinsindh,pakistan,becamecocoonedinthewebsofspidersclimbingtoescapetherisingwaterfollowingthefloodsin2010.
thestoryCredit
©russellwatkins/departmentforinternationaldevelopment
71
inVestments to tAckle VulneRAbilitY
yearafteryear,alargeshareofinternationalhumanitarianaidisspentinplacesthatarenotnecessarilythemostexposedtoseverehazards,butwhicharehometothepeoplewhoaremostvulnerabletohazardsingeneral.theseareoftenplaceswherelargeproportionsofthepopulationliveinabsolutepoverty,whereviolentconflictiscommonandwherestatesarefragile.buildingresiliencetocrisesintheseplacesisthemostefficientandcost-effectivewayofpreventingsufferingandprotectinglivelihoods,yetrelativelysmallsharesofinternationalresourcesareinvestedspecificallyinbuildingresilience:just4%ofofficialhumanitarianaid(us$1.5billion)and0.7%(us$4.4billion)ofnon-humanitarianofficialdevelopmentassistance(oda)wasinvestedindisasterriskreductionbetween2006and2010.
humanitariancrisesnotonlyoccurinpartsoftheworldwheremanypeoplearealreadypoor,theydeepenpovertyandpreventpeoplefromescapingfromit.thefoodpricespikeof2010–2011,forexample,isestimatedtohavepushed49millionpeopleinlow-andmiddle-incomecountriesintopovertyintheshortterm.droughtandconflictinthehornofafricain2011reducedmorethan600,000peopletolivinginrefugeecampsinkenyaandleftmorethanfourmillionpeopleinsomaliaunabletosustainthemselveswithouthumanitarianaidin2012.buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskthereforeisnotonlytheconcernofaffectedcommunitiesandhumanitarians;itisoffundamentalimportanceinachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andintheeliminationofabsolutepoverty.
inthischapterweconsiderwhetherthecurrentemphasisandscaleofinvestmentsarebothadequateandeffectivelytargetedtoimprovetheresilienceofcommunitiesatriskofcrisis.wealsolookatodainvestments,includinghumanitarianaid,incontextwithotherinternationalanddomesticresources.
RESOURCE FLOWS TO CRISIS-AFFECTED STATES IN 2010
GOVERNMENTREVENUES
DO
MES
TIC
FLO
WS
SUDAN PAKISTAN
FOREIGN DIRECTINVESTMENT
REMITTANCES
INTERNATIONALHUMANITARIANASSISTANCE
NON-HUMANITARIANODA
OTHER OFFICIALFLOWS
MULTILATERALPEACEKEEPING
Humanitarian aid is just one of several types of resource that might flow into a crisis-affected state. Each type of resource has a particular role to play in creating broad-based growth and reducing poverty and vulnerability.
Sources: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS, World Bank, IMF, SIPRI and UNCTAD data
Notes: Government revenues are expressed net of ODA grants
US$12.4bn US$35.8bn
US$1.6bn US$2.0bn
US$3.2bn US$9.4bn
US$909m US$2.1bn
US$1.1bn US$1.5bn
US$86m US$732m
US$2.7bn
HAITI
US$1.8bn
US$150m
US$1.5bn
US$3.1bn
US$1.3bn
US$612m
PR
IVAT
E FL
OW
SO
FFIC
IAL
INTE
RN
ATIO
NAL
FLO
WS
72
poverty,vulnerabilityandCrisis
thereisastrongcorrelationbetweencountriesthataremajorrecipientsofhumanitarianaidoverextendedperiodsoftimeandconflict,statefragilityandalackofprogressinpovertyreduction.thenumbersofpeoplelivinginabsolutepovertyhavedecreaseddramaticallyinthepast20years,andtheworldisontracktomeetmdGtarget1(a)tohalve
thenumberofpeoplewhoseincomeislessthanus$1.25adaybetween1990and2015.yetprogressinpovertyreductionhasbeenuneven,withmanyofthemostvulnerablecountries,particularlythoseinsub-saharanafrica,stilllaggingfarbehind.
fiGuRe 1: pRopoRtion of tHe totAl populAtion liVinG on less tHAn us$1.25 A dAY
note:levelsofcolourindicatelevelsofpoverty.source:worldbankstaffcalculationsfrompovcalnetdatabase
East Asia and Pacific
of which China
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Total
Total excl. China
2005 2008
No data
No data
20151990
73
whilethetop20recipientsofodaaccountfor13%oftheworld’spopulation,theyarehometo21%oftheworld’spopulationlivingonlessthanus$1.25aday.thetoprecipientsalsoincludesomeofthecountriesthataremakingtheleastprogressagainstthemdGs(includingthedemocraticrepublicofCongo(drC),somalia,iraqandafghanistan).
theoverwhelmingmajorityofthoseaffectedbynaturaldisasterseachyearliveinmiddle-incomecountries.intheten-yearperiodfrom2002to2011,81%ofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisasterslivedinChina,indiaandbangladesh.yetbecausemiddle-incomecountriestypicallyhavegreatercapacitytoprepareforandrespondtodisasters,theyseldomreceivelargesharesofinternationalhumanitarianaid.manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianassistanceareaffectedbynaturaldisasters–ofthetoptenrecipients,sevenhavehadmorethanthreemillionpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersbetween2001and2010,butthesearecharacterisedascomplexcrises,withcountriesoftensufferingfromconflictandwithverylimitedcapacitytodealwithdisasters.allbutoneofthetoptenrecipientsbetween2001and2010areconsideredfragilestates,andallhavebeenaffectedbyconflictfor5–10years.Conflict-affectedstatesreceivethe
overwhelmingmajorityofinternationalassistance:onaverage,between64%and83%ofinternationalhumanitarianassistancewaschannelledtocountriesinconflictorinpost-conflicttransitionbetween2001and2010(seefigure3).
humanitarianassistanceisalsohabituallyspentinthesamecountriesoverextendedperiodsoftime.in2009,68%oftotalofficialhumanitarianassistancewasreceivedbycountriesconsideredlong-termrecipients,i.e.countriesreceivinganaboveaverageshareoftheirtotalodaintheformofhumanitarianaidforaperiodof8ormoreyearsduringthepreceding15years.ofthe26countriesthatfitthecriteriaaslong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistance,19wereaffectedbyconflictduringtheperiod2001–2010;ofthose,16experiencedviolenceand/orhostedamultilateralpeacekeepingmissionfor7ormoreofthose11years(seefigure4).
aspovertyreductionproceedselsewheretowardsachievingthemdGtargets,thesesituationswheremosthumanitarianaidisspentyearafteryearwillbeleftfurtherbehindunlesstherootcausesofandvulnerabilitytothesecomplexcrisesaretackled.
fiGuRe 2: VulneRAbilitY indicAtoRs in tHe top 10 Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid
sources:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbank,CenterforGlobaldevelopmentmdGprogressindex2011,oeCdinternationalnetworkonConflictandFragility(inCaF)listoffragilestates2011,oeCddaCdataanddevelopmentinitiativesresearch
% of populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY
pRoGRess AGAinst mdGs, 2011 (RAnk out of 133)
fRAGile stAte conflict-Affected (numbeR of YeARs 2001 And 2010)
lonG-teRm HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce Recipient
sudan 19.8% 90 yes 10 long-term
palestine/opt 0.04% 100 yes 10 long-term
afghanistan nodata 126 yes 10 long-term
ethiopia 39.0% 29 yes 10 long-term
iraq 2.8% 130 yes 9 long-term
pakistan 21.0% 49 yes 7 medium-term
haiti 61.7% 115 yes 7 medium-term
drC 87.7% 133 yes 10 long-term
somalia nodata 133 yes 10 long-term
indonesia 18.1% 29 no 6 medium-term
74
fiGuRe 3: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid ReceiVed bY conflict-Affected stAtes, 2001–2010
notes:seedata&Guidessectionforourdefinitionofconflict-affectedstates.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,unoChaFts,stockholminternationalpeaceresearchinstitute(sipri)anduppsalaConflictdataprogram
% of humanitarian aid to top 3conflict-affected recipients% of humanitarian aid to all otherconflict-affected recipients% of humanitarian aid to non- conflict-affected recipients
29.2%
28.7%
36.1%
36.8%
32.2%
30.1%
30.7%
30.1%
31.0%
48.5%
35.2%
35.6%
41.1%
38.6%
51.5%
55.9%
47.7%
49.8%
51.8%
33.7%
35.6%
35.7%
22.8%
24.5%
16.3%
14.0%
21.6%
20.1%
17.2%
17.8%
0% 100%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
fiGuRe 4: lonG-, medium- And sHoRt-teRm Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010
note:Countriesclassifiedaslong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearethosereceivinganaboveaverage(10.4%)shareoftheirodaashumanitarianassistanceforeightormoreyearsbetween1996and2010.medium-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearethosethathavereceivedmorethan10.4%oftheirodaashumanitarianassistanceforbetweenfourandeightyearsoverthisperiod.thesuddenincreaseinthevolumeoffundsreceivedbymedium-termrecipientsreflectsthehugeincreaseinfundsreceivedbyhaitiandpakistanin2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
) Short-term (under 3 years)Mid-term (3-7 years inclusive)Long-term (8 years or more)
75
socialsafety-netsprovideopportunitiestorespondtohumanitarianneedsinatimelyandcost-effectivefashion,tobuildresilienceor,attheveryleast,tohelppreventdeteriorationoflivelihoodsintimesofcrisis.
thehumanitariancommunityhasincreasinglyincorporatedelementsofsocialprotectionprogrammingintoitscrisisresponseasanalternativetocommoditydistributions,witharangeofmodalitiesincludingprovisionofcash,vouchersandcash-for-work.
thenumberofdonorsfundingcashtransferprogrammesinhumanitarianemergenciesincreasedfrom6in2006to21in2011,peakingat41donorsin2010inresponsetotheemergenciesinhaitiandpakistan.
palestine/optreceivedatotalofus$334.7millioninhumanitariancashtransferfinancingbetween2006and2011,makingitthelargestrecipientoverthefive-yearperiod.pakistanwasthesecondlargest,receivingus$66.7million,themajorityofwhich(us$60.3million)wasreceivedin2010(seefigure7).
Cash-basedhumanitarianprogramminghasanumberofmajorbenefits,includingstimulatinglocalmarketsandprovidingrecipientswithgreaterchoice.insomecasesitmightalsohelppeopletobuildproductiveassetsandprovidethemwithresourcestoprotectandrebuildtheirlivelihoods.
inordertofunctioneffectivelyatscale,however,socialprotectionrequiresthecollectiveexpertiseandeffortsofgovernments,developmentactorsandhumanitarianactors.
soCialproteCtionandCashtransFers
fiGuRe 5: HumAnitARiAn eXpendituRe on cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmminG
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
fiGuRe 6: top 10 donoRs to HumAnitARiAn cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmmes (us$ million)
note:*opeCFundforinternationaldevelopment.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
75
6
45
151
188
90
2006
20
0
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US$
MIL
LIO
N
VoucherCash transferCash-for-workTotal
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 unrwa 52.9 eCho 4.6 us 30.0 euinstitutions 41.8 us 97.7 us 31.4
2 eCho 7.4 us 0.5 eCho 8.7 us 39.6 eCho 16.8 eCho 21.4
3 Japan 6.8 norway 0.5 austria 1.6 uk 10.6 unrwa 8.7 Canada 11.3
4 spain 2.1 France 1.5 QatarCharity 10.0 erF 8.2 netherlands 4.8
5 belgium 1.3 norway 1.2 kuwait 6.5 Canada 7.0 ChF 4.7
6 norway 0.5 CerF 1.0 France 5.2 australia 5.6 sweden 4.0
7 italy 0.5 Canada 4.8 sweden 4.8 belgium 3.9
8 spain 0.4 netherlands 4.5 FondationdeFrance
3.3 opeC* 2.0
9 luxembourg 0.1 belgium 4.2 belgium 3.1 erF 1.8
10 switzerland 3.9 brazil 3.0 ireland 1.6
76
fiGuRe 7: leAdinG Recipients of HumAnitARiAn cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmmes (us$ million)
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1 palestine/opt 70.2 burundi 4.2 afghanistan 49.7 palestine/opt 139.8 palestine/opt 60.5 palestine/opt 55.6
2 afghanistan 4.0 uganda 1.0 palestine/opt 8.6 afghanistan 3.1 pakistan 60.3 somalia 12.7
3 burundi 0.7 pakistan 0.5 burundi 3.1 kenya 2.3 haiti 52.8 pakistan 5.4
4 somalia 2.3 Zimbabwe 1.3 sudan 2.5 kenya 4.2
5 haiti 0.1 sudan 1.3 srilanka 2.5 afghanistan 3.0
6 honduras 0.1 pakistan 1.1 niger 1.8 Côted’ivoire 2.9
7 srilanka 0.02 somalia 0.7 Zimbabwe 1.4 yemen 1.6
8 indonesia 0.6 somalia 0.8 srilanka 1.5
9 burundi 0.4 burundi 0.7 Chad 1.0
10 egypt 0.2 ethiopia 0.1 philippines 1.0
etHiopiA’s pRoductiVe sAfetY nets pRoGRAmme (psnp)
thelargestsocialsafetynetsprogrammeinafrica,theethiopiapsnp,demonstratedavarietyofcomparativeadvantagesovertraditionalhumanitarianresponsestofoodinsecurityduringthe2011hornofafricafoodcrisis.
theethiopiapsnpwascreatedin2005outofadesiretofindsustainablealternativestotheannualprovisionoflargeamountsofhumanitarianfoodaid,andregularlyprovidespredictablecashand/orfoodtransfersto7–8millionruralandfood-insecurehouseholdsforsixmonthsofeveryyeartobridgeaperiodofpredictablefoodneeds.thepsnp,togetherwithothercomponentsofthegovernment’sfoodsecurityprogramme,aimstoenablehouseholdstobuildtheirassetsandtoincreaseincomeoverafive-yearperiodsothattheycanultimately‘graduate’outofchronicfoodinsecurity.thepsnpalsoaimstobuildcommunityassets,includingarestorednaturalresourcebase,inordertoaddresstheunderlyingcausesoffoodinsecurity,ratherthansimplyaddressingthesymptoms.
thepsnphasinbuiltmechanismstoscaleupandrespondtoincreasedacutefoodneedsthroughacontingencybudgetandriskfinancingmechanism
(rFm).inaugust2011,astheextentofthegrowingfoodcrisisbecameapparent,theethiopiangovernmenttriggeredtherFmforthefirsttime.thisallowedthepsnptoextendthedurationofsupportto6.5millionregularrecipientsandtooffersupportforthreemonthstoanadditional3.1millionpeopleinpsnpareas,bridgingthefoodgapuntilthenovember2011harvest.
incontrast,innon-psnpareas,wheretraditionalhumanitarianactorsincludingunagenciesandnGoswereresponsibleformeetingemergencyfoodneeds,thelagsbetweenidentifyingandassessingthecrisis,mobilisingfundingandrespondingtohumanitarianneedsweremuchlonger.thetypicallead-timebetweenidentifyingandrespondingtofoodsecuritycrisesinethiopiacanbeuptoeightmonths,whereaswhenthepsnprFmisactivated,theresponsetimecanbereducedtotwomonths.moreover,notallthefundingrequiredforthehumanitarianfoodaidresponsewasforthcoming,andagencieshadtodistributehalf-rationsinsomedistributionrounds.
asanestablishedprogrammewithpredictablerequirements,thepsnpcanbenefitfromthebestdealswhen
procuringcommodities;italsousesestablisheddistributionnetworks,andisthereforemorecost-effective.thepsnpresponsetothecrisiscostanestimatedus$53perbeneficiarycomparedwithus$169perbeneficiarytargetedthroughtheun-andnGo-managedpipeline(basedonourowncalculations).moreimportantly,inadditiontocostsavings,becausethereisasystemalreadyinplacewhichmonitorsthesituationandhasinvestedinstructurestoassistwithafastandsmoothdeliveryofassistance,thepsnpismoreresponsivetoearlyindicationsofcrisis.itisthereforemoreefficientinamelioratinghumanitariancrisisandistransformativeinthemediumterm,liftinghouseholdsoutofchronicfoodinsecurity.
PER PERSON
PSNP
PER PERSONUS$169US$53
Humanitarian
PER PERSON
PSNP
PER PERSONUS$169US$53
Humanitarian
77
disasterriskreduction(drr)involvesmakinginvestmentstobuildresilience,inordertomakethepoorestpeoplelessvulnerabletoshocks.inadditiontosavinglivesandlivelihoods,thereisgrowingevidencethatsuchinvestmentsarecost-effectiveinavoidingorreducingthecostsofrespondingtocrises.
volumesofodafundsinvestedindrrareverydifficulttotrackandassess,butneverthelessarewellbelowthetargetsrecommendedatthethirdsessionoftheunitednationsinternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction(unisdr)Globalplatformfordisasterriskreductionin2009,whereparticipantsrecommendedthattheequivalentof10%ofhumanitarianfundingand10%ofpost-disasterreconstructionfundingshouldbeallocatedtowardsdrrwork,aswellasatleast1%ofalldevelopmentfunding.
theamountofhumanitarianfundingspentexplicitlyondisasterpreventionandpreparedness(dpp)increasedfromus$56millionin2006toahighofus$501millionin2009–fallingslightlytous$492millionin2010.buttheoverallshareofhumanitarianaidspentondppbyalldonorsreportingtotheoeCddaC–includingourassessmentofspendingonpartialdppactivities–iswellbelowthe10%target,atjust4%between2006and2010.
individualdonorsvarywidelyintheircommitmentstoinvestingtheirhumanitarianexpenditureindpp.overthe2006–2010periodoverall,Japanandkoreaspentmorethan10%oftheirtotalofficialhumanitarianaidondppactivities,whiletheunitedstatesandthenetherlandsspentlessthan2%.
itisnotcurrentlypossibletoseparatefundingforpost-disasterreconstruction,butoverallodainvestmentsindrrwere0.7%oftotaldevelopmentspendingfortheperiod2006–2010,againstanalreadyverymodesttargetof1%.
Giventhathumanitarianaidispredominatelystillcharacterisedbyshort-termfundinghorizonsandprogrammingcycles,andisoftenbymandateandhabitlessdirectlyengagedwithnationalgovernments(whobeartheprimaryresponsibilityforprotectingandassistingvulnerablecitizens),thetargetsrecommendedattheGlobalplatformfordisasterriskreductionplaceaperplexingemphasisonthehumanitariancommunity.theresponsibilityforaddressingvulnerabilitycannotrestprimarilyontheshouldersofhumanitarianactorsalone.rather,itisasharedresponsibilitybetweenthegovernmentswhosecitizensarevulnerabletocrisisandinternationalactorsworkingtoreducevulnerability
investmentsindisasterriskreduCtion
fiGuRe 8: HumAnitARiAn disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness spendinG bY All donoRs, 2006–2010
note:seedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourassessmentofdrrexpenditure.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
4.6%
2.7%
3.9%
5.5% 4.7%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
MIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
) Other or partial humanitarian DPP Humanitarian DPPDPP/DRR as a share of humanitarian aid
commitments At tHe second session of tHe GlobAl plAtfoRm foR disAsteR Risk Reduction, 2009
•theunsecretary-Generalcalledforatargettohalvethelossesoflivesfromdisastersby2015,whenthetermofthehyogoFrameworkforactionends.
•10%ofhumanitarianrelieffundstogotodrrwork.
•10%asatargetshareofpost-disasterreconstructionandrecoveryprojectsandnationalpreparednessandresponseplans.
•atleast1%ofallnationaldevelopmentfundingandalldevelopmentassistancefundingtobeallocatedtoriskreductionmeasures,withdueregardforqualityofimpact.
78
fiGuRe 9: GoVeRnment donoR HumAnitARiAn eXpendituRe on disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness, 2006–2010 (us$ million)
bilAteRAl spendinG on dpp/dRR imputed contRibutions to dpp/dRR spendinG ViA multilAteRAl oRGAnisAtions
disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness
pARtiAl dpp/dRR HumAnitARiAn spendinG
dpp/dRR spendinG ViA tHe eu
dpp/dRR spendinG ViA WoRld bAnk
dpp/dRR spendinG ViA Wfp
totAl HumAnitARiAn dpp/dRR spendinG
totAl HumAnitARiAn dpp/dRR spendinG As % of totAl officiAl HumAnitARiAn Aid
australia 85.0 20.9 14.8 0.9 121.6 7.5%
austria 2.2 0.6 8.8 10.6 0.2 22.3 6.5%
belgium 24.7 15.4 13.0 0.1 53.1 5.6%
Canada 39.7 88.3 0.0 31.1 2.2 161.2 7.4%
denmark 15.1 0.5 7.8 8.1 3.7 35.0 2.6%
Finland 5.7 2.8 5.8 4.4 0.7 19.4 2.7%
France 0.8 73.6 45.6 0.3 120.3 6.0%
Germany 53.9 26.4 79.6 75.1 0.6 235.6 6.7%
Greece 0.4 7.3 2.3 10.0 4.2%
ireland 23.4 11.4 4.2 4.0 1.1 44.0 5.6%
italy 9.7 0.5 48.3 19.5 1.6 79.6 4.7%
Japan 187.3 117.2 1.0 305.5 18.3%
korea 10.2 0.7 5.0 0.01 16.0 14.0%
luxembourg 4.4 1.1 1.1 0.2 6.8 2.6%
netherlands 4.3 0.02 17.0 10.0 4.7 36.0 1.4%
newZealand 7.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 8.7 5.1%
norway 52.3 14.6 11.9 2.9 81.7 3.7%
portugal 0.01 0.4 4.8 1.5 0.01 6.8 5.5%
spain 68.7 1.1 30.5 22.3 1.6 124.2 5.2%
sweden 53.8 0.1 10.1 22.4 6.4 92.7 3.2%
switzerland 2.4 9.3 18.8 0.2 30.7 2.8%
unitedkingdom 93.5 64.3 54.5 80.0 0.4 292.7 6.2%
unitedstates 212.8 15.9 89.0 317.7 1.6%
andrespondtocrisesonbothsidesofthehumanitariananddevelopmentdivide.
thewaysinwhichgovernments,developmentactorsandhumanitarianactorswork–andthewaystheyworktogether–needtochangeinordertobetteranticipate,respondtoandrecover
fromshocks.responseswillrequiregreaterflexibilityinfinancingandprogrammingapproaches,ensuringthatdevelopmentinvestmentsinsituationsofpersistentvulnerabilityincludethebuildingofcapacityandresiliencetoriskasafundamentalobjective.
note:seedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourmethodologyforimputingsharesofdrrexpenditureviamultilateralorganisations.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata
79
Conflictandstatefragilityarecommontomanyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianaid.donorgovernmentshavegivenincreasedprioritytoactivitiesaimedatbuildingthecapacityofstatestogovernandsupportingpeaceandsecuritywithintheirodaspending.investmentsinpeaceandsecuritysectorsgrewby140%overallbetween2002and2010–andby249%withinthetop20recipients.thetop20recipientsofhumanitarianaidoverthetenyearsreceivedonaveragejustoverathirdofalldonorodaexpenditureonthegovernance,peaceandsecuritysectorsbetween2006and2010.
investmentsinGovernanCeandseCurity
fiGuRe 10: GRoWtH in spendinG on GoVeRnment And ciVil societY, peAce-buildinG And conflict Resolution, 2002–2010
source:oeCddaCdata
0
5
10
15
20
25
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N (C
ON
STA
NT
2010
PR
ICES
)
All other recipientsOther top 20 humanitarian aid recipientsPakistanIraq Afghanistan
80
note:economicCommunityofwestafricanstates(eCowas);organizationforsecurityandCo-operationineurope(osCe).source:developmentinitiativesbasedonsipridata
fiGuRe 11: eXpendituRe on multilAteRAl peAcekeepinG opeRAtions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
US$
BIL
LIO
N
OSCENATOEUECOWASAU UN
inadditiontoaidspendingtowardspeaceandsecurity,governmentsinvestpublicfundsinmultilateralpeacekeepingoperations.expenditureonunpeacekeepingoperationsmorethandoubledfromus$2.6billionin2000tous$6billioninthepeakyear2009,beforefallingbacktous$5.6billionin2010.expenditureonnon-un-convenedpeacekeepingmissionshasexperienceddramaticgrowth,withexpenditureonafricanunion(au)missionsincreasing25-foldbetween2003(us$78million)and2010(us$2billion)andspending
oneuropeanunion(eu)missionsincreasing36-fold,between2001(us$52million)and2010(us$1.9billion).iffulldetailsofthecostofnorthatlantictreatyorganisation(nato)operationswerepubliclyavailable,itislikelythattheywouldeclipsethecostofunpeacekeepingmissions.
81
aidisakeyresourcetomeettheneedsofpeoplevulnerabletoandaffectedbycrises.butmanyotherofficialandprivateresourceflowshavearoletoplayincreatingbroad-basedgrowth–growththathasthepotentialtoreducepovertyandvulnerabilityprovideditisequitableandbuiltoninvestmentsthatengagewithandsupportthepoor.
remittances,forexample,areavitalresource,connectinghouseholdsdirectlywiththeglobaleconomyandpotentiallychannellingmoneydirectlyintothehandsofpoorpeople.remittanceflowsmaybecounter-cyclicalagainsteconomicshocks,withmigrantsincreasingremittancesintimesofcrisis,andthereforemaybeparticularly
importantasahouseholdstrategytoensuresocialprotectionincountriesaffectedbyregularcrisesandwithpoorlyfunctioningpublicserviceinfrastructure,suchassomalia.
privatesectorinvestmenthasafundamentalroletoplayinlong-termsustainableeconomicdevelopment.Foreigndirectinvestment(Fdi)isakeyelementininternationaleconomicintegration,growthanddevelopment,withthepotentialtodirectlycontributetothereductionofpovertyandvulnerabilitythroughjobcreationandthegenerationofdomestictaxrevenues.
usinGaidtoaddvalueintheContextoFotherresourCes
note:thereiscurrentlynoremittancedataavailableforafghanistan,Chad,drCandsomaliaandnodataongovernmentrevenuesforpalestine/optandsomalia.Governmentrevenuesareexpressednetofodagrants.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,unoChaFts,unCtad,sipri,imFandworldbankdata
fiGuRe 12: pRiVAte And officiAl ResouRce floWs in tHe top 10 Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid in 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Hai
ti
Pak
ista
n
Suda
n
Ethi
opia
Pal
esti
ne/O
PT
Afg
hani
stan
DR
C
Ken
ya
Cha
d
Som
alia
US$
BIL
LIO
N
FDIRemittancesMultilateral peacekeepingGovernment revenues Other official flowsNon-humanitarian ODAInternational humanitarian aid
82
privatesectorinvestmentcanalsohavenegativeimpacts,andtheeffectsofFdiflowsdependonthecharacteristicsoftheinvestmentsbeingmade,aswellasconditionswithintherecipientcountry.privatesectorinvestmentinsub-saharanafricacurrentlyexhibitssometroublingcharacteristics.
profitremittancesfromsub-saharanafricatotalledus$32.1billionin2010,equivalentto80%ofFdiinflowsor9%ofFdistocks.theregionsawadisproportionatelyhighincreaseinprofitremittanceoutflowsduringtheglobaleconomiccrisis,withprofitremittancesalmostdoublingbetween2006and2008,fromus$23.9billiontous$47.1billion.profitremittanceshavefallenbelowtheirpeak2008values,butremainsignificantlyhigherthaninotherregions.
in2009and2010,Fdiinflowstosub-saharanafricacreatedonaveragejust119jobsperonemillionpeople,comparedwith315directjobsperonemillionpeopleworldwide.themajorityofFdiflowstotheregiongotowardsinvestmentsintwosectors:coal,oilandnaturalgas;andmetals.extractiveindustriesinsub-saharanafricacreaterelativelyfewjobs,however.despiteaccountingfor47%oftotalFditotheregionover2006–2011,thecoal,oilandnaturalgassectoraccountedfor
only7%oftotaljobscreatedbyFdi(developmentinitiativesbasedonplannedinvestmentdatafromFinancialtimesfdiintelligence).
investmentsarealsohighlyconcentratedinafewcountries,aswellasafewsectors:threecountries(southafrica,angolaandnigeria)accountedfor55%ofinflowstosub-saharanafricaover2010.
illicitfinancialoutflowsfromsub-saharanafricawereestimatedatus$33.3billionin2008(GlobalFinancialintegrityestimates),which,whencombinedwiththe(legal)outflowofprofitremittancesonFdi,meansthatoutflowsrelatedtoFdifromtheregionprobablyexceedinflows.theprimarymotivationforillicitoutflowsistoavoidpayingtax,andthereisthereforeasignificantlossoftaxrevenueforthegovernmentsofcountriesfromwhichtheillicitflowsleave.
inthepursuitofeconomicgrowthandprofits,governmentsandtheprivatesectorinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountrieswillneedtoensurecoherentpolicies,includingtransparency,ethicalinvestmentstandardsandeffectivelegislativeandrevenuecollectioncapabilities,iftheyaretoharnessthepotentialoftheprivatesectortoincreaseresilienceandreducevulnerability.
risksoFprivateseCtorinvestment
source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCtadandGlobaldevelopmentFinancedata
fiGuRe 13: pRofit RemittAnces As A pRopoRtion of foReiGn diRect inVestment floWs bY ReGion
2001–2005 AVeRAGe 2006–2010 AVeRAGe
southasia 59.3% 45.1%
sub-saharanafrica 59.9% 83.5%
europeandCentralasia 4.3% 12.9%
latinamericaandCaribbean 41.4% 67.8%
eastasiaandpacific 32.3% 38.6%
middleeastandnorthafrica 9.5% 9.9%
83
84
Credit
84
thestorythesechildrenareplayingwiththeleftoverpiecesofabombinalashu,avillagelocatedsome15kilometresnorthofshangiltobaya,northdarfur.roughlyhalfthevillage’spopulationhasfledtocampsfordisplacedpeopleastheareahasbecomethesceneofheavyfightingbetweengovernmentandrebelforces.
sudanhasreceivedus$9.7billionininternationalhumanitarianaidoverthepastdecade.in2010,forthefirsttimeinfiveyears,itwasovertakenasthelargestrecipientbyhaiti.2011sawthecreationofanewlyindependentrepublicofsouthsudan,and2009and2010markedthestartofagradualshifttowardsreconstructionanddevelopmentfundinginsudan.butthecountry'scomplexprotractedhumanitariancrisesremainlargelyunchanged.
©albertGonzalezFarran/Foodandagricultureorganizationoftheunitednations
85
dAtA & Guides
Sour
ce: O
ECD
D
AC s
tats
Dia
spor
a
Com
mun
ities
Gen
eral
pub
lic
Affe
cted
co
mm
uniti
es
Qua
ntita
tive
data
ve
ry d
iffic
ult t
o ca
ptur
e
Sour
ce: R
emitt
ance
dat
a fr
om th
e W
orld
Ban
k
Nat
iona
l and
loca
l N
GO
s
Red
Cro
ss a
nd
Red
Cre
scen
tna
tiona
l soc
ietie
s
Com
mun
ity-b
ased
or
gani
satio
ns
Faith
-bas
ed
orga
nisa
tions
Pri
vate
sec
tor
Sour
ces:
Dir
ect f
rom
orga
nisa
tions
and
annu
al r
epor
ts
Min
istr
ies
Dis
aste
r fu
nds
Loca
l gov
ernm
ent
Dom
estic
mili
tary
Sour
ces:
Ann
ual r
epor
ts
and
UN
OC
HA
FTS
Non
-OEC
D D
AC
mem
bers
Volu
ntar
y re
port
ing
FTS
capt
ures
wha
t do
nors
rep
ort a
s hu
man
itari
an a
id
Not
com
para
ble
betw
een
dono
rs
or y
ears
Sour
ces:
UN
OC
HA
FTS
and
OEC
D D
AC s
tats
23 O
ECD
DAC
go
vern
men
ts a
nd
EU in
stitu
tions
Obl
igat
ory
annu
al
repo
rtin
g to
pub
lic
data
base
Sour
ce:
OEC
D D
AC s
tats
Mili
tary
hu
man
itari
an a
id
INTE
RN
ATIO
NA
L H
UM
AN
ITA
RIA
NR
ESP
ON
SEO
THER
INTE
RN
ATIO
NA
LR
ESO
UR
CES
DO
MES
TIC
RES
PO
NSE
NO
N-O
DA
ELIG
IBLE
OTH
ER O
DA
PEO
PLE
NAT
ION
AL
INST
ITU
TIO
NS
NAT
ION
AL
GO
VER
NM
ENTS
PR
IVAT
EC
ON
TRIB
UTI
ON
S
OTH
ERS
OEC
D D
AC
MEM
BER
SGO
VER
NM
ENTS
GLO
BA
L H
UM
AN
ITA
RIA
N A
SSIS
TAN
CE
KEY
: HO
W R
OB
UST
IS T
HE
SOU
RC
E?
Very
rob
ust
Mod
erat
ely
Not
ver
yN
ot a
t all
Incl
udes
bila
tera
l flo
ws
and
unea
rmar
ked
cont
ribu
tions
to
mul
tilat
eral
or
gani
satio
ns
Com
preh
ensi
ve
and
com
para
ble
over
tim
e
Vari
able
num
ber
of d
onor
s re
port
ea
ch y
ear
Pri
vate
co
ntri
butio
ns
repo
rted
to a
nnua
l re
port
s an
d di
rect
ly
repo
rted
to G
HA
fr
om N
GO
s, U
N
and
Red
Cro
ss
Pri
vate
co
ntri
butio
ns
repo
rted
to th
e FT
S
Rep
ortin
g is
on
a vo
lunt
ary
basi
s an
d th
eref
ore
is n
ot
com
preh
ensi
ve
Sour
ces:
Gov
ernm
ent
stat
istic
s an
d U
N
OC
HA
FTS
Sect
or-a
lloca
ble
OD
A, s
uch
as
gove
rnan
ce a
nd
secu
rity
and
pub
lic
serv
ice
prov
isio
nM
ultil
ater
alpe
acek
eepi
ng
Oth
er O
DA
-lik
eco
nces
sion
al fl
ows
Sour
ces:
UN
OC
HA
FT
S, S
IPR
I, O
ECD
D
AC
and
var
ious
se
cond
ary
sour
ces
86
HumAnitARiAn Aid‘humanitarianaid’istheaidandactiondesignedtosavelives,alleviatesufferingandmaintainandprotecthumandignityduringandintheaftermathofemergencies.thecharacteristicsthatmarkitoutfromotherformsofforeignassistanceanddevelopmentaidare:
•itisintendedtobegovernedbytheprinciplesofhumanity,neutrality,impartialityandindependence
•itisintendedtobe‘short-term’innatureandprovideforactivitiesinthe‘immediateaftermath’ofadisaster.inpracticeitisoftendifficulttosaywhere‘duringandintheimmediateaftermathofemergencies’endsandothertypesofassistancebegin,especiallyinsituationsofprolongedvulnerability.
traditionalresponsestohumanitariancrises,andtheeasiesttocategoriseassuch,arethosethatfallundertheaegisof‘emergencyresponse’:
•materialreliefassistanceandservices(shelter,water,medicinesetc.)
•emergencyfoodaid(short-termdistributionandsupplementaryfeedingprogrammes)
•reliefcoordination,protectionandsupportservices(coordination,logisticsandcommunications).
humanitarianaidcanalsoincludereconstructionreliefandrehabilitation(repairingpre-existinginfrastructureasopposedtolonger-termactivitiesdesignedtoimprovethelevelofinfrastructure)anddisasterpreventionandpreparedness(disasterriskreduction,earlywarningsystems,contingencystocksandplanning).undertheorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCd)developmentassistanceCommittee(daC)reportingcriteria,humanitarianaidhasveryclearcut-offpoints–forexample,‘disasterpreparedness’excludeslonger-termworksuchaspreventionoffloodsorconflicts.
humanitarianaidisgivenbygovernments,individuals,nGos,multilateralorganisations,domesticorganisationsandprivatecompanies.somedifferentiatetheirhumanitarianassistancefromdevelopmentorotherforeignassistance,buttheydrawthelineindifferentplacesandaccordingtodifferentcriteria.wereportwhatothersthemselvesreportas‘humanitarian’buttrytoconsistentlylabelandsourcethis.
GlobAl HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce
theterm‘globalhumanitarianassistance’isusedwithinthecontextoftheGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)programmetomean:
•theinternationalhumanitarianresponse(i.e.humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsandprivatecontributions)
•domesticresponse(thatprovidedbygovernmentsinresponsetocrisesinsidetheirowncountries)
•othertypesofassistancethatgotopeopleinhumanitariancrisesthatfalloutsidethosecapturedinthedataon‘international’or‘domestic’humanitarianresponse(e.g.peacekeepingandotherofficialdevelopmentassistance(oda)activitiessuchasgovernanceandsecurity).
inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid
internationalhumanitarianaid(sometimesreferredtointhisreportas‘internationalhumanitarianresponse’)isusedtodescribethecontributionsof:
•internationalgovernments
•individuals,privatefoundations,trusts,privatecompaniesandcorporations.
keydeFinitions,ConCeptsandmethodoloGy
87
HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments
ourdefinitionofgovernmentfundingforhumanitariancrisescomprises:
•thehumanitarianaidexpenditureofthe24oeCddaCmembers–australia,austria,belgium,Canada,denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,ireland,italy,Japan,korea,luxembourg,thenetherlands,newZealand,norway,portugal,spain,sweden,switzerland,theunitedkingdom,theunitedstatesandtheeuropeaninstitutions–asreportedtotheoeCddaCaspartofanannualobligationtoreportonodaflows
•expenditureby‘othergovernments’ascapturedbytheunitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(unoCha)’sFinancialtrackingservice(Fts).
ourlabellingof‘governments’isdrivenbythewayinwhichtheyreporttheirexpenditure(see‘datasources’sectionbelow).‘othergovernments’aresometimesreferredtoas‘non-daCdonors’,‘non-traditionaldonors’,‘emergingdonors’or‘south–southdevelopmentpartners’.
pRiVAte contRibutions
privatecontributionsarethosefromindividuals,privatefoundations,trusts,privatecompaniesandcorporations.
inour‘wheredoesthefundingcomefrom?’sectioninChapter1,theprivatecontributionsarethoseraisedbyhumanitarianorganisations,includingnGos,unagenciesandtheinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovement.datafortheperiod2006–2010wascollateddirectlyfromthesampleoforganisationsandcomplementedbyfiguresfromannualreports.thestudysetforthisperiodincludedfiveunagencies(unhCr,unrwa,wFp,whoanduniCeF),62nGos,theinternationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC),theinternationalFederationofredCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)andsevenredCrossnationalsocieties(belgium,Canada,Colombia,denmark,France,swedenandtheunitedkingdom).datafor2011wasextrapolatedfromthe2010figure,usingacoefficientofincrease/decreasebasedonprivatecontributionsreportedtotheFts.
inthe‘wheredoesthefundinggo?’and‘howdoesthefundinggetthere?’sectionsofChapter1,thedataistakenfromunoCha’sFts(adisaggregationofnGo,foundationsandprivatesectorcorporationsinFts,pluscontributionsfromprivateindividualsandorganisations).
totAl ‘officiAl’ HumAnitARiAn Aid
total‘official’humanitarianaidisasub-setofoda.inthisreport,weuseitwhenmakingcomparisonswithotherdevelopmentassistance.ittakesaccountofhumanitarianexpenditurethroughnGos,multilateralunagenciesandfunds,public-privatepartnershipsandpublicsectoragencies–and,inordertotakeaccountofmultilateralodacontributionstounagencieswithalmostuniquelyhumanitarianmandates,wemakethefollowingcalculation:
•humanitarianaidasreportedindaC1officialandprivateFlows,item‘memo:humanitarianaid’(netdisbursements)
•totalodadisbursementstounhCr,unrwaandwFp,asrecipients,reportedindaC2aodadisbursements(wedonotincludeallodatowFpbutapplyapercentageinordertotakeintoaccountthefactthatwFpalsohasa‘developmental’mandate).
disAsteR Risk Reduction (dRR)theuseoftheterm‘disasterriskreduction’inthisreportistakenfromuninternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction(unisdr)terminology:‘systematiceffortstoanalyseandmanagethecausalfactorsofdisasters’.investmentsindrrcanbetrackedusingtheoeCddaC’sCreditorreportingsystem(Crs),thoughthisisnoteasy.eachfundingtransactionreportedtotheoeCddaCCrsisallocatedafive-digitpurposecode,whichidentifiesthespecificsectorsorareasoftherecipient’seconomicorsocialdevelopmentthatthetransferisintendedtofoster.however,thereisnospecificdrrcodewithintheCrsdatabase,soaforensicmethodhasbeenusedtopulloutrelevantinvestments.
apurposecodeforoneelementofdrrhasexistedsince2004:thisfallswithinhumanitarianaidunder‘disasterpreventionandpreparedness’(dpp),anddatareportedunderthedppcode(74010)canbeeasilyidentified.allfundingreportedtothefloodingprevention/controlpurposecode(41050)isalsoincludedinthefinalestimateofdrr.
accountingfordrrmeasuresthataresub-componentsofdevelopmentandhumanitarianprojectsthatarenotcoded74010or41050ismorechallenging.toidentifythese,wesearchthroughshortandlongprojectdescriptionsreferencing30keytermsselectedfrom
note:foroeCddaCdonors,wemakeanadjustmenttothedaC-reportedhumanitarianaidfiguresothatittakesaccountofeachdonor’smultilateral(coreandtotallyunearmarked)odacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp–see‘totalofficialhumanitarianaid’below.
note:allofourhumanitarianaidcategoriesincludemoneyspentthroughhumanitarianfinancingmechanismssuchastheCentralemergencyresponseFund(CerF)andcountry-levelpooledfunds.wherenecessary,weimputeamountsspentthroughtheCerFinspecificcountriesbacktothedonor(forexample,ifnorwaycontributed10%ofCerFfundingin2010andtheCerFallocatedus$10milliontoafghanistan,us$1millionwouldbeaddedontonorway’sotherhumanitarianexpenditureonprojectsinafghanistan).
88
recentliteratureondrrandthewebsitesofkeydrr-focusedorganisations(e.g.unisdr).aftereachtermsearch,theprojectdescriptionsarescannedandthosenotrelatedtodrrremoved(forexample,resultsfor‘prevention’includeprojectswithadrrfocussuchasfloodprevention,butalsohiv/aidsprevention,whichareexcluded).
whenassessingindividualdonorcontributionstofinancingdpp,wehaveimputedtheirsharesofmultilateralodacontributedtomultilateralorganisations(wFp,theworldbankandtheeuinstitutions)whichweresubsequentlyspentbythoseorganisationsondppactivities.
otHeR inteRnAtionAl ResouRces
officiAl deVelopment AssistAnce (odA)
odaisagrantorloanfroman‘official’sourcetoadevelopingcountry(definedbytheoeCd)ormultilateralagency(definedbytheoeCd)forthepromotionofeconomicdevelopmentandwelfare.itisreportedbymembersofthedaC,alongwithseveralothergovernmentdonorsandinstitutions,accordingtostrictcriteriaeachyear.itincludessustainableandpoverty-reducingdevelopmentassistance(forsectorssuchasgovernanceandsecurity,growth,socialservices,education,health,andwaterandsanitation).inthisreportweexpressourtotalodafiguresnetofdebtreliefunlessexpresslystatedotherwise.
odA And odA-like floWs fRom otHeR GoVeRnment donoRs
somedonorsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupvoluntarilyreporttheirodaflowstotheoeCddaC,whicharerecordedin‘table33’.thisincludesodareportedbymembersoftheoeCdwhoarenotdaCmembers(theCzechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,israel,poland,slovakrepublic,slovenia,turkey)andothergovernmentdonorsoutsideoftheoeCd(Chinesetaipei,Cyprus,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,romania,russia,saudiarabia,thailandandtheunitedarabemirates).
theoeCddaChasreporteddataon‘oda-likeflows’frombrazil,russia,india,Chinaandsouthafrica(briCs)whodonotreporttothedaC,basedontheirownresearchin‘table33a’.theseflowsmaynotfullyconformtotheodadefinitionandareconsideredbythedaCtobeconcessionalflowsfordevelopmentcooperation;figuresarederivedfromofficialgovernmentsources.
GoVeRnAnce And secuRitY odA
thisisasub-setofthesocialservicesandinfrastructuresectorgroupingofaidactivities–withinsector-allocableoda–thatissub-dividedintotwofurtherdiscretegroupsofactivities.
•thefirstgrouping,thegovernanceandcivilsocietysetofactivities,isprimarilyconcernedwithbuildingthecapacityofrecipientcountrygovernments–inareasincludingpublicsectorpolicy,financemanagement,legislaturesandjudiciaries–aswellasarangeofthematicactivitiesincludingsupporttoelections,democraticparticipation,mediaandfreeflowofinformation,humanrightsandwomen’sequality.in2010anti-corruptionandsupporttolegislaturesandpoliticalpartieswereaddedtothelistofactivitiesinthisgrouping.
•thesecondgroupingisconcernedwithconflictpreventionandresolution,peaceandsecurityandincludesactivitiessupportingsecuritysystemmanagementandreform,removaloflandminesandotherexplosiveremnantsofwar,demobilisationofchildsoldiers,reintegrationofdemobilisedmilitarypersonnel,smallarmsandlightweaponscontrol,civilianpeace-buildingandsomeelementsofbilateralsupportformultilateralpeacekeepingoperations(excludingthedirectcontributionstotheundepartmentofpeacekeepingoperations(dpko)budget).
otHeR officiAl floWs (oofs)
otherofficialflowsareofficialsectortransactionsreportedbygovernmentstotheoeCddaCthatdonotmeettheodacriteria,inthattheirprimarypurposeisnotdevelopment-motivated,orwhentheirgrantelementisbelowthe25%thresholdthatwouldmakethemeligibletoberecordedasoda.transactionsclassifiedasooFsincludeexport-andinvestment-relatedtransactions,reschedulingofooFloans,andotherbilateralsecuritiesandclaims.
89
otHeR definitions And clAssificAtions
domestic Response
thisincludestheactionstakeninresponsetohumanitariancrises,totransferresourcestothosemostaffectedwithinanaffectedcountry,bydomesticinstitutions(bothinformalandformal)andindividualseitherlivingthereortemporarilyresidentelsewhere.
conflict-Affected countRies
asetofconflict-affectedstateswasidentifiedforeachoftheyearsbetween1999and2010usingtheuppsalaConflictdataprogram(uCdp)’sdatabasetodeterminetheincidenceofactiveconflictinagivenyear.thisincorporatedbothcaseswherestateactorswereinvolvedandthosewherenostateactorwasinvolved,butwheremorethan25battledeathsresulted.whereamultilateralpeacekeepingmissionhasbeenpresent(excludingpurelycivilianmissions)withnorecurrenceofviolenceforuptosevenconsecutiveyears,acountryisdeemedtobepost-conflict.
fRAGile stAtes
Fragilestatesarecharacterisedbywidespreadextremepoverty,arethemostoff-trackinrelationtothemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs),andarecommonlycaughtinorareemergingfrom,violenceorconflict.
exactdefinitionsoffragilestatesvarybydonorandinstitutionbutoftenreferencealackofgovernmentcapacitytoprovidebasicpublicgoods(includingsecurityandbasicservices)andinsomecasesalackofwillingnesstoprovidethem.
debatesinthisareaincreasinglyrecognisetheheterogeneityoffragilestatesandvaryingdegreesoffragility.theyacknowledgethatconditionsoffragilitydonotneatlymapontonationstatesandmaybeconfinedtosub-nationalpocketsormaycrossnationalborders.
thelistof45fragilestatesusedinthisreportistakenfromtheoeCd’sinternationalnetworkonFragilityandConflict(inCaF)2011list.
lonG-teRm HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce countRies (ltHAcs)
long-termhumanitarianassistancecountriesaredefinedasthosereceivingagreaterthanaverage(10.4%)proportionofodaexcludingdebtreliefintheformofhumanitarianassistanceformorethaneightyearsbetween1996and2010.atotalof25countriesareclassifiedasreceivinglong-termhumanitarianassistance,andin2010theyreceivedus$4.9billionoftheus$10.4billionfromalldonorsreportingtothedaC.
90
oecd dAc•oeCddaCdataallowsustosayhowmuchhumanitarianaiddonorsreportingtothe
oeCddevelopmentCo-operationdirectorate(dCd)give,wheretheyspendit,whotheyspenditthroughandhowitrelatestotheirotheroda.
•aggregateinformationispublishedinoeCddaCstattables.
•detailed,project-levelreportingispublishedintheCreditorreportingsystem(Crs).
•thedatainthisreportwasdownloadedon18april2012.datafor2011ispreliminaryandpartial–fullfinaldatafortheyear(whichwillincludedataonrecipientcountriesin2011andprovideabreakdownofactivities,aswellasenablingustopublishanon-estimatedhumanitarianaidfigurefordaCdonors)willnotbepublisheduntildecember2012.
•wemakeadistinctionbetween‘daCcountries’and‘daCdonors’–wherethelatterincludestheeuropeaninstitutions.
un ocHA fts•weuseunoChaFtsdatatoreportonhumanitarianexpenditureofgovernments
thatdonotreporttotheoeCddaCandtoanalyseexpenditurerelatingtotheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap).wehavealsouseditinthe‘wheredoesthefundinggo?’and‘howdoesthefundinggetthere?’sectionsofthereporttoanalyseprivatecontributionsandmoneyspentthroughnGos,theredCrossandredCrescentmovementoraunagency.
•aswellasbeingthecustodianofdatarelatingtounCapappeals,unoChaFtsreceivesdatafromdonorgovernmentsandrecipientagenciesandalsogathersinformationonspecificpledgescarriedinthemediaorondonorwebsites,orquotedinpledgingconferences.
•datafor2000–2011wasdownloadedon23march2012.
un ceRf WebsiteourdataontheCerFistakenfromtheunCerFwebsite.
cRed em-dAt disAsteR dAtAbAsetheCentreforresearchontheepidemiologyofdisasters(Cred)isaleadingrepositoryofinformationontheimpactofdisasters.oneofCred’scoredataprojectsistheem-datdisasterdatabase,whichcontainsdataontheimpactof16,000massdisastereventsdatingbackto1900.dataissourcedfromunagencies,nGos,insurancecompanies,researchinstitutesandpressagencies.weusethisdatatogenerateanalysisoftheincidenceandimpactofnaturaldisastersindevelopingcountries.
stockHolm inteRnAtionAl peAce ReseARcH inteRnAtionAl (sipRi) sipriisanindependentinternationalinstitutededicatedtoresearchintoconflict,armaments,armscontrolanddisarmament.siprimanagespubliclyaccessibledatabaseson:
•multilateralpeacekeepingoperations–unandnon-unpeaceoperationssince2000,includinglocation,datesofdeploymentandoperation,mandate,participatingcountries,numberofpersonnel,costsandfatalities
•militaryexpenditureof172countriessince1988,allowingcomparisonofcountries’militaryspending:inlocalcurrency,atcurrentprices;inusdollars,atconstantpricesandexchangerates;andasashareofgrossdomesticproduct(Gdp)
•transfersofmajorconventionalarmssince1950
•armsembargoesimplementedbyinternationalorganisationsorgroupsofnationssince1998.
weusethisdatatotrackinternationalexpenditureonmultilateralpeacekeepingoperations.
note:unoChaFtsandoeCddaCdataarenotcomparable.
datasourCes
91
tHe uppsAlA conflict dAtA pRoGRAm (ucdp) uCdphasbeenrecordingdataonongoingviolentconflictssincethe1970s.itsdefinitionofarmedconflict–‘acontestedincompatibilitythatconcernsgovernmentand/orterritorywheretheuseofarmedforcebetweentwoparties,ofwhichatleastoneisthegovernmentofastate,resultsinatleast25battle-relateddeathsinonecalendaryear’–isbecomingastandardinhowconflictsaresystematicallydefinedandstudied.ithasbeenoperatinganonlinedatabaseonarmedconflictsandorganisedviolencesince2004.
inteRnAtionAl monetARY fund (imf)wedownloadeddatafromtheinternationalmonetaryFund(imF)’sworldeconomicoutlook(weo)databaseinapril2012anduseditsgrossnationalincome(Gni)fornon-daCdonorstomeasureeconomicperformance.regionaloutlookshavebeenusedmainlytoanalysegovernmentrevenues(excludinggrants);whenthisinformationwasmissing,calculationshavebeenmade(subtractingodaflowsfromgeneralgovernmentrevenuesdatadownloadedfromtheimFweo,toavoiddouble-countinggrants).
WoRld bAnk theworldbankdatacatalogueincludesdifferentdatasetssuchasinflowsandoutflowsofremittances.theGlobaleconomicmonitor(Gem)providespricesandindicesrelatingtofood,energyandothercommodities–fundamentalinunderstandingfluctuationsandtrends.
united nAtions confeRence on tRAde And deVelopment (unctAd)unCtadistheunitednations’bodyfocusingontrade.itsonlinedatabaseprovidesstatisticsontradeflowsandforeigndirectinvestment(Fdi).
Furtherdetailsandguidestoourmethodologyandclassificationscanbefoundinthedata&Guidessectionofourwebsite:http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org
finAnciAl times fdi mARkets Fdimarketsisanonlinedatabasetackingcrossbordergreen-fieldinvestmentscoveringallsectorsandcountriesworldwide.itprovidesreal-timemonitoringofinvestmentprojects,capitalinvestmentandjobcreationandisabletotrackandprofilecompaniesinvestingoverseas.thedataiscollectedprimarilythroughdifferentpubliclyavailablesources:
•Financialtimesnewswiresandotherinformationsources
•nearly9,000mediasources
•projectdatareceivedfromover1,000industryorganisationsandinvestmentagencies
•datapurchasedfrommarketresearchandpublicationcompanies.
92
aCronymsandabbreviations
Au africanunion
cAp Consolidatedappealsprocess
cAR Centralafricanrepublic
ceRf CentralemergencyresponseFund
cHf Commonhumanitarianfund–acountry-levelpooledfundmechanism
cidA Canadianinternationaldevelopmentagency
cRs Creditorreportingsystem(daC)
cso Civilsocietyorganisation
dAc developmentassistanceCommittee
dfid departmentforinternationaldevelopment(uk)
dod departmentofdefense
dpko undepartmentofpeacekeepingoperations
dpRk democraticpeople’srepublicofkorea
dRc democraticrepublicofCongo
ec europeanCommission
ecHo directorateGeneralforhumanitarianaidandCivilprotection(formerlyeuropeanCommunityhumanitarianaiddepartment)
ecoWAs economicCommunityofwestafricanstates
eRf emergencyresponsefund–acountry-levelpooledfundingmechanism
eu europeanunion
fAo Foodandagricultureorganization
fts Financialtrackingservice(unoCha)
Gdp Grossdomesticproduct
GHA Globalhumanitarianassistance(theprogramme)
GHd Goodhumanitariandonorship
Gni Grossnationalincome
iAti internationalaidtransparencyinitiative
icRc internationalCommitteeoftheredCross
ifRc internationalFederationofredCrossandredCrescentsocieties
imf internationalmonetaryFund
inGo internationalnon-governmentalorganisation
ltHAc long-termhumanitarianassistancecountries
mdG millenniumdevelopmentGoal
msf médecinssansFrontières
nAto northatlantictreatyorganisation
nGo non-governmentalorganisation
odA officialdevelopmentassistance
oecd organisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment
opt occupiedpalestinianterritories
sipRi stockholminternationalpeaceresearchinstitute
uAe unitedarabemirates
un unitednations
un desA unitednationsdepartmentofeconomicandsocialaffairs
undp unitednationsdevelopmentprogramme
unHcR unitednationshighCommissionerforrefugees
unicef unitednationsChildren’sFund
unisdR unitednationsinternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction
un ocHA unitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs
unRWA unitednationsreliefandworksagencyforpalestinerefugeesintheneareast
Wfp worldFoodprogramme
93
un
cA
p A
pp
eAl
sum
mA
RY
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
rev
ised
req
uire
men
ts(u
s$b
illio
n)1.
92.
64.
45.
23.
46.
05.
25.
17.
19.
811
.38.
9
Fund
ing
(us$
bill
ion)
1.1
1.4
3.0
4.0
2.2
4.0
3.5
3.7
5.1
6.9
7.3
5.5
unm
etn
eed
(us$
bill
ion)
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.4
2.0
2.8
4.0
3.4
%n
eeds
met
59.2
%55
.4%
67.5
%75
.8%
64.3
%67
.2%
66.5
%72
.2%
71.7
%71
.2%
63.0
%62
.3%
num
ber
ofa
ppea
lsin
yea
r14
1824
2731
2524
3023
2319
21
aver
age
requ
irem
ents
per
app
eal(
us$
bill
ion)
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.11
0.24
0.22
0.17
0.31
0.42
0.59
0.42
aver
age
fund
ing
per
appe
al(u
s$b
illio
n)0.
080.
080.
120.
150.
070.
160.
140.
120.
220.
300.
380.
26
co
nso
lid
Ated
Ap
peA
ls
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
rev
ised
req
uire
men
t(u
s$b
illio
n)1.
92.
64.
45.
23.
03.
84.
94.
86.
39.
57.
78.
1
Fund
ing
(us$
bill
ion)
1.1
1.4
3.0
3.9
2.0
2.3
3.2
3.5
4.5
6.8
4.7
5.1
unm
etn
eed
(us$
bill
ion)
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.8
2.7
3.0
3.1
%n
eeds
met
59.2
%55
.4%
67.5
%76
.0%
68.0
%59
.3%
65.3
%73
.3%
71.9
%71
.8%
61.0
%62
.3%
num
ber
ofc
onso
lidat
eda
ppea
lsin
yea
r14
1824
2522
1517
1513
1515
15
aver
age
requ
irem
ents
per
app
eal(
us$
bill
ion)
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.21
0.13
0.25
0.29
0.32
0.48
0.63
0.51
0.54
aver
age
fund
ing
per
appe
al(u
s$b
illio
n)0.
080.
080.
120.
160.
090.
150.
190.
230.
350.
450.
310.
34
flA
sH A
pp
eAls
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
rev
ised
req
uire
men
t(u
s$b
illio
n)0
00
0.03
0.5
2.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.3
3.6
0.8
Fund
ing
(us$
bill
ion)
00
00.
020.
21.
80.
30.
20.
60.
12.
60.
5
unm
etn
eed
(us$
bill
ion)
00
00.
020.
30.
40.
00.
20.
20.
11.
00.
3
%n
eeds
met
00
050
.7%
39.8
%81
.0%
85.3
%57
.2%
70.8
%51
.6%
71.8
%62
.8%
num
ber
offl
ash
appe
als
iny
ear
00
02
910
715
108
46
aver
age
requ
irem
ents
per
app
eal(
us$
bill
ion)
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.89
0.13
aver
age
fund
ing
per
appe
al(u
s$b
illio
n)0.
010.
020.
180.
040.
010.
060.
020.
640.
08
fiG
uR
e 1:
un
co
nso
lid
Ated
Ap
peA
ls p
Ro
ces
s (c
Ap
) Ap
peA
ls, 2
000-
2011
sour
ce:u
no
Ch
aFt
s
reFerenCetables
94
sour
ce:o
eCd
daC
,un
oC
ha
Fts
and
un
Cer
Fda
ta.*
2011
dat
ais
bas
edo
nco
ntri
butio
nsr
epor
ted
thro
ugh
un
oC
ha
Fts
and
isp
rovi
ded
for
illus
trat
ive
purp
oses
onl
y
fiG
uR
e 2:
to
p 2
0 R
ecip
ien
ts o
f in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
, 200
1-20
10 (u
s$ m
illi
on
)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
*5
YeA
Rs
2006
-201
010
YeA
Rs
2001
-201
0p
ales
tine/
op
t1,
010
afgh
anis
tan
976
iraq
1,29
8ir
aq1,
084
suda
n1,
403
suda
n1,
387
suda
n1,
358
suda
n1,
469
suda
n1,
436
hai
ti3,
065
som
alia
1,14
0su
dan
6,56
0su
dan
9,73
5
afgh
anis
tan
560
pal
estin
e/o
pt
473
ethi
opia
810
suda
n96
5in
done
sia
896
pal
estin
e/o
pt
578
pal
estin
e/o
pt
598
ethi
opia
891
pal
estin
e/o
pt
1,10
3p
akis
tan
2,06
5su
dan
858
pak
ista
n3,
547
pal
estin
e/o
pt
6,48
8se
rbia
307
ango
la27
9af
ghan
ista
n49
7p
ales
tine/
op
t65
7p
akis
tan
748
leba
non
525
dr
C41
5af
ghan
ista
n87
8et
hiop
ia69
9su
dan
909
ethi
opia
762
Hai
ti3,
542
Afg
hani
stan
5,60
5
ethi
opia
215
suda
n26
5p
ales
tine/
op
t46
6et
hiop
ia44
9ir
aq71
2in
done
sia
524
iraq
371
pal
estin
e/o
pt
631
afgh
anis
tan
647
ethi
opia
639
afgh
anis
tan
687
pal
estin
e/o
pt
3,52
8et
hiop
ia5,
256
dr
C18
6d
rC
261
suda
n36
6af
ghan
ista
n43
8et
hiop
ia66
8p
akis
tan
464
leba
non
329
som
alia
606
som
alia
577
pal
estin
e/o
pt
618
ken
ya55
0et
hiop
ia2,
879
iraq
5,24
6su
dan
176
ethi
opia
235
ango
la31
9d
rC
285
sril
anka
555
dr
C42
0af
ghan
ista
n32
6d
rC
529
dr
C57
4af
ghan
ista
n60
5p
akis
tan
460
Afg
hani
stan
2,81
2p
akis
tan
4,56
5ir
aq17
3si
erra
leo
ne17
8d
rC
258
ango
la21
9p
ales
tine/
op
t35
3ir
aq41
6et
hiop
ia30
3m
yanm
ar48
4p
akis
tan
567
dr
C45
6h
aiti
459
dR
c2,
394
Hai
ti3,
708
indi
a15
8st
ates
ex-
yugo
slav
ia1
51er
itrea
179
libe
ria
176
afgh
anis
tan
322
afgh
anis
tan
357
ban
glad
esh
287
iraq
382
iraq
478
ken
ya29
0d
rC
431
som
alia
2,01
8d
Rc
3,69
0b
osni
a-h
erze
govi
na1
56ir
aq14
7b
urun
di15
1u
gand
a16
6d
rC
306
ethi
opia
347
som
alia
275
Zim
babw
e33
9k
enya
404
Cha
d27
8p
ales
tine/
op
t40
5ir
aq1,
831
som
alia
2,74
4an
gola
149
dp
rk
147
uga
nda
147
bur
undi
164
Zim
babw
e21
4so
mal
ia32
1p
akis
tan
251
Chi
na31
5Zi
mba
bwe
400
som
alia
239
Cha
d33
5k
enya
1,44
8in
done
sia
2,43
4si
erra
leo
ne14
2so
mal
ia13
3so
mal
ia14
0so
mal
ia15
8so
mal
ia19
5k
enya
254
indo
nesi
a23
7k
enya
307
Cha
d32
2n
iger
231
yem
en26
4le
bano
n,1
301
ken
ya1,
887
stat
ese
x-yu
gosl
avia
135
Jord
an12
4Jo
rdan
136
iran
139
eritr
ea19
1u
gand
a22
9u
gand
a22
7C
had
249
indo
nesi
a26
9sr
ilan
ka20
5Zi
mba
bwe
190
indo
nesi
a1,
280
sri l
anka
1,81
4Jo
rdan
126
serb
ia11
1si
erra
leo
ne
130
serb
ia13
6u
gand
a18
2sr
ilan
ka16
4sr
ilan
ka21
2sr
ilan
ka24
6sr
ilan
ka24
8Zi
mba
bwe
199
sril
anka
163
Zim
babw
e1,
,218
leba
non
1,74
9m
ozam
biqu
e12
4ta
nzan
ia10
9se
rbia
129
dp
rk
134
bur
undi
170
bur
undi
152
ken
ya19
4u
gand
a23
8sy
ria
176
iraq
185
nig
er16
1c
had
1148
Zim
babw
e1,
688
tanz
ania
115
bur
undi
104
tanz
ania
124
eritr
ea12
4li
beri
a14
6li
beri
a14
9C
had
188
hai
ti21
2m
yanm
ar15
4Jo
rdan
170
Cot
ed’
ivoi
re15
0sr
i lan
ka1,
075
uga
nda
1,56
5so
mal
ia10
1k
enya
95d
pr
k12
0Jo
rdan
110
indi
a13
1Zi
mba
bwe
117
Zim
babw
e16
4p
akis
tan
201
uga
nda
152
leba
non
122
libe
ria
149
uga
nda
929
cha
d1,
407
dp
rk
100
leba
non
91li
beri
a10
6C
had
105
Cha
d12
8C
had
111
Col
ombi
a11
0le
bano
n18
9h
aiti
144
syri
a12
0ir
aq10
9m
yanm
ar83
1Jo
rdan
1,26
6k
enya
90er
itrea
87Zi
mba
bwe
93b
angl
ades
h96
ango
la12
0Jo
rdan
107
Jord
an10
9Jo
rdan
140
Geo
rgia
141
indo
nesi
a11
3li
bya
94Jo
rdan
661
Ang
ola
1,18
8le
bano
n87
Zim
babw
e86
leba
non
82le
bano
n91
Jord
an10
9C
olom
bia
102
bur
undi
108
indo
nesi
a13
8le
bano
n13
6ye
men
111
Cen
tral
afr
ican
r
ep.7
8b
angl
ades
h63
0b
urun
di1,
159
els
alva
dor
85u
gand
a81
ken
ya77
ken
ya91
nig
er10
8n
iger
77li
beri
a10
7ye
men
138
Jord
an13
5m
yanm
ar10
2m
yanm
ar78
bur
undi
491
mya
nmar
995
95
fiG
uR
e 3:
to
p 3
0 d
on
oR
s o
f in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
, 200
1-20
10 (u
s$ m
illi
on
)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
*5
YeA
Rs
2006
-201
010
YeA
Rs
2001
-201
0
uni
ted
stat
es2,
002
uni
ted
stat
es2,
025
uni
ted
stat
es3,
350
uni
ted
stat
es2,
847
uni
ted
stat
es3,
765
uni
ted
stat
es3,
249
uni
ted
stat
es3,
128
uni
ted
stat
es4,
478
uni
ted
stat
es4,
426
uni
ted
stat
es4,
871
uni
ted
stat
es4,
642
uni
ted
stat
es20
,152
uni
ted
stat
es34
,140
eu in
stitu
tions
1,12
9eu
inst
itutio
ns1,
018
eu in
stitu
tions
1,05
8eu
inst
itutio
ns1,
362
eu in
stitu
tions
1,62
7eu
inst
itutio
ns1,
766
eu in
stitu
tions
1,58
7eu
inst
itutio
ns1,
875
eu in
stitu
tions
1,54
4eu
inst
itutio
ns1,
658
eu in
stitu
tions
1,73
2eu
inst
itutio
ns8,
430
eu in
stitu
tions
14,6
24
saud
i Ara
bia
657
uni
ted
kin
gdom
725
uni
ted
kin
gdom
863
Japa
n95
5Ja
pan
924
uni
ted
kin
gdom
1,0
58u
nite
d k
ingd
om 7
57u
nite
d k
ingd
om 8
98u
nite
d k
ingd
om 1
,028
uni
ted
kin
gdom
943
uni
ted
kin
gdom
1,1
00u
nite
d k
ingd
om 4
,684
uni
ted
kin
gdom
8,4
74
uni
ted
kin
gdom
571
Ger
man
y55
1G
erm
any
478
uni
ted
kin
gdom
781
uni
ted
kin
gdom
850
Ger
man
y77
4G
erm
any
612
Ger
man
y68
8G
erm
any
678
Ger
man
y74
4Ja
pan
812
Ger
man
y3,
497
Ger
man
y6,
334
Ger
man
y54
8n
ethe
rlan
ds37
4n
orw
ay39
6G
erm
any
525
Ger
man
y73
5n
ethe
rlan
ds61
9n
ethe
rlan
ds51
6n
ethe
rlan
ds58
1sw
eden
614
swed
en69
0sw
eden
715
swed
en2,
930
swed
en49
51
swed
en44
9Ja
pan
371
swed
en38
9n
ethe
rlan
ds41
7n
ethe
rlan
ds61
4sw
eden
537
swed
en51
2sw
eden
576
spai
n59
6Ja
pan
642
Ger
man
y68
5n
ethe
rlan
ds2,
661
net
herl
ands
4,77
3
net
herl
ands
403
nor
way
362
net
herl
ands
305
fran
ce33
8n
orw
ay54
1fr
ance
430
nor
way
463
spai
n57
5n
ethe
rlan
ds48
6c
anad
a55
0n
orw
ay47
2sp
ain
2,38
2Ja
pan
4,44
2
nor
way
347
swed
en35
9Ja
pan
288
swed
en32
8sw
eden
496
nor
way
421
spai
n36
8sa
udi A
rabi
a56
6n
orw
ay41
5sp
ain
496
can
ada
464
nor
way
2,19
8n
orw
ay4,
156
ital
y29
3it
aly
340
fran
ce26
5n
orw
ay31
2fr
ance
366
spai
n34
7fr
ance
361
nor
way
429
Aus
tral
ia40
1n
orw
ay47
0A
ustr
alia
439
can
ada
2,04
9fr
ance
3,53
4
fran
ce28
7fr
ance
279
ital
y26
3it
aly
312
ital
y34
0it
aly
333
can
ada
349
can
ada
422
can
ada
398
net
herl
ands
459
spai
n40
8fr
ance
1,99
8sp
ain
3,35
7
Japa
n23
4A
ustr
alia
274
can
ada
240
can
ada
225
Aus
tral
ia31
0c
anad
a32
9it
aly
345
fran
ce40
1fr
ance
371
fran
ce43
5n
ethe
rlan
ds33
8it
aly
1,67
9it
aly
3,22
6
switz
erla
nd23
1sw
itzer
land
233
Aus
tral
ia22
2sw
itzer
land
221
den
mar
k29
7d
enm
ark
287
den
mar
k24
9it
aly
383
uA
e 35
3A
ustr
alia
390
fran
ce33
7Ja
pan
1,67
0c
anad
a3,
215
can
ada
220
can
ada
214
switz
erla
nd21
6sp
ain
206
spai
n28
6A
ustr
alia
278
switz
erla
nd23
0A
ustr
alia
356
ital
y33
4it
aly
283
ital
y31
8A
ustr
alia
1,62
2A
ustr
alia
2,79
4
Aus
tral
ia17
8d
enm
ark
142
spai
n19
6A
ustr
alia
187
switz
erla
nd26
8Ja
pan
251
saud
i Ara
bia
212
Japa
n31
6Ja
pan
310
den
mar
k25
9d
enm
ark
272
den
mar
k1,
290
switz
erla
nd2,
252
den
mar
k16
9sp
ain
128
den
mar
k16
0d
enm
ark
144
can
ada
268
switz
erla
nd24
7ir
elan
d20
8d
enm
ark
269
den
mar
k22
6sa
udi A
rabi
a25
6b
elgi
um26
8sa
udi A
rabi
a1,
247
den
mar
k2,
202
96
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
*5
YeA
Rs
2006
-201
010
YeA
Rs
2001
-201
0
spai
n15
8b
elgi
um92
bel
gium
92b
elgi
um12
5b
elgi
um14
5b
elgi
um17
1au
stra
lia19
8b
elgi
um20
6sw
itzer
land
192
bel
gium
227
switz
erla
nd24
2sw
itzer
land
1,08
3sa
udi A
rabi
a2,
138
bel
gium
96Fi
nlan
d85
Finl
and
84u
ae10
1Fi
nlan
d13
2sa
udia
rabi
a13
1b
elgi
um15
9ir
elan
d20
3b
elgi
um19
1sw
itzer
land
211
finl
and
159
bel
gium
954
bel
gium
1,50
5
Finl
and
81ir
elan
d48
saud
iara
bia
58Fi
nlan
d78
saud
iara
bia
112
Finl
and
131
Japa
n15
0sw
itzer
land
202
Finl
and
143
Finl
and
167
irel
and
129
irel
and
791
finl
and
1,17
8
irel
and
55G
reec
e35
irel
and
53ir
elan
d63
uae
100
irel
and
120
Finl
and
144
Finl
and
133
irel
and
131
irel
and
128
uA
e89
finl
and
718
irel
and
1,10
7
luxe
mbo
urg
33lu
xem
bour
g30
aust
ria
32au
stri
a41
irel
and
98au
stri
a64
aust
ria
54u
ae11
0sa
udia
rabi
a82
uae
114
chi
na87
uA
e66
5u
Ae
869
Gre
ece
33sa
udia
rabi
a29
Gre
ece
32p
ortu
gal
39tu
rkey
79G
reec
e56
Gre
ece
46k
uwai
t96
aust
ria
72au
stri
a65
saud
i Ara
bia
83A
ustr
ia34
4A
ustr
ia54
5
aust
ria
32au
stri
a25
luxe
mbo
urg
30G
reec
e39
aust
ria
71lu
xem
bour
g53
uae
45au
stri
a89
luxe
mbo
urg
52tu
rkey
61lu
xem
bour
g70
luxe
mbo
urg
247
Gre
ece
431
por
tuga
l22
sout
haf
rica
20k
uwai
t28
luxe
mbo
urg
38C
hina
66u
ae44
new
Zea
land
42G
reec
e51
Gre
ece
47lu
xem
bour
g54
turk
ey64
Gre
ece
239
luxe
mbo
urg
414
kor
ea
18r
ussi
a18
new
Zea
land
17sa
udia
rabi
a35
new
Zea
land
65n
ewZ
eala
nd32
luxe
mbo
urg
42lu
xem
bour
g46
kuw
ait
40r
ussi
a40
Aus
tria
53k
uwai
t18
2n
ew Z
eala
nd29
8
new
Zea
land
8p
ortu
gal
18r
ussi
a17
new
Zea
land
24G
reec
e53
por
tuga
l30
por
tuga
l21
rus
sia
44r
ussi
a32
Gre
ece
39n
ew Z
eala
nd33
new
Zea
land
170
por
tuga
l25
7
Qat
ar1
new
Zea
land
13p
ortu
gal
16r
ussi
a17
Qat
ar46
kuw
ait
24k
orea
17
new
Zea
land
34n
ewZ
eala
nd32
Chi
na38
Gre
ece
32R
ussi
a14
0k
uwai
t23
7
Chi
na1
indi
a7
Qat
ar15
kor
ea
16p
ortu
gal
38k
orea
24
turk
ey11
thai
land
29p
ortu
gal
23in
dia
37k
orea
29
por
tuga
l12
4R
ussi
a21
3
rus
sia
1k
orea
6
indi
a13
kuw
ait
11lu
xem
bour
g36
rus
sia
20k
uwai
t11
kor
ea
27k
orea
22
new
Zea
land
31b
razi
l29
kor
ea
114
turk
ey19
2
sout
haf
rica
0al
geri
a5
sout
haf
rica
9tu
rkey
10k
orea
28
sout
haf
rica
16C
hina
7p
ortu
gal
25in
dia
14b
razi
l29
Rus
sia
26tu
rkey
98k
orea
18
7
hun
gary
0tu
rkey
4k
orea
5
sout
haf
rica
5k
yrgy
zsta
n27
turk
ey11
Cze
ch
rep
ublic
3k
azak
hsta
n10
Qat
ar13
kaz
akhs
tan
25p
ortu
gal
23in
dia
58c
hina
126
not
e:d
ata
for
mem
bers
oft
heo
eCd
daC
,200
1-20
10,i
nclu
des
core
od
ato
un
hC
r,u
nr
wa
and
wFp
(and
toe
uin
stitu
tions
whe
rea
pplic
able
).it
ise
xpre
ssed
inc
onst
ant2
010
pric
es.d
ata
for
othe
rdo
nors
ista
ken
from
un
oC
ha
Fts
and
isin
cur
rent
pri
ces.
all
figur
esin
clud
eco
ntri
butio
nsth
roug
hth
eu
n’s
Cen
tral
em
erge
ncy
res
pons
eFu
nd(C
erF)
and
poo
led
fund
ing
mec
hani
sms.
*d
ata
for
2011
isp
relim
inar
y.s
ourc
e:d
evel
opm
enti
nitia
tives
bas
edo
no
eCd
daC
an
du
no
Ch
aFt
sda
ta
97
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
5 Ye
AR
s 20
06-2
010
10 Y
eAR
s 20
01-2
010
indi
a2,
526
pak
ista
n2,
705
iraq
2,82
8ir
aq5,
245
iraq
9,04
9ir
aq5,
964
afgh
anis
tan
5,06
7af
ghan
ista
n4,
850
afgh
anis
tan
6,33
0af
ghan
ista
n6,
369
Afg
hani
stan
25,8
68
Afg
hani
stan
36,4
11
pak
ista
n2,
513
indi
a2,
442
viet
nam
2,28
4af
ghan
ista
n2,
694
afgh
anis
tan
3,20
5af
ghan
ista
n3,
252
iraq
4,56
3ir
aq3,
299
ethi
opia
3,84
1et
hiop
ia3,
518
iraq
18,8
27
iraq
36,3
33
Chi
na2,
241
Chi
na2,
110
tanz
ania
2,11
0vi
etna
m2,
174
indo
nesi
a2,
433
pak
ista
n2,
425
viet
nam
2,72
9et
hiop
ia3,
231
viet
nam
3,80
3p
akis
tan
2,99
9et
hiop
ia15
,164
Vi
etna
m24
,893
se
rbia
2,15
9af
ghan
ista
n1,
902
afgh
anis
tan
2,03
8C
hina
2,00
0vi
etna
m2,
227
suda
n2,
246
ethi
opia
2,55
5vi
etna
m2,
580
tanz
ania
2,95
7ta
nzan
ia2,
957
Viet
nam
14,1
77
ethi
opia
24,7
67
viet
nam
2,14
9vi
etna
m1,
884
ethi
opia
1,99
8et
hiop
ia1,
969
ethi
opia
2,12
8vi
etna
m2,
132
pak
ista
n2,
311
suda
n2,
523
iraq
2,83
8vi
etna
m2,
932
tanz
ania
12,3
26
pak
ista
n21
,292
in
done
sia
1,97
9et
hiop
ia1,
834
Chi
na1,
719
tanz
ania
1,91
9C
hina
2,12
7et
hiop
ia2,
020
tanz
ania
2,21
1p
ales
tine/
op
t2,
390
pal
estin
e/o
pt
2,82
9h
aiti
2,91
6p
akis
tan
12,0
49
tanz
ania
20,8
53
ethi
opia
1,67
3m
ozam
biqu
e1,
763
ban
glad
esh
1,65
7p
akis
tan
1,61
0in
dia
2,06
5ta
nzan
ia1,
951
suda
n2,
163
tanz
ania
2,25
1p
akis
tan
2,80
4in
dia
2,80
6su
dan
11,3
62
indi
a18
,949
p
ales
tine/
op
t1,
559
indo
nesi
a1,
640
Jord
an1,
566
ban
glad
esh
1,60
6su
dan
2,06
0m
ozam
biqu
e1,
628
moz
ambi
que
1,79
8in
dia
2,11
2in
dia
2,53
0p
ales
tine/
op
t2,
517
pal
estin
e/o
pt
11,0
34
pal
estin
e/o
pt
17,9
51
egyp
t1,
482
dr
C1,
549
indo
nesi
a1,
491
egyp
t1,
573
pak
ista
n1,
878
uga
nda
1,62
7p
ales
tine/
op
t1,
767
ban
glad
esh
2,00
7su
dan
2,38
4ir
aq2,
164
indi
a10
,288
m
ozam
biqu
e16
,682
b
angl
ades
h1,
404
egyp
t1,
510
serb
ia1,
437
moz
ambi
que
1,46
1ta
nzan
ia1,
686
pal
estin
e/o
pt
1,53
1u
gand
a1,
753
moz
ambi
que
1,91
6d
rC
2,21
9su
dan
2,04
6m
ozam
biqu
e9,
311
chi
na16
,496
ta
nzan
ia1,
348
tanz
ania
1,46
3m
ozam
biqu
e1,
352
uga
nda
1,40
7m
ozam
biqu
e1,
487
indi
a1,
483
Chi
na1,
605
uga
nda
1,59
1m
ozam
biqu
e2,
018
nig
eria
2,04
4u
gand
a8,
488
suda
n16
,124
m
ozam
biqu
e1,
308
pal
estin
e/o
pt
1,45
8p
ales
tine/
op
t1,
347
pal
estin
e/o
pt
1,
376
ban
glad
esh
1,48
2C
hina
1,47
8b
angl
ades
h1,
503
dr
C1,
575
uga
nda
1,79
4d
rC
2,02
7d
Rc
8,26
7 u
gand
a14
,777
u
gand
a1,
252
stat
ese
x-yu
gosl
avia
1,1
34
uga
nda
1,26
1se
rbia
1,33
5d
rC
1,43
9in
done
sia
1,37
6in
dia
1,35
6eg
ypt
1,53
2k
enya
1,78
8m
ozam
biqu
e1,
951
ban
glad
esh
7,48
4 b
angl
ades
h14
,741
b
osni
a-h
erze
govi
na1
,015
b
angl
ades
h1,
108
Gha
na1,
160
Gha
na1,
222
sril
anka
1,35
6d
rC
1,31
6k
enya
1,32
1p
akis
tan
1,51
0n
iger
ia1,
671
uga
nda
1,72
3k
enya
7,04
8 in
done
sia
13,7
18
Gha
na97
4Za
mbi
a1,
105
bol
ivia
1,15
8d
rC
1,21
2u
gand
a1,
351
ban
glad
esh
1,31
5m
oroc
co1,
250
Chi
na1,
456
Gha
na1,
582
Gha
na1,
690
Gha
na6,
942
dR
c13
,609
b
oliv
ia96
7u
gand
a1,
018
egyp
t1,
036
suda
n1,
162
Gha
na1,
215
Gha
na1,
244
nig
eria
1,18
1m
oroc
co1,
401
turk
ey1,
328
ken
ya1,
627
nig
eria
6,62
9 G
hana
12,3
94
hon
dura
s93
9se
rbia
996
Col
ombi
a96
7m
oroc
co96
1p
ales
tine/
op
t1,
177
mor
occo
1,24
3G
hana
1,17
0k
enya
1,33
1Za
mbi
a1,
261
ban
glad
esh
1,41
3c
hina
6,30
1 eg
ypt
11,2
17
nic
arag
ua84
0b
oliv
ia88
7p
hilip
pine
s92
1b
oliv
ia91
1se
rbia
1,00
3C
olom
bia
1,09
5d
rC
1,12
9G
hana
1,25
6b
angl
ades
h1,
247
indo
nesi
a1,
390
Hai
ti6,
222
serb
ia10
,971
p
hilip
pine
s81
4G
hana
881
sril
anka
865
Zam
bia
903
egyp
t96
0se
rbia
994
leba
non
993
indo
nesi
a1,
206
Chi
na1,
117
mal
i1,
086
indo
nesi
a5,
977
ken
ya10
,498
Za
mbi
a7
99
bos
nia-
her
zego
vina
846
so
uth
afri
ca83
2m
adag
asca
r87
7Za
mbi
a93
8k
enya
980
egyp
t98
3n
iger
ia1,
194
hai
ti1,
111
bur
kina
Fas
o1,
058
mor
occo
5,78
6 m
oroc
co 9
,632
fiG
uR
e 4:
to
p 2
0 R
ecip
ien
ts o
f to
tAl
od
A, (
us$
mil
lio
n, c
on
stA
nt
2010
pR
ices
)
sour
ce:d
evel
opm
enti
nitia
tives
bas
edo
no
eCd
daC
dat
a
98
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
*5
YeA
Rs
2006
-201
010
YeA
Rs
2001
-201
0
uni
ted
stat
es13
,853
u
nite
dst
ates
15,3
83
uni
ted
stat
es17
,502
u
nite
dst
ates
22,3
96
uni
ted
stat
es26
,454
u
nite
dst
ates
23,4
88
uni
ted
stat
es22
,656
u
nite
dst
ates
26,8
01
uni
ted
stat
es28
,984
u
nite
dst
ates
30,3
26
uni
ted
stat
es29
,082
u
nite
dst
ates
132,
255
uni
ted
stat
es22
7,84
3Ja
pan
11,6
87
Japa
n11
,432
Ja
pan
9,87
6eu
inst
itutio
ns10
,197
eu
inst
itutio
ns10
,793
eu
inst
itutio
ns11
,453
eu
inst
itutio
ns11
,654
eu
inst
itutio
ns12
,189
eu
inst
itutio
ns12
,724
u
nite
dk
ingd
om1
2,88
9G
erm
any
13,3
17
euin
stitu
tions
60,6
76
euin
stitu
tions
110,
190
euin
stitu
tions
10,3
45
euin
stitu
tions
8,76
3eu
inst
itutio
ns9,
416
Japa
n10
,020
Ja
pan
10,3
03
Japa
n10
,123
G
erm
any
9,39
0G
erm
any
10,6
70
Ger
man
y11
,476
G
erm
any
12,8
52
uni
ted
kin
gdom
12
,780
G
erm
any
52,9
37
Japa
n10
2,01
8G
erm
any
7,84
4G
erm
any
7,00
5u
nite
dk
ingd
om6
,940
Fr
ance
7,94
5Fr
ance
7,72
8G
erm
any
8,54
9Fr
ance
8,42
8u
nite
dk
ingd
om9
,770
uni
ted
kin
gdom
11
,427
eu
inst
itutio
ns12
,657
eu
inst
itutio
ns
11,8
54
uni
ted
kin
gdom
50
,508
G
erm
any
89,9
52
Fran
ce6,
496
Fran
ce6,
678
Ger
man
y6,
915
Ger
man
y7,
898
Ger
man
y7,
354
uni
ted
kin
gdom
8,2
86
uni
ted
kin
gdom
8,1
35
Fran
ce9,
241
Japa
n10
,746
Fr
ance
11,4
38
Fran
ce11
,065
Ja
pan
48,6
99
Fran
ce82
,668
u
nite
dk
ingd
om5
,640
u
nite
dk
ingd
om5
,433
Fr
ance
5,99
4u
nite
dk
ingd
om6
,951
u
nite
dk
ingd
om7
,002
Fr
ance
7,98
3Ja
pan
7,92
0Ja
pan
9,06
9Fr
ance
10,7
36
Japa
n10
,842
Ja
pan
9,80
2Fr
ance
47,8
26
uni
ted
kin
gdom
82,4
74
net
herl
ands
5,39
0n
ethe
rlan
ds4,
812
net
herl
ands
4,80
0n
ethe
rlan
ds4,
651
net
herl
ands
5,42
8n
ethe
rlan
ds5,
692
net
herl
ands
5,81
3
net
herl
ands
6,36
4sp
ain
6,19
6n
ethe
rlan
ds5,
858
net
herl
ands
5,83
6n
ethe
rlan
ds29
,877
n
ethe
rlan
ds54
,958
d
enm
ark
2,94
6sa
udia
rabi
a3,
630
nor
way
3,32
9C
anad
a3,
669
Can
ada
4,32
5sw
eden
4,10
7sp
ain
4,87
4sp
ain
6,02
1n
ethe
rlan
ds6,
150
spai
n5,
610
Can
ada
4,92
6sp
ain
26,3
98
Can
ada
40,3
03
italy
2,89
5C
anad
a3,
251
Can
ada
3,12
2n
orw
ay3,
254
italy
3,97
6C
anad
a4,
088
Can
ada
4,45
5C
anad
a4,
902
swed
en4,
870
Can
ada
5,15
1sw
eden
4,84
8C
anad
a23
,102
sp
ain
39,9
68
Can
ada
2,83
5n
orw
ay3,
218
saud
iara
bia
3,06
4sw
eden
3,09
0sw
eden
3,82
3sp
ain
3,69
8sw
eden
4,27
0sa
udia
rabi
a4,
880
nor
way
4,50
6n
orw
ay4,
563
nor
way
4,17
8sw
eden
22,3
12
swed
en37
,912
n
orw
ay2,
803
swed
en3,
126
swed
en2,
840
italy
2,78
3n
orw
ay3,
656
nor
way
3,51
3n
orw
ay3,
938
swed
en4,
533
Can
ada
4,50
6sw
eden
4,53
3au
stra
lia4,
034
nor
way
20,2
92
nor
way
36,5
52
swed
en2,
721
spai
n2,
803
spai
n2,
612
spai
n2,
731
spai
n2,
822
aust
ralia
2,60
2ita
ly3,
457
nor
way
3,77
2au
stra
lia3,
411
aust
ralia
3,81
9sp
ain
3,97
0au
stra
lia15
,858
ita
ly30
,138
sp
ain
2,60
2ita
ly2,
778
italy
2,45
3d
enm
ark
2,48
9d
enm
ark
2,49
7d
enm
ark
2,47
4au
stra
lia2,
894
italy
3,73
6sa
udia
rabi
a3,
163
saud
iara
bia
3,48
0ita
ly3,
445
saud
iara
bia
15,3
76
aust
ralia
27,2
58
aust
ralia
2,14
3d
enm
ark
2,69
4d
enm
ark
2,41
9au
stra
lia2,
296
aust
ralia
2,43
6ita
ly2,
312
den
mar
k2,
545
aust
ralia
3,13
2ita
ly2,
982
den
mar
k2,
824
den
mar
k2,
802
italy
15,2
54
den
mar
k26
,199
sw
itzer
land
1,61
1au
stra
lia2,
253
aust
ralia
2,27
0sa
udia
rabi
a2,
033
switz
erla
nd1,
986
saud
iara
bia
2,25
6u
ae2,
499
den
mar
k2,
583
den
mar
k2,
729
italy
2,76
7sw
itzer
land
2,53
9d
enm
ark
13,1
55
saud
iara
bia
25,5
87
bel
gium
1,44
9sw
itzer
land
1,53
0sw
itzer
land
1,76
1sw
itzer
land
1,97
0b
elgi
um1,
751
switz
erla
nd1,
959
switz
erla
nd1,
915
bel
gium
2,1
61
bel
gium
2,42
6b
elgi
um2,
452
bel
gium
2,48
1b
elgi
um10
,629
sw
itzer
land
19,2
79
uae
742
bel
gium
1,50
0b
elgi
um1,
487
bel
gium
1,50
9sa
udia
rabi
a1,
172
bel
gium
1,79
3b
elgi
um1,
797
switz
erla
nd2,
044
switz
erla
nd2,
234
switz
erla
nd2,
270
turk
ey1,
337
switz
erla
nd10
,420
b
elgi
um18
,325
au
stri
a66
5u
ae81
8u
ae1,
187
Finl
and
760
Finl
and
868
irel
and
998
saud
iara
bia
1,59
8u
ae1,
241
Finl
and
1,23
2Fi
nlan
d1,
333
Finl
and
1,27
5u
ae5,
865
uae
9,76
2Fi
nlan
d63
1Fi
nlan
d70
6Fi
nlan
d71
6au
stri
a69
0tu
rkey
782
Finl
and
946
irel
and
1,05
5ir
elan
d1,
141
aust
ria
1,04
7k
orea
1,17
1k
orea
1,24
2Fi
nlan
d5,
593
Finl
and
9,27
4p
ortu
gal
452
irel
and
582
aust
ria
616
irel
and
640
aust
ria
775
uae
872
Finl
and
991
Finl
and
1,09
1ir
elan
d93
3au
stri
a1,
053
aust
ria
995
irel
and
5,02
3au
stri
a8,
066
fiG
uR
e 5:
to
p 2
0 d
on
oR
s o
f o
ffic
iAl
deV
elo
pm
ent
Ass
istA
nc
e (o
dA
), (u
s$ m
illi
on
, co
nst
An
t 20
10 p
Ric
es)
sour
ce:d
evel
opm
enti
nitia
tives
bas
edo
no
eCd
daC
.*d
ata
for
2011
isp
relim
inar
y
99
biG
Ges
t d
on
oR
s in
201
0 (u
s$m
)m
ost
Gen
eRo
us
co
un
tRie
s in
201
0 (%
Gn
i)m
ost
Gen
eRo
us
co
un
tRie
s in
201
0 (u
s$ p
eR c
itiZ
en)
mo
st p
Rio
Rit
Y to
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
Wit
Hin
o
VeR
All
Aid
pR
oG
RA
mm
es in
201
0 (%
od
A)
1u
nite
dst
ates
4,8
71
swed
en0.
15%
luxe
mbo
urg
109
uae
27.6
%
2eu
inst
itutio
ns1
,658
lu
xem
bour
g0.
14%
nor
way
97u
nite
dst
ates
16.1
%
3u
nite
dk
ingd
om9
43
Gam
bia
0.13
%sw
eden
74sw
eden
15.2
%
4G
erm
any
744
n
orw
ay0.
11%
den
mar
k47
irel
and
14.3
%
5sw
eden
690
d
enm
ark
0.08
%Fi
nlan
d31
luxe
mbo
urg
13.3
%
6Ja
pan
642
ir
elan
d0.
07%
irel
and
28eu
inst
itutio
ns13
.1%
7C
anad
a5
50
Finl
and
0.07
%sw
itzer
land
28Fi
nlan
d12
.5%
8sp
ain
496
sa
udia
rabi
a0.
06%
net
herl
ands
28C
anad
a10
.7%
9n
orw
ay4
70
net
herl
ands
0.06
%u
ae24
nor
way
10.3
%
10n
ethe
rlan
ds4
59
bel
gium
0.05
%m
onac
o23
italy
10.2
%
11Fr
ance
435
G
uyan
a0.
05%
bel
gium
21au
stra
lia10
.2%
12au
stra
lia3
90
uni
ted
kin
gdom
0.04
%li
echt
enst
ein
19sw
itzer
land
9.3%
13ita
ly2
83
uae
0.04
%au
stra
lia18
bel
gium
9.3%
14d
enm
ark
259
sw
itzer
land
0.04
%C
anad
a16
den
mar
k9.
2%
15sa
udia
rabi
a2
56
spai
n0.
04%
uni
ted
stat
es15
new
Zea
land
9.0%
16b
elgi
um2
27
Can
ada
0.04
%u
nite
dk
ingd
om15
spai
n8.
8%
17sw
itzer
land
211
u
nite
dst
ates
0.03
%sp
ain
11b
razi
l8.
0%
18Fi
nlan
d1
67
aust
ralia
0.03
%sa
udia
rabi
a10
net
herl
ands
7.8%
19ir
elan
d1
28
new
Zea
land
0.02
%G
erm
any
9G
reec
e7.
8%
20u
ae1
14
Ger
man
y0.
02%
aust
ria
8es
toni
a7.
5%
21au
stri
a6
5d
rC
0.02
%n
ewZ
eala
nd7
uni
ted
kin
gdom
7.3%
22tu
rkey
61
tim
or-l
este
0.02
%Fr
ance
7au
stri
a6.
2%
23lu
xem
bour
g5
4k
azak
hsta
n0.
02%
bah
rain
6Ja
pan
5.9%
24r
ussi
anF
eder
atio
n4
0eq
uato
rial
Gui
nea
0.02
%Ja
pan
5G
erm
any
5.8%
25G
reec
e3
9au
stri
a0.
02%
italy
5k
uwai
t5.
0%
26C
hina
38
Fran
ce0.
02%
Gre
ece
4r
ussi
anF
eder
atio
n4.
1%
27in
dia
37
sain
tluc
ia0.
02%
bri
tish
virg
inis
land
s(u
nite
dk
ingd
om)
3Fr
ance
3.8%
28n
ewZ
eala
nd3
1sa
intv
ince
nta
ndth
eG
rena
dine
s0.
01%
kuw
ait
3p
ortu
gal
3.8%
29b
razi
l2
9ita
ly0.
01%
ando
rra
3sa
udia
rabi
a2.
6%
30k
azak
hsta
n2
5G
rena
da0.
01%
san
mar
ino
3li
echt
enst
ein
2.5%
fiG
uR
e 6:
tH
e 30
lA
RG
est
Go
VeR
nm
ent
co
ntR
ibu
toR
s o
f H
um
An
itA
RiA
n A
id in
201
0
not
es:G
nid
ata
for
oeC
dd
aCm
embe
rsis
bas
edo
nda
tac
olle
cted
by
the
oeC
dd
aC(i
nco
nsta
nt2
010
pric
es);
Gn
idat
afo
rdo
nors
who
are
not
mem
bers
oft
heo
eCd
daC
isb
ased
on
wor
ldb
ank
data
(cur
rent
pri
ces)
.od
afo
rdo
nors
w
hoa
ren
otm
embe
rso
fthe
oeC
dis
incl
usiv
eof
deb
trel
ief,
and
for
Chi
naa
ndb
razi
lis
base
don
dat
afo
ro
da-
like
conc
essi
onal
flow
sco
llect
edb
yth
eo
eCd
daC
;dat
afo
rb
razi
lis
base
don
the
late
sta
vaila
ble
year
,200
9.
sour
ce:d
evel
opm
enti
nitia
tives
bas
edo
no
eCd
daC
,un
oC
ha
Fts,
wor
ldb
ank
and
uni
ted
nat
ions
dep
artm
ento
feco
nom
ica
nds
ocia
laffa
irs
(un
des
a)
100
do
mes
tic
flo
Ws
off
iciA
l in
teR
nAt
ion
Al
flo
Ws
pR
iVAt
e fl
oW
s
Rec
ipie
nt
Go
VeR
nm
ent
ReV
enu
es
(eXc
lud
inG
GR
An
ts)
mu
ltil
AteR
Al
peA
cek
eep
inG
otH
eR o
ffic
iAl
flo
Ws
no
n-H
um
An
itA
RiA
n
od
Ain
teR
nAt
ion
Al
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
A
ssis
tAn
ce
Rem
ittA
nc
esfo
Rei
Gn
diR
ect
inVe
stm
ent
suda
n1
2,40
62,
746
86
1,1
35
909
3,
178
1600
pal
estin
e/o
pt
no
data
1
41
91
,899
6
18
1,3
07
115
afgh
anis
tan
3,3
56
770
8
85
,779
6
05
no
data
76
ethi
opia
5,5
30
-
174
2
,882
6
39
387
1
84
iraq
68,
729
193
-
1
,965
1
85
no
data
1
,426
pak
ista
n3
5,83
0-
7
32
1,5
39
2,0
65
9,4
07
2,0
16
hai
ti1
,811
6
12
-
1,3
15
3,0
65
1,4
99
150
dr
C4
,180
1
,390
1
31
,568
4
56
no
data
2
,939
som
alia
no
data
1
60
-
258
2
39
no
data
1
12
indo
nesi
a1
29,1
17
-
5,3
89
1,2
76
113
7
,139
1
3,30
4
ken
ya1
0,39
7-
1
09
1,3
40
290
1
,758
1
33
sril
anka
11,
319
-
231
3
77
205
3
,612
4
78
leba
non
11,
279
519
1
01
325
1
22
8,1
77
4,9
55
Zim
babw
e2
,224
-
2
5
32
199
n
oda
ta
105
uga
nda
3,3
86
-
105
1
,641
8
27
73
848
Cha
d2
,607
2
15
44
214
2
78
no
data
7
81
Jord
an7
,989
-
4
78
784
1
70
3,7
89
1,7
04
ango
la2
9,03
3-
6
82
28
1
82
9,9
42
bur
undi
814
-
-
5
65
61
3
14
mya
nmar
5,0
68
-
2
251
1
02
154
7
56
not
e:a
sm
allp
ropo
rtio
nof
inte
rnat
iona
lhum
anita
rian
aid
isfr
omp
riva
tes
ourc
es.r
emitt
ance
dat
afo
ran
gola
isb
ased
on
2008
val
ues.
sou
rce:
dev
elop
men
tini
tiativ
esb
ased
on
oeC
dd
aC,u
no
Ch
aFt
s,w
orld
ban
k,im
F,
sip
ria
ndu
nC
tad
dat
a
fiG
uR
e 7:
Hu
mA
nit
AR
iAn
Aid
to
cR
isis
-Aff
ecte
d c
ou
ntR
ies
in c
on
teXt
Wit
H o
tHeR
off
iciA
l A
nd
pR
iVAt
e fl
oW
s in
201
0 (u
s$ m
illi
on
)
101
aCknowledGements
thankyou
theGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)teamwouldliketothankthemanypeoplewhohavebeeninvolvedinhelpingusputGhareport2012together:ourcolleaguesatdevelopmentinitiatives;dianebroadleyofbroadleydesignanddavidrobinsonofhype&slippersfortheircreativityandcommitment;davidwilsonforproofreadingthereport;Jonlewisatessentialprintmanagementforhisroleinproduction;andtonkoene,dFid,thepressassociation,iCrCandFaoforprovidingthephotographs;kristenknutsonandJeffreyvillavecesatunoCha,matthobsonattheworldbank,ricardorubioatmsFinternationalandoliviervanbunnenattheiFrCfortheirpatientexplanationsandforprovidinguswithdataandinformation.
wewouldliketothanktheprogramme’sfundersfortheirsupport:theinternationalhumanitarianassistancedirectorate(iha)oftheCanadianinternationaldevelopmentagency(Cida);thedepartmentforhumanitarianassistanceandnGoCooperation,ministryofForeignaffairs,denmark;thehumanitarianaiddivisionoftheministryofForeignaffairs,thenetherlands;theswedishinternationaldevelopmentCooperationagency(sida),sweden;andthedepartmentforinternationaldevelopment(dFid),theunitedkingdom.
theGhareport2012wasauthoredbylydiapoole(Ghaprogrammeleader).lisawalmsley(headofinformationservices)ledoninformationdesignandeditorialproduction.Ghateammembersprovidedsubstantialdataanalysisandresearch:danielemalerba,dansparks,hannahsweeney,kerrysmithandvelinastoianova.andreadelgadoandChloestirkcontributedadditionalresearchassistance.Georginabreretoncoordinatedproduction.editorialguidancewasprovidedbyexecutivedirector,Judithrandelanddirectorofresearch,analysisandevidence,danCoppard.
102
developmentinitiativesisanindependentorganisationthatseesimprovingaideffectivenessaspartofitscommitmenttotheeliminationofabsolutepovertyby2025.Globalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)isadataaccessandtransparencyprogrammeofdevelopmentinitiativeswhichanalysesresourceflowstopeoplelivinginhumanitariancrises,andresearchesandpublishesannualGhareports.theprogrammeisfundedbythegovernmentsofCanada,denmark,netherlands,swedenandtheunitedkingdom.thereportisproducedentirelyindependently.thedataanalysis,contentandpresentationaresolelytheworkofdevelopmentinitiativesandarearepresentationofitsopinionsalone.
Forfurtherdetailsonthecontentofthisreportincludingcommunicationwithitsauthors,ortoaskquestionsorprovidecomments,pleasecontactusbyemail([email protected])orvisitourwebsiteatwww.globalhumanitarianassistance.org
developmentinitiatives,kewardCourtJocelyndrive,wells,somerset,ba51db,uk
t:+44(0)1749671343F:+44(0)1749676721
Ghareport2012usesthelatestdatatopresentthemostcomprehensiveassessmentoftheinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponse.thereportconsidershowthisresponsehasmeasureduptothescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesandreflectsonthetimeliness,proportionality,andphasingofinvestments.Chaptersonhumanitarianfunding(thedonors,recipientsandchannelsofdelivery),theforceswhichshapehumanitarianneed,andtheinvestmentsneededtotacklevulnerability,revealthecomplexityofhumanitarianresponse.inaworldwherecrisisseemsincreasinglylikelytobethenorm,buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskiskey.transparentandreliableinformation,asprovidedbyGhareport2012,isessentialforallthoseworkingtoaddresshumanitariancrisisandvulnerability.
www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org