disaster risk reduction investments in africa
TRANSCRIPT
Disaster risk reduction investments in Africa
Overall, investments in disaster risk reduction in Africa remain low.
UNISDR
Most African countries have limited resources to invest in disaster risk reduc5on and minimal fiscal space to fund relief and recovery efforts a:er a major disaster.
World Bank
A useful target in this regard, is for governments and donors to integrate both disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation concerns into relevant public, private and household investment decisions, based on principles of cost-effectiveness and acceptable levels of risk to human life.
UNISDR
Governments often lack the
capacity to disaggregate
specific budgetary allocations
to disaster risk reduction.
A close examination shows that African countries are experimenting with different approaches to offset the impacts of natural hazards on their economies, with contingency funds, emerging risk transfer schemes, as well as investments to address disaster risk in their national and local public planning and budgeting.
Document InformationDocument InformationDocument Version Number
0
Document Type Very first draft report
Short Title DRR Investment in Africa
Long Title Disaster risk reduction investment in Africa
Applicability Africa
Status Draft (not language edited)
Author(s) Dewald van NiekerkChristo CoetzeeChristiaan BeckerLeandri HildebrandtKristel FourieElrista AnnandaleBradley ShoromaElza SnymanMichael MurphreeGideon Wentink
Date of this version 6 February 2013
How to cite this document
Van Niekerk, D., Coetzee, C., Becker, C., Hildebrandt, L., Fourie, K., Annandale, E., Shoroma, B., Snyman, E., Murphree, M.J. and Wentink. G. 2013. Disaster risk reduction investments in Africa. UNISDR: Nairobi.
Copyright and instructions
© 2013 UNISDR Africa
2
Table of contents
Executive summary! 5
Introduction! 9
Notes on terminology! 10
Main impetus to report! 11
Methodology! 12
Literature study! 12
Data collection! 13
Data analysis! 13
Building blocks of disaster risk: Vulnerability as driving factor! 14
Political Vulnerability! 16
Economic Vulnerability! 16
Physical Vulnerability! 18
Social Vulnerability! 18
Environmental Vulnerability! 19
Vulnerability: Quantity vs Quality! 20
Limitations to the study and reporting on disaster risk reduction investments ! 22
Tracking disaster risk reduction investments! 23
Who funds disaster risk reduction?! 23
How much is being funded?! 27
Governments’ reporting on disaster risk reduction investment! 30
Cross-sectoral disaster risk reduction investment! 33
Community based interventions and investments in disaster risk reduction! 34
Market related disaster risk reduction investment! 37
Developing a tracking methodology for Governments! 38
3
Components of the methodology! 38
Conclusion and recommendations ! 43
References ! 44
Annexure 1: Selected case studies ! 46
Botswana! 46
Ethiopia! 48
Ghana! 50
Kenya! 52
Mauritania! 55
Somalia (Education)! 57
Somalia (Health)! 59
4
Executive summary
Countries and regional organisations have made significant strides in addressing disaster
risk reduction on the African continent. However, despite the development of policies,
plans and legislation, direct investments in disaster risk reduction in Africa remain low.
Most African countries have limited resources to invest in disaster risk reduction and
minimal fiscal space to fund relief and recovery efforts after a major disaster. Governments
often lack the capacity to disaggregate specific budgetary allocations to disaster risk
reduction. This study found three limitations in reporting on overall disaster risk reduction
spending in Africa. Firstly, inaccurate reporting exists due to the multi-sectoral and multi-
disciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction, secondly, the “masking” of disaster risk
reduction initiatives within development, humanitarian and other projects occurs and is
thus not reported on, and lastly, the seemingly unrelated funding, which contributes to
disaster risk reduction such as normal day-to-day development projects within other
sectors, reduces a significant amount of risk in communities (such as education and health
programmes). The research made use of both a qualitative and quantitative research design. In
both cases the application of the research tools was limited to the richness in data. Through an in-
depth literature review on disaster risk reduction funding, a better understanding of disaster risk
reduction investments were gained. Data was collected from a number our international
databases and reports. The analysis focussed in particular on the African environment and the
research aimed to provide the best deductions within the limited information and complexity of
the subject at hand. The databases were compared, and comparison of the databases with
reports on the same sets of data (e.g. humanitarian aid) were also undertaken.
A close examination shows that African countries are experimenting with different
approaches to offset the impacts of natural hazards on their economies. These include:
contingency funds, emerging risk transfer schemes, as well as investments to address
disaster risk in their national and local public planning and budgeting. However, disaster
risk reduction remains a cross-cutting issue, closely aligned with climate change
adaptation and emergency preparedness and prevention. A useful target in this regard, is
for governments and donors to integrate both disaster risk reduction and climate change
5
adaptation concerns into relevant public, private and household investment decisions,
based on principles of cost-effectiveness and acceptable levels of risk to human life.
By far, the greatest spending on disaster risk reduction issues from humanitarian budgets.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of all disaster risk reduction funding stems from humanitarian
aid. Since 2000 US$3,7 billion worth of disaster risk reduction investment has been made
from all aid (development and humanitarian) to the top 40 recipients of humanitarian aid
(most of these countries are African). However, the average percentage of disaster risk
reduction allocation in development aid remains below 2%. By 2009, funding for
prevention and preparedness reached US$455 million of total humanitarian expenditure
globally. This represents a 4.2% share of total humanitarian aid and a 0.3% of overall
Official Disaster Assistance. In the period 2007-2011, Africa received in total US$471
million in disaster prevention and preparedness funding. This figure excludes funding
associated with climate related mitigation projects of which Africa received approximately
US$1,5 billion. However, regional distribution of climate finance spending does not mirror
the traditional distribution of development or humanitarian aid globally. Climate finance
tends to be concentrated in a small number or large countries. Such spending is an
alarming indicator of the lack of connectedness between climate change adaptation-
related and disaster risk reduction investments. What the research illustrates is that the
most at-risk countries to the effects of climate change are those receiving the least
amounts of climate funding.
Tracking disaster risk reduction investments remains a daunting task. Disaster risk
reduction investment analysis should be seen as context specific and should be used and
compared with caution. Current reporting on disaster risk reduction as an aspect of
national budgets is weak and inaccurate. Several structural and mandatory issues in the
international system impact on how disaster risk reduction spending and investment
occur.
6
To understand how disaster risk reduction is funded one needs to look at the major
stakeholders and their mandates. The current funding system globally is illogical and
features gaps and duplications that need to be addressed.
The research confirmed that African countries and donors are far from reaching the
agreed disaster risk reduction investment targets of 10% investment for all humanitarian
aid, 1% of all development assistance, and 30% of climate change adaptation funding
going to disaster risk reduction. The reasons are not surprising. The disaster risk reduction
area is vast and complex, and the systems which must support disaster risk reduction
investment are mostly still in development. In addition, the reporting mechanisms for
disaster risk reduction are not established and thus a clear picture of overall investment is
difficult to accurately asses at this stage. A significant finding was that there is limited
funding allocated to disaster risk reduction through international contributions, or as part
of national government budgets, the reporting on which is driven by weak financial
reporting. Furthermore, the climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
agendas are not convergent.
Considering the and taking notice of the growing commitment and importance of disaster
risk reduction for governments and the international community, the following
recommendations are proposed for disaster risk reduction funding and investment on the
African continent:
a. Roles, mandates and responsibilities for disaster risk reduction funding should
be clarified at international level;
b. An agreed framework for reporting on disaster risk reduction investment
through all sectors and actors in Africa is imperative;
c. Countries should receive clear guidance on the reporting of the HFA and MDG
priorities and targets in terms of disaster risk reduction spending;
d. Regional disaster risk reduction organisations must be strengthened to assist
countries with disaster risk reduction investments and reporting;
7
e. The debate on the integration of disaster risk reduction in the humanitarian,
development and climate change adaptation sectors requires further
elaboration to focus on the importance and cost-benefit of accurate disaster
risk reduction funding allocation and reporting;
f. Governments should aim to utilise the proposed methodology in this report to
track and report on disaster risk reduction investments which is multi-sectoral in
nature and overlap with development, humanitarian and climate change
adaptation programming;
g. Consideration should be given for the establishment of a country-driven Africa
and/or global fund for disaster risk reduction which will holistically focus on
disaster risk reduction and allow for open and transparent reporting; and
h. More support towards research on disaster risk reduction investment in the
short-term is needed to catalyse the above recommended actions
8
Introduction
Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting issue, closely aligned with aspects such as climate change
adaptation and emergency preparedness and prevention. Since 2005 there has been an increase
in the amount of funding for disaster risk reduction, either as direct allocations or in related
sectors. However, increase in disaster losses are still prevalent. These losses can be ascribed to
increase in vulnerability and exposure, which can mostly be linked to an upwards development
profile in Africa, fuelled by massive urban migration (Deely et al. 2010). Urban growth areas on the
continent makes for a complex environment in which disaster risk must be management. The
c o m p l e x i t i e s o f
disaster risk
reduction
and the
v a l u e ,
benefit and
inadequacies of it,
becomes clear
t h o u g h a n
e f f o r t t o
t r a c k a n d
d e t e r m i n e
disaster risk
reduction investment in a dynamic international system.
Over the past ten years (2000-2009) approximately 2.2
billion people worldwide were affected by 4,484 natural disasters. These disasters killed close to
840,000 people and cost at least US$891 billion in economic damage. In March 2012, the Global
Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme published ‘Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it
should count’ (Kellett & Sparks 2012), which examined the levels of donor investment in DRR. The
report found that despite the rhetoric, just 1% (US$3.7 billion) of total Official Development
Assistance (ODA) had been spent on disaster risk reduction in 40 of the world’s poorest and most
disaster-affected countries (Kellett & Sweeney 2011). Many of these countries are African nations.
9
This concise report aims to provide impetus to and facilitate discussion of disaster risk reduction
investment on the African continent. The past decade (2000-2010) was used as timeframe and
questions about disaster risk reduction investments, good (and poor) examples were asked. As
the foundation of investigation the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), and in particular the
monitoring tool and reporting on national progress on budgetary indications were used. However,
as the report will show, tracking disaster risk reduction investment is a daunting and inaccurate
task. Therefore, the limitations of this report is highlighted in a section to follow. In doing so it will
also explain the problematic of inaccurate and incomplete disaster risk reduction investment and
financing information. In support of the above arguments a number of selected case studies
throughout the continent will be used. As an outcome to this report a step-by-step methodology
is proposed which might assist African countries in tracking and reporting on direct and “masked”
disaster risk reduction funding and investment.
Notes on terminology
Any discussion on disaster risk reduction makes it necessary to clarity these relatively new terms.
Disaster risk reduction functions within varied environments and is closely related to aspects such
as disaster prevention, disaster preparedness, emergency response, climate change adaptation
and resilience. Thus, tracking disaster risk reduction investment cannot only be done by focussing
on disaster risk reduction as the underlying term, certain “proxy terminology” must be used to
follow disaster risk reduction spending. Most reporting on disaster risk reduction investments
does not have a direct disaster risk reduction “code” associated with the spending. Most
governments does not have disaster risk reduction as a line item budget and most spending is
thus not reported on. Similarly, connections in an intricate and complex disaster risk reduction
system had to be made to determine, in the most broadest terms, what disaster risk reduction
investment in Africa entails.
10
Disaster risk management is the systematic process of using administrative directives, organisations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster.
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risk through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.
Disaster preparedness is defined as the knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery organisations, communities, and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent, or current hazard events or conditions.
Disaster prevention is the outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Climate change adaptation (CCA) is the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.
Source: (UNISDR 2009)
Main impetus to report
The Declaration of the Second African Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in
Nairobi, Kenya, from 14 to 16 April 2010 emphasised the need for national governments to invest
in disaster risk reduction. Recommendation 7 and 8 of the Ministerial Declaration states:
11
Methodology
The research made use of both a qualitative and quantitative research design. In both cases the
application of the research tools was limited by the richness in data which was obtained from the
UNISDR, partner organisations and other sources such as Internet searches. This report used the
above two recommendations by the Second African Ministerial Conference as broad guiding
framework.
Literature study
All research projects fall within scientific boundaries and have to be placed within some
theoretical framework. Furthermore, a wide variety of sources of information has been utilised as
part of the in-depth literature review. Within this context, a review of literature was aimed at
contribution towards a clear understanding of the nature and meaning of disaster risk reduction
investment. The literature review in the case of this study refers to a scrutiny of all relevant sources
of information pertaining to disaster risk reduction investment, with a special emphasis on Africa.
12
7. “To strongly urge Member States to increase
their investments in disaster risk reduction
through the allocation of a certain percentage
of their national budgets and other revenue
dedicated to disaster risk reduction and
report to the next Ministerial Conference, considering other related
African Ministerial resolutions;
8. To call upon development and humanitarian partners to ensure that
disbursement of one percent (1%) of development assistance and ten percent
(10%) of humanitarian assistance, in line with the Chair’s Summary of the Second
Session of the Global Platform, supports disaster risk reduction, preparedness
and recovery, including from violent conflicts and/or severe economic
difficulties;“
10%of all
humanitarian assistance
for DRR
1%of all
development assistance for
DRR
30%of all climate change
adaptation funding for DRR
Data collection
To provide useful and meaningful information on point 7 of the Ministerial Declaration, a content
analysis was undertaken to ascertain the amount, and depth, of funding (decentralised budget
allocations)1 of a number of African states. Selected case studies were analysed (and some
summarised for content rich information) to show how disaster risk reduction funding and
investment is not only an overt government budgeting process but that the majority of disaster
risk reduction funding is allocated to sector specific work, which are rarely listed or recorded as
disaster risk reduction project, and much less reported on. It is especially the above complexity in
tracing disaster risk reduction investment and funding which this report aims to highlight, and
provide a qualitative methodology for. Point 8 of the Ministerial declaration was assessed though
an in-depth analysis of current international reporting and databases on funding allocations by
examining humanitarian assistance (HA), Official Development Assistance (ODA), emergency
response and other databases such as the Aiddata, the OECD’s StatExtracts, GFDRR’s Disaster Aid
Tracking, the Central Emergency Response Fund, and OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service.
With the assistance of the UNISDR various case studies in disaster risk reduction investment in a
number of sector were obtained. These case studies provided a glimpse of disaster risk reduction
investments from NGOs, CBOs, IOs and government institutions. These case studies were
analysed and a glimpse of disaster risk reduction investment benefits is given. Extensive Internet
searches were further conducted and various reports and scientific literature on the subject were
scrutinised.
Data analysis
Various means of data analysis were used. The research was guided by the availability of literature
and findings based on research already conducted in this field. The analysis focussed in particular
on the African environment and the research aims to provide the best deductions within the
limited information and complexity of the subject at hand. The databases were compared, and
comparison of the databases with reports on the same sets of data (e.g. humanitarian aid) were
also undertaken.
13
1 Note should be take of the limitation of the study.
The complexity of the international disaster risk reduction, humanitarian and development aid
funding architecture remained one of the biggest stumbling blocks in achieving the outcomes of
this research. Therefore certain boundaries on the data had to be placed and it was decided to
use a vulnerability/development rather than loss estimation focus.
Building blocks of disaster risk: Vulnerability as driving factor
To understand disasters and the risk they pose to society (and how money is allocated
accordingly), it is crucial to understand the building blocks that the concept comprises of. In
explaining disaster risk the notation of R (risk) = H (hazard) x V (vulnerability) is widely used by
scientist and practitioners alike. At a basic level the notation provides a means whereby the
different aspect that could contribute to disaster can be quantified and subsequently classified,
14
prioritised and strategies/project formulated to address the determined disaster risk. The hazard
component of the notation is rather well understood due to dedicated fields of studies such as
geology, meteorology, hydrology, and vulcanology etc. The difficulty in the notation comes in
with the concept of vulnerability. Being a human
condition, vulnerability can be applicable to
many societal conditions and activities, and thus
requires various intervention and lines of
investment. The ambiguous nature of the term,
provides specific difficulties for policy makers
and project implementers involved in the field
disaster risk reduction in determining if projects
or policies they plan, finance and execute are
truly reducing disaster risks.
Therefore a description is of vulnerability is
needed to provide some indicators that would
assist in identifying if investments are truly
disaster risk reduction orientated. In its most basic form vulnerability can be described as a set of
prevailing or consequential conditions composed of physical, social, economic, environmental
and political factors which increase a community's susceptibility to calamity or which adversely
affect its ability to respond to events (Van Niekerk 2011). These different types of vulnerabilities
and the understanding thereof is crucial to the determination of the disaster risk reduction value
or nature of a project.
The Importance of information and Awareness in reducing Disaster Risk
Reduction
Awareness of and information sharing about disaster
risk is recognised by the Hyogo Framework for Action
as a crucial social activity that contributes to disaster
risk reduction (see HFA 3) (Dlamini, 2011). A lack of
awareness and access to information results in
increased levels of vulnerability. The HFA recognises
that disasters can happen because people vulnerable
to them simply do not know how to heed early warnings
and to get out of harm's way or to take protective
measures. Such ignorance may not necessarily be a
function of poverty, but a lack of awareness of the
measures than need to be taken to build safe structures
in safe locations, or safe evacuation routes and
procedures (Van Niekerk, 2011).
15
Political Vulnerability
According to Van Niekerk (2011), The level of vulnerability
in any community can be directly linked to the political will
and commitment to developmental concerns. Vulnerability
is as much about the exposure to a given hazard as the
decision-making linked to development which will address
conditions of vulnerability. Political decisions and policies
that lead to the denial of human rights, denial of access to
power structures, access to quality education, employment
opportunities, land tenure, availability of and access to
resources, access to infrastructure, basic services and
information, together have the ability to create and
maintain extreme levels of vulnerability and make
communities more susceptible to disaster impacts. From this it can be concluded that any project or
policy that is financially and politically supported and promotes the above reduces not only the
vulnerability within a society, but also contributes to the overall level of disaster risk reduction.
Economic Vulnerability
Whilst a wide range of factors combine to contribute to levels of vulnerability to the impact of
hazards in developing countries, poverty probably has the single most important influence. The
eradication of poverty therefore is crucial to vulnerability reduction (and thus disaster risk
reduction). The economic status of the population relates not only to the degree of losses in lives,
property and infrastructure but also to the capacity to cope with and recover from adverse effects
(Van Niekerk 2011). Virtually all disaster studies show that the wealthiest of the population
(women and men) either survive the impact of a hazard without suffering any adverse effects or
are able to recover quickly (due mostly to the presence of insurance, savings, investments or some
other financial instrument to fall back on). The opposite is true of the most impoverished sections
in society, where the lack of disposable income denies them access to basic human needs (i.e.
safe water supply, safe land tenure and food security) and subsequently forces them engage in
risk filled behaviour (i.e. using untreated water sources, building in marginal areas such as flood
plains, selling productive assists to ensure short term food security). From this it can be deduced
that any project or policy that prioritises poverty eradication (including access to basic needs),
Political Change and DRR: The South African Case
Political will is fundamental to disaster risk
reduction (Christoplos et al., 2001:195). This
was demonstrated in 1994 when South
Africa’s new democratic government
decided to adopt a new approach to the
management of disasters and risks. This led
to a total reform of the country’s disaster risk
management policy and legislation. These
political changes were accompanied by
economic reforms which in turn have had a
spill-over effect on how development is
planned and how poverty and vulnerability
are reduced (Van Niekerk, 2011:16).
16
p r o m o t e s t h e c r e a t i o n /
improvement of sustainable
livelihoods (or incomes) and
establishes safety nets to protect
developmental gains (i.e. crop
insurance for subsistence farmers)
can be classified as a disaster risk
reduction initiative.
17
A f r i c a n R i s k C a p a c i t y : I n s u r a n c e f o r l i v e l i h o o d protection and Risk Reduction
The African Risk Capacity is and African-
owned, continental index-based weather
risk insurance pool and early response
mechanism. ARC brings together
existing information on vulnerable
populations with drought and crop early
warning products, which allows countries
to identify and quantify drought risk and
formulate high-level estimates of the
people directly affected through impact
on their livelihood. ARC allows countries
to transfer a portion of this drought risk to
the overall insurance pool. Thus drought
risk of countries and individuals can be
reduced before it becomes acute and
beyond their capacity to cope.
Physical Vulnerability
Phys i ca l vu lne rab i l i t y re fe r s to the
susceptibility of individuals, households and
communities to loss due to the physical
environment in which they find themselves
(UNISDR 2002). It relates to aspects such as
access to suitable (or safe) land, land use
planning, housing design, building standards,
mater ia l s used for bu i ld ing houses ,
engineering, accessibility to emergency
services, population density levels, remoteness of a settlement, design and materials used for
critical infrastructure (UNISDR 2002). This poor physical environment that communities find
themselves in exposes them to a plethora of hazards such as landslides, floods, fires, wind,
disease and epidemics. From this it can be argued that any project or policy such as the above are
all examples of good investments that could reduce disaster risk and physical vulnerabilities.
Social Vulnerability
The level of social well-being of individuals, households and communities directly impacts on their
level of vulnerability to hazards. Levels of education, literacy and training, safety and security,
access to basic human rights, social equity, information and awareness, strong cultural beliefs and
traditional values/knowledge, morality, good governance and a well-organised cohesive civil
society, all contribute to social well-being with physical, mental and psychological health being
critical aspects (Van Niekerk 2011). Importantly vulnerability is not equally distributed within social
contexts. Minority groups, the aged, orphans, nursing mothers and their offspring, and the
disabled are more vulnerable than others. The issue of gender and in particular the role of women
requires special consideration (UNISDR 2002). From this it can be concluded that any projects or
policies focusing on the social realm of human endeavours are addressing disaster risk reduction
Physical Vulnerability: The great costMany Cities on the African continent (i.e. Antananarivo,
Cape Town, Dar Es Salaam, and Lusaka) are
characterised by large vulnerable communities living in
densely populated informal settlements, which are poorly
sited and unplanned (Van Niekerk 2011). Housing
structures are built with improvised materials which are
flimsy and highly flammable. Structures have poor, if any,
foundations and are built in close proximity to each other..
In addition, poor planning and the proximity of structures
limit access by emergency services in the event of an
emergency or disaster. The combined affect of all the
physical vulnerabilities is that the impact of disasters are
amplified through increased human and financial losses.
18
concer ns when they
e m p o w e r m i n o r i t y /
d i s e n f r a n c h i s e d
groupings within society
in order to facilitate social
equity; improve levels of
education, literacy and
training in general, as well
as speci f ic focus on
disaster awareness and
risk reduction; promote
the creation of strong civil
s o c i e t y s t r u c t u r e s ;
promote tolerance and
understanding between
different cultural/religious
groupings in society;
promote the integration
of traditional values and knowledge about disaster risk with scientific knowledge; build a culture
of safety to disaster risk through awareness raising, informations sharing and capacity building;
and advance access to basic human rights.
Environmental Vulnerability
The concept of environmental vulnerability covers a very broad range of human activities (i.e
social, economic and ecological) whereby we exploit the environment to such a degree that many
disasters that affect society are either caused or exacerbated by the human induced process of
environmental degradation. Classic examples of environmental degradation leading to disasters
are deforestation that leads to rapid rain run-off, which contributes to flooding or poor agricultural
techniques such a poor crop rotation and overgrazing leading to droughts conditions being
exacerbated (UN 1992). According to the UNISDR (2002), it is crucial that policy and projects try
19
to reduce environmental vulnerability and its subsequent disaster risks. Specific projects and
policies should address:
• The extent of natural resource depletion;
• The state of resource degradation;
• Loss of resilience of the ecological systems;
• Loss of biodiversity;
• Climate change; and
• Exposure to toxic and hazardous pollutants (UNISDR 2002).
Vulnerability: Quantity vs Quality
Although the discussion on the types of vulnerabilities and the associated activities that are
relevant to the context of disaster risk reduction is useful in giving some guidance on whether
investments are disaster risk reduction related, it can not be used as a be all and end all analysis
tool for officials. The reason for this is that it only focuses on one dimension of analysing projects.
The danger of this is that all humanitarian aid or development projects, if analysed by the
discussions provided above, will to some degree address vulnerability, and thus the assumption
will be made that all humanitarian aid or development projects also address disaster risk equally
well. This we know is not the case in the African context where development and humanitarian aid
has been in some areas for over 30 years (i.e. Horn Africa), yet catastrophic disasters still occur in-
spite of these interventions being present.
It is clear then another level of measurement is also needed to explain vulnerability on a much
deeper level, and thus also understand disaster risk reduction investments. In this regard The
Pressure and Release Model (PAR), created by Blaikie et al (1994) explain that disaster is the
intersection of two opposing processes, one generating vulnerability and the other natural
hazards (Wisner 2004). A crucial aspect of the model is its explanation of vulnerability. Accordingly
the model stipulates that vulnerability is made up of three factors:
20
Root Causes
The deep-rooted set of factors within a society that together form and maintain vulnerability, such as political ideologies or international economic system.
Dynamic PressuresTranslating process that channels the effects of a negative cause into unsafe conditions; this process may be due to a lack of basic services or provision or it may result from a series of macro-forces.
Unsafe conditionsVulnerable context where women, men and property are exposed to the risk of disaster; t h e f r a g i l e p h y s i c a l environment is one element; other factors include an unstable economy and low-income levels.
Figure 1: Progression of vulnerability
Source: (Wisner 2004)
The crucial aspect to understand about the PAR’s explanation about vulnerability is that the further
one moves away from addressing the root causes of vulnerability the less effective a risk reduction
intervention becomes, and the more such interventions are needed on a year to year basis. This
does not imply that an intervention that address, for example, unsafe conditions such as low levels
of food security, can not save lives and livelihoods. However, often when a situation gets to the
level of unsafe conditions, interventions only focus on addressing the symptoms of a much bigger
problem (Dlamini 2011). This is therefore not completely in line with the purpose of disaster risk
reduction which for the most part should concentrate on reducing or eliminating the root causes
or underlying factors that lead to the vulnerability and disaster (Dlamini 2011). A focus on root
cause vs. unsafe conditions also has cost implications. If one looks at the type of issues considered
as root causes by Blaikie et al (1994), they include: limited access to power, structures and
resources as well as ideological constraints such as political and economic systems. If compared
to issues that arise at the stage of unsafe conditions such as people building in dangerous
locations, prevalence of endemic diseases and livelihoods at risk (to name but a few), one quickly
realises that to solve the problem at the stage of root causes more political will is needed, and
only moderate economic investment. This however changes when the stage of unsafe conditions
is reached, where economic investment need to address the problem will be substantially more,
whilst the political will need will also increase (Blaikie et al 1994).
What should be clear from this discussion on vulnerability is that whilst it is a complicated part of
our understanding of disaster risk and risk reduction, it also provides us with a tool to analyse
current endeavours towards disaster risk reduction.
21
Limitations to the study and reporting on disaster risk reduction investments
As with so many other studies focusing on funding allocations
at a global level, one should be mindful that at best,
especially in the case of disaster risk reduction investment and funding, the analysis given should
be treated with caution. Disaster risk reduction is context and country specific. The assessment of
literature and various databases showed that within the United Nations system there are
ambiguities in reporting, which makes the analysis of data problematic. Also, the focus of this
study is on a concept with many varied interpretations and not readily reported on. Three major
limitations to the study can be highlighted. Firstly, care has been taken to correlated data from
various sources to arrive at the most accurate representation of reality. The data and examples
cited in this report has been cross checked with numerous databases and reports. However, the
interpretation of and financial reporting on disaster risk reduction remains partially hidden. This is
mostly due to inadequacies in the international reporting system which does not highlight (or in
many cases even ask for) budgeting and spending on disaster risk reduction. The manner in which
states and agencies report on disaster risk reduction funding, is not consistent. Furthermore, in
many cases one needs to identify a proxy indicator which is reported on and most closely
resemble the phenomenon under investigation (e.g. humanitarian aid is mostly linked to disaster
response and recovery with a portion of the reporting on disaster preparedness and prevention,
or official development assistance might highlight disaster risk reduction and disaster mitigation
projects). Thus the figures cited in reports will inevitably vary due to the interpretation of this
phenomenon. Secondly, the cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction
makes accurate reporting on disaster risk reduction financing difficult. Various sectoral projects
might not have a disaster risk reduction intention but due to its development focus contributes
directly to disaster risk reduction. For example, the provision of basic housing might be a national
development objective, however, proper housing reduces a significant amount of disaster risk in
vulnerable communities. Such a housing project will not be recorded as a disaster risk reduction
project. Similarly, research has proven the benefits of better basic education to children in creating
a culture of safety, and resilience building. Thirdly, most of the reporting done by countries, UN
Ma n y d e v el o pm e n t
programmes an
d projects
contribute
to disaste
r risk
reduction
but are
not
labelled as
such.
22
agencies, governments and INGOs/NGO revolves around loss data. It is common to find ample
graphs and statistics on economic impacts and losses due to disaster. However, there is also a
portion of market related disaster risk reduction funding in the form of insurance, pooled
resources, local saving schemes and other risk transfer/reduction measures which are not readily
available. In total one must assume that the above does somehow contribute to disaster risk
reduction. Cognisance should therefore be taken of these three important limitation. Inaccurate
reporting due to the nature of disaster risk reduction, secondly, the “masking” of disaster risk
reduction within development, humanitarian and other projects, and lastly the seemingly
unrelated funding which contributes to disaster risk reduction. These few points will be used to
look into how disaster risk reduction is funded in Africa.
Tracking disaster risk reduction investments
Tracking disaster risk reduction investments remains a daunting task. Disaster risk reduction
investment analysis should be seen as context specific and should be used and compared with
caution. A close examination of disaster risk reduction investment by the UNISDR shows that
African countries are experimenting with different approaches to offset the impacts of natural
hazards on their economies, with contingency funds, emerging risk transfer schemes, as well as
investments to address disaster risk in their national and local public planning and budgeting
(UNISDR 2011). However, reporting on disaster risk reduction as portions of national budgets
remain weak and inaccurate. Governments often lack the capacity to disaggregate specific
budgetary allocations to disaster risk reduction (UNISDR 2011).
Who funds disaster risk reduction?
Several structural and mandatory issues impact on how disaster risk reduction spending and
investments occur. To understand how disaster risk reduction is funded one need to look at the
major role-players and their mandates. Kellett and Sweeney (2011) argue that the current funding
system globally has some illogicalities, gaps and duplications that need to address. A number of
23
major organisations are active in disaster risk reduction
work. However, in many instances the mandates of these
organisations somewhat overlap. This in turn causes a share of
confusion and duplication of activities. For instance, the
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction of the UN (UNISDR) is
mandated to serve as the focal point for disaster risk reduction related
activities within the UN system. It also administers the UN Trust Fund for Disaster Reduction. The
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), also hold a mandate for disaster risk reduction.
UNDP has the responsibility of Emergency Relief Coordinator for operational activities for natural
disaster mitigation, prevention and preparedness. Though its Bureau for Crisis Prevention and
Recovery (BCPR), the UNDP aims to advance peace and development by strengthening capacities
to prevent and recover from crisis. A big portion of the UNDP’s work over the past decade has
been mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development planning. This has been done under
the auspices of the Common Country Assessment/United National Development Assistance
Framework (CCA/UNDAF) (UNDG 2009). Another significant funder of disaster risk reduction is
the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). GFDRR mostly
work in middle to low-income priority countries. Harmer et al (2009) indicate that 75% of disaster
risk reduction for the GFDRR comes from humanitarian budgets of donor countries, of which
approximately 60% are committed to Africa. By far and large the
greatest spending on disaster risk reduction occurs from the
humanitarian community. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of all disaster
risk reduction funding stems for humanitarian aid (Kellett &
Sparks 2012). Within the humanitarian sector a number of
players contribute to disaster risk reduction related work in
Africa. Many of these actors work in partnership with
national governments, INGOs and NGOs (for example, OCHA, IFRC, WFP, UNICEF, Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies, FAO, World Vision, CARE, Save the Children etc.). It should however
be mentioned that many of these actors still seems to be defining the terms in which they
become involved in disaster risk reduction work, however there is a drive, especially noticeable
within the Southern Africa region, by the humanitarian sector to make their work disaster risk
reduction integrated and relevant2. By 2009 funding to prevention and preparedness reached US
60% of
GFDRR budget committed to Africa
5% of
UNDP DRR budget spend in Africa from 2006-2008
242 RIACSO commissioned research in this regard and a report will be published in early 2013.
$455 million of total humanitarian expenditure. This represents a 4.2% share
of total humanitarian aid and a 0.3% of overall
ODA (Kellett & Sweeney 2011) globally.
Volumes of ODA funds invested in disaster risk
reduction are also very difficult to track and
assess, and data on financing for disaster risk
reduction in Africa is poor.
Pool funds are becoming extremely important
for the aid system. They offers donors the
chance to share risk, reduce cost and allocate
funds based on strategy. These funds however
vary in their nature, disaster risk reduction
allocations and has some advantages and
disadvantages.
Of the three humanitarian funds (CERF, CHF,
ERF) only the county-level mechanisms have
channeled money to disaster preparedness
activities with global CERF encountering
obstacles in its ability to move away its
emergency response mandate. The four
country level CHFs in operation attract large
amount of support but spend relatively little on
disaster preparedness, amounting to $1.8
million (Kellett & Sweeney 2011). CHFs current
strategic plan includes elements of disaster
preparedness, however they have supported
few emergency activities to date. ERFs in
contrast are much smaller in scale and are
much more disaster preparedness prone but
are limited by scale. Somalia and Zimbabwe
25
HumanitarianCentral Emergency Response Fund (CERF): Provides rapid initial funding for life-saving assistance at the onset of humanitarian crises and critical support for poorly funded humanitarian response operations. (global coverage) Common humanitarian funds (CHFs): Provides early and predictable funding to humanitarian needs. (national coverage)
Emergency response funds (ERFs): These funds are usually established to meet unforeseen needs not included in the consolidated appeal process or similar coordination mechanisms. (national coverage)
Development/disaster risk reduction UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) Thematic Trust Fund (CPR-TTF): This fund is designed for quick action following a natural disaster, violent conflict or when opportunity arises to reduce disaster risk or prevent conflict. (global/national coverage)
United Nations Trust Fund for Disaster Reduction (UN-TFDR): This fund was set up in 2000 to finance the United Nations International Strategy for disaster reduction through voluntary contributions. (global coverage)
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR): This fund aims to mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate change adaption in country development strategies by supporting country-led implementation of the HFA. (global/national coverage)
Climate change adaptation The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF): Is aimed at addressing the special needs of the least developed countries, which are especially vulnerable to climate change. (global coverage)
Strategic Climate Funds (SCFs): Serves as an overarching framework supporting projects with the potential of scaled-up, transformational action aimed at a specific climate change challenges. (global coverage)
The Adaptation Fund: Finances projects aimed at helping developing countries adapt to negative effects of climate change. (global coverage)(Kellett & Sweeney 2011)
Pooled Funds
spent 5.9% and 2.9% of the total funds allocated on disaster preparedness here. The UN-TFDR
approaches disaster preparedness more on a global level, focussing on coordinating disaster risk
reduction. As a result it does not fund the implementation of disaster preparedness a national
level. The well financed, globally focussed CPR-TTF also addresses national and community
emergency preparedness as well as conflict preparedness. This fund places a high priority on
disaster preparedness, with an evaluation of the UNDPs contribution to disaster prevention and
recovery suggesting that between 2004 and 2009, $35.6 million was spent on disaster
preparedness projects (Kellett & Sweeney 2011). The GFDRR is the only operational that is solely
focussed on disaster risk reduction. Up-until September 2010, $13 million had been spent on
disaster preparedness. The LDCF takes a more holistic approach to disaster risk reduction,
addressing prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Due to this approach 29% of the total
expenditure of this fund has been allocated to disaster preparedness and management activities.
The SCF fund is focussed on climate resilience and therefore it can be assumed that it will include
disaster risk reduction and emergency activities, however it is difficult to ascertain the total
amount. Unlike the other funds, the Adaption Fund is not fully reliant on donor contributions
alone. It achieved this by capitalising on their Credit Emission Reduction initiative. It supports
institutional capacity building for preventive measures, preparedness and management of
disasters relating to climate change and contingency planning.
Quantifying the total amount spent on disaster risk reduction is thus difficult. Disaster risk
reduction activities are commonly hidden within
wider programmes and projects, including
those relating to food security, health systems,
and environmental management. Since disaster
risk reduction projects have emerged relatively
recently, the data on disaster risk reduction
funding is limited and donors are still unsure
how to report on it (Sparks 2012). Furthermore
it is noticeable that in the past five years a
number of donor countries has been directly financing disaster risk reduction related work through
partnerships with non-governmental agencies such as universities and grassroots organisations.
One such example is USAID who has spend US$124 million in 2011 and US$157 million in 2012
26
on disaster risk reduction in Africa3. USAID also developed a 2012-2014 strategic plan for disaster
risk reduction for the Southern Africa region. This strategic plan is closely aligned with the HFA
(OFDA 2012). A further area of disaster risk reduction investment relates to the involvement of
private sector in using market related risk transfer mechanisms and risk pooling. These types of
investments are also poorly reported on, if, and when they actually exist.
How much is being funded?
Determining the exact amount being funded remains sketchy due to reasons stated above. We do
however have some indication of disaster risk reduction spending locked up in a number of
databases4. The interpretation, inclusion and exclusion of data remains problematic. Kellet and
Sparks (2012) believe that since 2000 US$3,7 billion worth of disaster risk reduction investment
has been made from all aid to the top 40 recipients of humanitarian aid. However, the average
percentage of disaster risk reduction allocation in development aid remains below 2%.
In general the GFDRR indicate that over the last 10 years Africa has received in the region of US
$238mil for disaster risk reduction. This calculation takes into account all donor funds and
allocations (bilateral, multi-lateral, international banks allocations,
ad hoc donors etc). A total of 222 projects were funded under
disaster risk reduction, from 23 participating
donors, funding 40 recipients. Interestingly, the
average project budget size was US
$1,07mil. 0,4%
99,6%
Ethiopia
Spending on DRR as a percentage of GDP
27
3 See: http://www.usaid.gov
4 See: http://gfdrr.aiddata.orghttp://www.unocha.org/cerfhttp://fts.unocha.orghttp://aiddata.org http://stats.oecd.org
1,5% 98,5%DRC
Spending on DRR as a percentage of GDP
U
Figure 2: Aggregate commitments for disaster risk reduction in Africa since 20005
(Source: Disaster Aid Tracking, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery6)
The OECD indicate that under their recording sector of ODA “Disaster Prevention and
Preparedness”, Africa as a whole received in total US$471mil for the period 2007-2011.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
18,968 155,002 91,352 88,157 117,932
Table 1: Total Disaster Prevention and Preparedness investment in Africa (2007-2011) as part of ODA
(in US$mil).
(Source: http://stats.oecd.org)
Kellet and Sweeny (2011) and Kellet and Sparks (2012) reports that there has been a steadily
increase in disaster risk reduction funding over the period 2006-2010.
28
5 The following activities were taken into consideration in this calculation: Disaster prevention and preparedness, activity unspecified; Disaster risk assessment and monitoring; Institutional consensus, awareness, and capacity building; Knowledge, innovation, and education; Disaster risk financing; Strengthening early warning systems; Protecting critical infrastructure; Response preparedness and sustainable recovery; Macroeconomic analysis.
6 See: http://gfdrr.aiddata.org
Figure 2: Disaster prevention and preparedness expenditure on major humanitarian recipients, 2005-2009, ranked by mortality risk7 (figures in brackets) - African countries highlighted in yellow Source: (Kellett & Sweeney 2011)
From the analysis above it is thus clear that disaster risk reduction remains a fraction of the
expenditure compared to reconstruction, relief and rehabilitation and other humanitarian and
development aid. As long as the above situation persists it is unimaginable that significant strides
will be made by African countries to positively change their disaster risk profile.
A further complicating factor in tracking disaster risk reduction spending is the close relationship
which disaster risk reduction enjoys with the climate change adaptation agenda. It is beyond the
scope of this report to do a thorough assessment of the climate change funding mechanism,
however, as Becker, Abrahamsson and Hagelsteen (2013) indicate the parallel structures
developed for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation has a significant impact on
duplication, confusion of mandates, and wastage of public resources. It is thus important to
highlight the need for the convergence of agendas and spending on climate change adaptation
297 See: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/9929_MRIA3.pdf
and disaster risk reduction as a collective whole, each aiming to address a portion of the problem
in an integrated manner.
The further complicating factor of climate change is the fact that Africa contributes the least to its
impacts (e.g. Green House Gasses), yet is most susceptible to its impacts. Schalatek et al (2012)
shows that since 2003 the majority of climate change funding in the Sub-Saharan region have
been spend on mitigation (approximately US$1,3 billion), with a far less amount on adaptation
(approximately US$600 million)8. The Climate Funds Update shows that the regional distribution
of climate finance spending does not mirror the traditional distribution of development or
humanitarian aid globally. Climate finance tend to be concentrated in a small number or large
countries (such as Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, India, China and Indonesia). Such spending
is an alarming indicator of the disconnect between climate change adaptation related and
disaster risk reduction investments. The most at-risk countries to the effects of climate change are
thus receiving the least of climate funding (e.g. small island states).
Although some funding for disaster risk reduction can be tracked and measured in the
international system, the picture changes dramatically once on move to country level
assessments.
Governments’ reporting on disaster risk reduction investment
To determine disaster risk reduction funding within national budgets one of the only fairy reliable
reporting mechanism is the national progress reports on the implementation of the HFA. Even so,
countries tend to provide incomplete and inaccurate information. This is the case once one
assesses the HFA progress reporting for the period 2009-2011 and 2012-2013. One should also
be mindful that many African countries does not even report on the basics of the HFA, yet alone
they national budget allocations. The reasons for not reporting on such spending obviously vary
from country to county. A complete picture of disaster risk reduction investment through national
30
8 See: www.climatefundsupdate.org
budgets are thus virtually impossible at this stage. With the limited information available some
deductive analysis can be made.
In the reporting cycle 2009-2011, twelve9 African countries made no reporting on formal disaster
risk reduction budget allocations as part of their national budget. Of the other countries which did
report, nine10 countries indicated that they have no formal budget for disaster risk reduction. Only
five countries indicated the portion of their budget allocated to disaster risk reduction activities11.
However, the inadequacies in a formal reporting mechanism becomes clear if one uses Egypt as
an example. Egypt reported no formal budget allocations for disaster risk reduction in the period
2009-2011, but on further analysis Egypt reports on quite a number of disaster risk reduction
funded activities through its national budget, although this has not been seen as part of their
national budget reporting. These include among others:
• The National Committee for crisis/ disaster management and disaster risk reduction has an
annual budget for the implementation of disaster risk reduction plans and activities on both
central and local levels, although no budget amounts are presented (no amount is reported on).
31
9 Algiers, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Togo.
10 Egypt, Ghana, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal, Seychelles, Tanzania and South Africa.
11 See: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/hfa/reports.html#africa
Lesotho
0.005%Malawi
0.015%Nigeria
0.5%
Zambia
5%Mozambique
5,2%Percentage of national budget allocation for disaster risk reduction 2009-2011
• All Ministries and local level administrative units have in their budget lines specific items for
disaster risk reduction measures (no amounts are reported on).
• Reasonable budgets have been allocated for developing informal settlements to reduce their
vulnerability to risks (no amounts are reported on).
• The institutional structure for establishing crisis/disaster management and disaster risk reduction
departments in all local government and ministries is being finalised (as of 2011). This will be
followed by allocation for required budgets (no amount is reported on).
• Other examples on sectoral and local levels include the Environment Protection Fund (EPF), to
enhance, among several activities, strategies for environmental disaster risk reduction (aligned
with climate change and adaptation) (no amount is reported on).
• The Ministry of Health has an annual budget for disaster management (no amount is reported
on).
• The Social Fund for Development (SFD) has several success stories in alleviating the impacts of
natural disasters (no amount is reported on).
• Also the ministry of social solidarity has special funds in its budget for humanitarian affairs, such
as compensation of affected communities and relief operations in case of major disasters (no
amount is reported on).
The above example is not an isolated case, South Africa equally reported on all its disaster risk
reduction activities although indicating zero national budget allocations. In most of the cases
where countries did not indicate part of their national budgets for disaster risk reduction, they
were able to qualitatively explain disaster risk reduction investments. In the case of Egypt, clearly
the country is well aware of how, and were, disaster risk reduction spending is made. It would be
logic to argue that in the majority of cases, African states will be aware of how they allocate funds
for disaster risk reduction. It would therefore stand to reason that a more effective reporting
mechanism must be put in place to allow countries to “mine” their budget allocation for evidence
of disaster risk reduction and report on it. At time of writing this report not new reporting from
Egypt for the period 2011-2013 could be found for comparative purposes.
32
The reporting period 2011-2013 on the HFA does not currently look any better for obtaining a
more accurate picture of disaster risk reduction investment on the continent. The table below
shows current disaster risk reduction budget allocation reporting12.
Country % of disaster risk reduction budget
allocation national
% of disaster risk reduction budget
allocation decentralised
Niger 40% 25%
Rwanda 25% 30%
Kenya 25% 0%
Morocco 0% 0%
Burkina Faso 0% 0%
Mauritius 0% 0%
Ethiopia 0% 0%
Djibouti 0% 0%
Table 2: 2011-2013 reporting on disaster risk reduction investment as percentage of total disaster
risk reduction budget at national and decentralised level13.
Cross-sectoral disaster risk reduction investment
By far the most difficult tracking of disaster risk reduction investment is the spending within
various government ministries and sectoral departments. Here we can distinguish between two
types of funding. Van Niekerk (2006) refers to the function and activity of disaster risk
management. The function of disaster risk management relates to the formal structures for
disaster risk reduction created within a government to coordinate and oversee disaster risk
33
12 Note should be taken that at time of writing this report many countries have not yet submitted their 2011-2013 HFA country reports and this is but an indication of the existing reports. However, it is doubtful if any better budgetary reporting will be obtained compared to pervious years.
13 S e e : h t t p : / / w w w . p r e v e n t i o n w e b . n e t / e n g l i s h / h y o g o / p r o g r e s s / r e p o r t s / i n d e x . p h p ?o=pol_year&o2=DESC&ps=50&hid=2013&cid=rid1&x=8&y=2; http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/progress/reports/index.php?o=pol_year&o2=DESC&ps=50&hid=2012&cid=rid1&x=7&y=4; and http://w w w . p r e v e n t i o n w e b . n e t / e n g l i s h / h y o g o / p r o g r e s s / r e p o r t s / i n d e x . p h p ?o=pol_year&o2=DESC&ps=50&hid=2011&cid=rid1&x=11&y=6
reduction. Typically one would refer here to the National Disaster (Risk) Management Authority/
Centre/Office as well as the decentralised units (depending on the form of state and budget
allocation process of the country in question). In most instances it is possible for government to
indicate their budget allocation for these units. The activity of disaster risk management refers to
the multi-sectoral and decentralised disaster risk management activities which occurs due to the
cross-sectoral nature of disaster risk reduction. Here one can refer to a disaster risk management
unit within the department of agriculture or health, or spending on school disaster risk reduction
awareness programmes, incorporating disaster risk reduction into gender-based projects, or even
infrastructure projects aimed at lessening a disaster risk such as a bridge over a river, or dykes.
Under this focus one would also include any outside funding to parastatals of government (such
as universities, research and technical institutions) or private organisations engaged in disaster risk
reduction (this type of funding allocations would most probably occur on a bi-lateral basis through
an application/proposal basis). In most cases African countries does not readily have a disaster risk
reduction budget line item which can be tracked per sector, and allocations to disaster risk
reduction in this regard is context specific and needs driven. Some of the case studies highlighted
in this report are typical disaster risk management activity projects.
Community based interventions and investments in disaster risk reduction
Most of the effective disaster risk reduction activities occurs at community level, through
dedicated and focussed projects and programmes (Van Niekerk & Coetzee 2012). To obtain an
even more refined indication of disaster risk reduction investments one must consider the projects
and spending on disaster risk reduction and related project through community-based disaster
risk reduction initiative (Shaw 2012). Van Niekerk et al (2011), reporting on an alternative funding
model for disaster risk reduction for South Africa, highlights the need to understand alternative
funding mechanisms for disaster risk reduction present in communities most at-risk. Examples of
the above are social safety nets, community saving schemes, food based safety nets, micro
finance, burial schemes, consumer food price subsidies, and cooperatives.
The challenge now is to find a reporting mechanism which will allow countries to capture these
hidden disaster risk reduction investments. However, the devolution of disaster risk reduction
might provide an answer to this daunting question. In such a manner, reporting on disaster risk
34
reduction is also build from the ground up and supported by nationally known allocations. A
number of case studies were analysed to show the benefit of disaster risk reduction related
investments towards vulnerability reduction. Seven case studies from east, west and southern
Africa were examined (see Annexure 1 for a full description of each project) for this report as
shown in the table below:
Country Sector/s Duration Funding (US$)
Botswana Health/Capacity Development 4 years 7.7 mil
Ghana Agric/Capacity Development 4 years 1.1 mil
Ethiopia Health 4 years 2.0 mil
Mauritania Education 9 years 15.5 mil
Somalia Education 6 months 2.0 mil
Somalia Health 1 year 1.6 mil
Kenya Education 5 years 10.1 mil
Table 3: Selected cross-sectoral case studies
Before looking at these case studies it is useful to recognise some of the emerging lessons that
have been learned from projects either targeted directly at disaster risk reduction or having a
significant disaster risk reduction component:
• To achieve the objectives of disaster risk reduction it is necessary to recognise that
funding and the implementation of projects for the most part requires a multi-sectorial,
multi-agency and trans-disciplinary approach. For example, health focussed projects
need incorporate or at least show cognisance of the wider environmental and social
contexts in which the projects are implemented. This is especially important in
developing countries where there is often poor communication between funding
agencies and the types of projects they are supporting. As a result there is often
duplication and missed opportunities to effectively utilise limited financial resources.
• Disaster risk reduction primarily requires an approach that identifies and addresses the
root causes that create vulnerabilities to both environmental and anthropogenic hazards.
These root causes are often complex interactions between environmental and socio-
economic-political conditions. Identifying the root cause and addressing the root cause
35
can be extremely difficult when the root cause is trans-scale and has more than one point
of origin or causal factor.
• Funding that is used to address the symptoms of disasters rather that the root cause
does not reduce the risk of the hazard or any consequent disaster. This type of funding
maybe necessary but is ultimately limited in its long-term effectiveness.
• In general high levels of funding in short durations tends to be less effective than lower
levels of funding over longer periods of time. This is particularly true where there is a
mismatch between the funding cycle and local conditions of change in response to a
particular hazard. The desire on the part of donors to have “quick fix” and sustainable
projects within limited funding cycles often prejudices the projects they seek to support.
• Reducing disasters or the risk of disasters is best achieved when people that face the risk
of a particular hazard are directly involved and empowered to finding the solution to the
hazard/s. This principle is strongly correlated to governance and is as applicable at the
global level between nation states as it is at a local community level. In respect of DRR
projects it is rare to find a project where communities have a significant role in the
project design, its implementation and very importantly the management of financial
resources.
• The funding of disaster risk reduction cannot be seen as a distinct short-term process.
There is considerable evidence to show that the incidence of disasters is increasing (both
declared and undeclared) and while there is considerable attention being paid to rapid
onset disasters, slow onset hazards are having devastating impacts across the globe, but
particularly in Africa. Disaster risk reduction approaches therefore need to be
incorporated into the full range of sustainable development funding almost as a pre-
requisite.
The case studies examined for this report either exhibit traits outlined above or demonstrate
some of the principles mentioned. It is not intended to either criticise or praise the projects
concerned but use them as indicators of where and how funding for disaster risk reduction can
best be applied. The post HFA challenge will be in finding the right institutional mechanisms to
incorporate disaster risk reduction into wider global funding mechanisms without losing focus on
the increasingly important disaster and related hazards component.
36
Projects such as the ones in Botswana and Ghana will play a critical role in capacity development
at local and national levels. This type of capacity development will be needed if communities are
to be empowered to find their own solutions to the hazards they face. Closely aligned to this are
the examples of education projects in Mauritania, Somalia and Kenya. The Global Network for
Disaster Reduction through its Views From The Frontline Survey has reported from communities
across the world a strong desire for improved governance. Achieving improved governance will
be greatly assisted by improved education and literacy. However, this kind of investment in
education will have to be long term and supported by national governments and the wider global
community.
Market related disaster risk reduction investment
Disaster Risk Reduction can take many forms: reducing exposure to risks, (e.g., land-use planning);
reducing vulnerability (e.g., retrofitting high-risk buildings); or creating institutions for better
response (e.g., emergency planning). The residual risk which remains after all possible and cost-
effective disaster risk reduction methods have been implemented can then be managed with
insurance and other risk-financing strategies/tools for the purpose of preventing disasters for
occurring or providing timely relief and assuring an effective recovery. In understanding the full
disaster risk reduction investment landscape one should thus also consider market related disaster
risk reduction, transfer and elimination methods.
The literature suggests a number of financial tools which can be used for disaster risk reduction
purposes. Note should be taken that no evidence could be found where any developed or
developing state have integrated all of the available tools into a coherent financing model.
Linnerooth-Bayer, Mechler and Hochrainer-Stigler (2011) summarises their findings of the pre-
disaster risk financing arrangements as follows.
Security for loss of assets (households/
businesses)
Food security for crop/livestock loss (farms)
Security for relief and reconstruction (governments)
Non-market Kinship arrangements Voluntary mutual arrangements
International aid
37
Security for loss of assets (households/
businesses)
Food security for crop/livestock loss (farms)
Security for relief and reconstruction (governments)
Inter-temporal Micro-savings Food storage • Catastrophe reserve funds
• Regional pools• Contingency credit
Market-based risk transfer Property and life insurance
Crop and livestock insurance (also index-based)
• Insurance or catastrophe bonds (also index-based)
Table 4: Examples of pre-disaster risk financing arrangementsSource: (Linnerooth-Bayer et al. 2011)
Therefore, if one wants to determine the full extent of disaster risk reduction investment in Africa
then one needs to foster closer relationships with the insurance and market-related role-players so
that a more accurate picture of insured disaster risks can be obtained.
Developing a tracking methodology for Governments
A robust and applied methodology is needed which will assist African governments to easily track
their disaster risk reduction investment and thus report on it. The section that follows aims to
provide such a broad methodology. Please note that this methodology has not been
implemented and tested for it validity and trustworthiness. The methodology in its current state
should be seen as work in progress, only act as a guideline for governments.
Components of the methodology
The methodology will take into account all the variables mentioned though-out this report. The
user must be mindful that the interdependencies between these variables have not been
determined. As a foundation the HFA and the MDGs is used as the guiding principles for the
methodology. Countries are expected to report on their disaster risk reduction progress through a
reflection on the priorities for action and core indicators of the HFA and in doing so asking
questions about the associated costs with the indicator which they are reporting on.
The research has shown that disaster risk reduction funding can be directly located in a number of
arenas, e.g. within humanitarian, development and climate change adaptation funds. However,
38
disaster risk reduction funding can also be “masked” as part of other spending items such as
incorporated into health, infrastructure, education, agriculture etc. The challenge for governments
are to track as much of their disaster risk reduction investments as possible in order to gain a
clearer picture of reality and also to determine the overall cost and benefit of disaster risk
reduction activities. The methodology follows a start-stop approach. This means that each step
must be finalised before carrying on to the next because of interdependencies. Thus an
assessment of the insurance sector might be a very difficult activity if a thorough understanding of
a country’s disaster risk profile is not present (as per Priority 2 of the HFA). The methodology will
thus be explained as a series of steps which each government can implement to determine
disaster risk reduction investments.
Step 1: HFA/MDGs assessment
Ample information and guidance exists about the monitoring mechanism and reporting on
progress in the implementation of the HFA as well as the MDGs. The first step in determining
disaster risk reduction investments thus starts with these two important assessment. Through the
completion of the assessments, governments will be in a favourable position towards
understanding how disaster risk reduction is being spend. One further step while doing the
assessment is for governments to utilise the “means of verification” to determine where and on
what money is spend in terms of the priorities and indicators.
Step 2: National sector assessment
One of the most difficult assessment is determining disaster risk reduction investments thoughout
sectors. The national disaster risk profile and development plan is a good starting point for
identifying such investments. Each government sector must thus be assessed for their integrated
disaster risk reduction activities and the budget linked to such activities. Sectoral plans and overall
integration of actions into a national disaster risk management plan might be useful indicators for
observing funding allocations. In some instances a budget line item on disaster risk reduction can
be tracked, where this exists.
39
Step 3: Outside fund allocation assessment
Outside funds refers to all disaster risk reduction funding which might not necessarily be awarded
to a national government or sectoral departments. In particular the focus here might be funding
for disaster risk reduction which is made on an institution to institution basis (e.g. research funding
to universities for disaster risk reduction from donors, or perhaps disaster risk reduction networks).
Such funding is normally not directly reported on to national government but national disaster risk
reduction platforms can be a useful vehicle to obtain a fair sense of such funding allocations.
Step 4: National and international insurance assessment
One of the least reported on areas of disaster risk reduction investment is the national insurance
industries. However, with the projection and uncertainties of climate change and food insecurities
national insurance industries are moreover becoming involved in risk reduction, transfer and
elimination products. The downside is that the national insurance sector is mostly weak and in a
state of development in Africa. As the insurance industry becomes more a part of national disaster
risk reduction platforms, it would best be logical sense for reporting on disaster risk reduction in
insurance to be made at these fora. Information from the international insurance and reinsurance
sector is more readily available.
Step 5: Donor fund allocation assessment
Donor funds relate to the funds allocated through the humanitarian and development sectors (as
discussed above). Although the complexities of disaster risk reduction in donor funding is known
at the international level, it would be much easier to report on these investments at national level
where project planning and implementation occurs. Countries are in most cases well aware of the
funding allocations made to them through these mechanisms and they would be well placed to
link such donor funding to disaster risk reduction.
40
Step 6: Climate change and adaptation funds assessment
As the climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction agendas converge, the disaster risk
reduction investments though climate change and adaptation funding becomes clearer. An
assessment of climate change related allocations which addressed the underlying elements of
disaster risk reduction is thus needed. One must, however assume a level of duplication which
might take place in reporting disaster risk reduction related climate change and adaptation funds.
Step 7: NGOs/CBOs assessment
Research by the Global Network for Civil Society in Disaster Reduction (GNDR) since 2009
showed considerable engagement by civil society in disaster risk reduction activities. Moreover
NGOs and CBOs working in disaster risk reduction and related fields have been successful in
accessing international funds to conduct their disaster risk reduction work. These organisations are
also more-and-more becoming involved in national platforms. An assessment of this sector is thus
important.
Step 8: Private sector assessment
A key role-player in disaster risk reduction has always been the private sector. The private sector
stands to lose the most in the event of major disasters and has realised the importance of
engaging with disaster risk reduction. Through national platforms organised business are
encouraged to become part of the national disaster risk reduction debate. Linked to the insurance
sector assessment, countries might be able to determine disaster risk reduction related funding
which are channeled by the private sector. In particular disaster risk reduction investment though
corporate social responsibility funds occurs.
41
42
Figure 3: Methodology for determining national disaster risk reduction investments
Step 1bConsult MDG indicators and progress reports and identify disaster risk reduction related activities. Aim to decern the moneraty value of these
integrated disaster risk reduction activities.
Step 1:Conduct a thorought national progress report on the implementation of the HFA. In doing to aim to allocate a monetary value to each of the core indicators and their means of vertification.
Step 2:Assess each government sector taking into account the national disaster risk profile and the multi-sectoral actions needed for disaster risk reduction. Allocate a monetary value to these activities.
?Key Question?
What amount is funded from national , state/provincial, and local
budgets (e.g. from your tax base, national
allocations and equitable share)?
Step 3:Assess all outside fund allocations in terms of their disaster risk reduction applicability. Determine their monetary value.
Note!Be mindful of the fact that other entities in country might be accessing outside funding for disaster risk reduction purposes e.g. Universities or NGOs. Utilise your national platform to obtain
such information. Beware of duplication!
Step 4:Consult with national and international insurance associations/institutions to determine the spending on risk transfer, reduction and elimination.
Step 5:Determine disaster r i sk reduct ion allocation in donor funds e.g. humanitarian and development aid.
Step 6:Assess climate change and adaptation fund allocations and determine the disaster risk reduction component.
Step 7:Consult organised NGOs/CBOs to obtain a sense of disaster risk reduction spending at community level.
Step 8:Through the national platform assess the monetary allocations to disaster risk reduction by the private sector.
Conclusion and recommendations
Considering the and taking notice of the growing commitment and importance of disaster
risk reduction for governments and the international community, the following
recommendations are proposed for disaster risk reduction funding and investment on the
African continent:
a. Roles, mandates and responsibilities for disaster risk reduction funding should
be clarified at international level;
b. An agreed framework for reporting on disaster risk reduction investment
through all sectors and actors in Africa is imperative;
c. Countries should receive clear guidance on the reporting of the HFA and MDG
priorities and targets in terms of disaster risk reduction spending;
d. Regional disaster risk reduction organisations must be strengthened to assist
countries with disaster risk reduction investments and reporting;
e. The debate on the integration of disaster risk reduction in the humanitarian,
development and climate change adaptation sectors requires further
elaboration to focus on the importance and cost-benefit of accurate disaster
risk reduction funding allocation and reporting;
f. Governments should aim to utilise the proposed methodology in this report to
track and report on disaster risk reduction investments which is multi-sectoral in
nature and overlap with development, humanitarian and climate change
adaptation programming;
g. Consideration should be given for the establishment of a country-driven Africa
and/or global fund for disaster risk reduction which will holistically focus on
disaster risk reduction and allow for open and transparent reporting; and
h. More support towards research on disaster risk reduction investment in the
short-term is needed to catalyse the above recommended actions
43
References
Becker, P., Abrahamsson, M. & Hagelsteen, M., 2013. Parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Southern Africa. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, pp.1–5.
Deely, S. et al., 2010. World Disasters Report 2010: Focus on Urban Risk 1st ed. D. McClean, ed., Renouf Pub Co Ltd.
Harmer, A. et al., 2009. Thematic CAP for national disaster preparedness: Feasibility study, London: Humanitarian Outcomes. Available at: http://www.humanitarianoutcomes.org/resources/ThematicCAPonpreparednessreport2.pdf.
Kellett, J. & Sparks, D., 2012. Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it should count, Somerset: Global Humanitarian Assistance.
Kellett, J. & Sweeney, H., 2011. Analysis of financing mechanisms and funding streams to enhance emergency preparedness, Somerset: Development Initiatives.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R. & Hochrainer-Stigler, S., 2011. Insurance against Losses from Natural Disasters in Developing Countries. Evidence, Gaps and the Way Forward. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), pp.1–23.
OFDA, 2012. Southern Africa Disaster Risk Reduction Plan, Pretoria: OFDA/USAID.
United Nations Development Group (UNDG), 2009. Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction Into the CCA and UNDAF, United Nations. Available at: http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1123/Integrating_DRR_in_CCA_and_UNDAF_EN.pdf.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), 2011. Effective measures to build resilience in Africa to adapt to climate change, Geneva: United Nations. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/files/24012_briefingnote04africa.pdf.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2009. Terminology for Disaster Risk Reduction UN, Geneva: UN.
Schalatek, L. et al., 2012. Climate Finance Regional Briefing: Sub-Saharan Africa. pp.1–2.
Shaw, R., 2012. Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction (Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management) R. Shaw, ed., Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sparks, D., 2012. Aid investments in disaster risk reduction - rhetoric to action, Bristol: Global Humanitarian Assistance.
Van Niekerk, D., 2006. Disaster Risk Management in South Africa: The function and the activity–towards an integrated approach. Politeia.
44
Van Niekerk, D. et al., 2011. An Alternative Financing Model for Disaster Risk Reduction in South Africa 1st ed, Pretoria: Financial and Fiscal Commission.
Van Niekerk, D. & Coetzee, C., 2012. Chapter 17 African Experiences in Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction. In Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management. Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 333–349.
Wisner, B., 2004. At risk, Psychology Press.
45
Annexure 1: Selected case studies
BotswanaProject Title
Civil Society Organisation Strengthening Program
Aim of the Project
The objective of the project is to enhance the capacity of local non- governmental
(NGOs), Faith- Based (FBOs), and community- based organisations (CBOs) to implement
successful HIV/AIDS prevention programs by mentoring, coaching and training, capacity
development for a network of NGOs, collaboration between local NGOs and
governments.
Roll out (years of project)
2008 – 2012
Focus Area
HIV/AIDS and Health
Budget
US$7,695,000
OutComes (Realised / Outstanding)
• 184 087 people reached through community outreach that promotes HIV/AIDS
• 1 461 People trained in organisational development and technical topics.
• 995 adults and youth reached with educational/vocational training and/or
psychological, social and spiritual support.
• 2 194 people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) reached with package of PWP
interventions.
46
• 1 323 people reached through workplace program.
• 89 enterprises implementing HIV/AIDS Workplace program.
Total persons affected
300 000
47
EthiopiaProject Title
The Ethiopia Food by Prescription (FBP) program, implemented by Save the Children US,
USAID/Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian Ministry of Health
Aim of project
The Ethiopia Food by Prescription (FBP) program provides therapeutic food along with
nutritional assessment and counseling to malnourished HIV positive individuals.
Roll out (years of project)
The project started in 2010, initially in 58 health facilities an rolled out to it’s third year in
2012.
Population affected
2011= 41180
2012= 48000
Project Focus Areas
Disaster risk reduction, Health, Education, Humanitarian Aid
Budget
Budget in 2011= $2,047,189.78 thus $49.71 per patient
Project Outcomes
• 70% of budget used for product and 30% for the implementation of the project
• 7.4% recovered from malnutrition
• Malnutrition recovery increases from 18,7% - 41,6%
• 48000 received counseling and training
• Loss of 1 BMI point significantly increases the chances of mortality in HIV + patients
48
• Patients who received food were significantly more likely to recover from
malnutrition
49
GhanaProject Title
Feed the Future Program, Ghana
Aim of project
Feed the Future Ghana is making core investments in three key areas:
1. To achieve food security, agriculture programs will focus on driving a step-change in
the volume and value performance of core staple value chains—starting with rice,
maize and soy—and improving the governance of marine fisheries resources.
• Improving the Enabling Environment for Private Sector Investment
• High Impact Value Chain Activities and Investment
2. To help reduce malnutrition and improve household resilience of vulnerable
populations, agriculture and nutrition programs will focus on a) improving access to
diverse quality food, b) improving nutrition-related behaviors within vulnerable
households, c) developing community mechanisms to identify and address their food
and nutrition problems, and d) strengthening coordination of government and other
actors to meet food security and nutrition objectives.
3. To improve the nutritional status of women and children, nutrition programs will
focus on:
• Improving nutrition-related behaviors and community norms regarding nutrition
• Expanding community-based treatment of acute malnutrition of children
• Expanding the accessibility of safe, quality foods available for child weaning in
Ghana
• Identifying and addressing the root causes of severe levels of anemia among women
and children in Ghana
Roll out (years of project)
50
2011 - 2015
Focus Areas
Agriculture programs, Nutrition programs
Budget
$1,071.6 million
International DRR Compliance
HFA- 3, 4
MDG- 1
Population affected
Over the next five years in Ghana, Feed the Future aims to help an estimated 860,000
vulnerable Ghanaian women, children and family members—mostly smallholder farmers.
More than 324,000 children will be reached with services to improve their nutrition and
prevent stunting and child mortality.
Significant numbers of additional rural populations will achieve improved income and
nutritional status from strategic policy engagement and institutional investments.
Project Outcomes
• Over 21,000 farmers from more than 16,000 rural households assisted in agricultural
productivity, business development, access to inputs, finance and output markets,
and meeting quality standards.
• A total of 347 producer, business, and community-based organizations (including 28
women’s organizations) and 104 agriculture-related firms benefited from improved
organizational/business development, management skills, and market opportunities.
• Expanded CMAM to reach 540,000 children with essential nutrition services and
treating 1,864 children for severe acute malnutrition
51
KenyaProject Title
The Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) Scholarship Program
Budget
Total Budget: $10,119,640
Roll out (years of project)
November 17, 2008 – November 16, 2013
Project Focus Areas
Disaster Risk Reduction, Education
International DRR Compliance
HFA- 1,2,4
MDG- 2
Aim of project
The Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) Scholarship Program provides quality
education opportunities to orphaned children or made vulnerable due to HIV/AIDS
pandemic. This program provides university scholarships and all related fees to eligible
beneficiaries which are selected by the Ministry of Education, the Department of Children
Services and APHIA II Programs.
This program is implemented by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) that works in Patnership
with the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Higher Education and Technical Training, and
the Department of Children’s Services.
Project Objectives
• to provide badly needed schooling assistance for children who would otherwise not
have access to education due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic;
52
• to improve young girls’ chances and levels of education;
• to facilitate the acquisition of skills beyond secondary school education;
• to alleviate poverty;
• to support the government of Kenya in eliminating ignorance;
• to boost morale and self confidence of young people;
• to encourage other stakeholders to offer education assistance, and
• to performa in National Examinations.
Population affected
The program works with 1,200 schools (secondary schools, colleges, and universities) in
Kenya from all districts in the country.
USAID has provided more than 5,000 OVC students with scholarships
Project Outcomes
• 5000 OVC have been assisted
• 3500 OVC have completed the cycle of education
• From 1536 OVC- 69% enrolled in high school, 26% in universities and 5% in middle
level colleges.
• 31% enrolled in tertiary institutions to gain employable skills and eventually address
poverty.
• More girls are assisted to access and complete education- 40% of beneficiaries are
female, with 28% in high school.
• Increasing available income in families through provision of secondary support to the
1536 beneficiaries
• In 2012, 76% of the OVC beneficiaries achieved scores that qualified them for
53
Universities against the national average of 55%.
• Overall morale and self-confidence of young people are boosted.
54
MauritaniaProject Title
Higher Education project
Aim of project
The proposed project would help Government implement its strategy of producing
qualified graduates with the skills needed for increased productivity and diversification of
its economy.
Role out (years of project)
2004-2013
Focus Area
Education
Budget
$15.51 million
Outcomes (Realised/Outstanding)
• 4 Higher Education institutions have transformed their programs into license, masters
and doctoral programs.
• 50% of the students employed after graduation
• 35% of higher education institutions have established a administrative centre.
• 35% of higher education institutions have established a distance learning centre.
• 83 new senior lectures have been trained
• 200 new faculty members have been trained
55
• 34% present of general programs have converted into professional programs after the
introduction of license, masters and doctoral programs.
Total persons affected
22693
Disaster risk reduction link
According to the Pressure Release Model certain factors interact with natural hazards to
cause disaster risk. These broad arrange of factors result in individuals being vulnerable to
hazards which causes disaster risk. According to this model one of the dynamic pressures
related to vulnerability is lack of appropriate skills and training. As stated above
Mauritania’s labour force has a mismatch between the available skills and the needed
skills. Thus the people in Mauritania have an increased vulnerability to disasters due to
these factors.
56
Somalia (Education)Project Title
Support to IDP Alternative Basic Education and transition to Formal School in South,
Central, Puntuland and Somaliland
Aim of the Project
The main objective of the project is to provide access to protective and inclusive quality
Alternative Basic Education for Returnees, displaced boys and girls in the IDP settlements
and vulnerable host to improve the capacity and the quality of child friendly learning
environment in schools hosting displaced and other vulnerable children.
It is also to facilitate the transition of ABE graduating learning into formal upper primary
education.
Roll Out (years of Project)
July 2011- Dec 2011
Focus Area
The Project focuses on Education Cluster
Budget
$2 000 000
Outcomes (Realised/Outstanding)
• 9000 displaced and other vulnerable children provided access to quality
Alternative Basic Education (ABE). Improved quality of teaching and learning for
boys and girls in schools supported by the project.
• 9000 displaced and other vulnerable boys and girls benefited from improved
protection in schools supported by the project. Improved child friendly learning
environment through provision of space and rehabilitation of existing schools.
57
• Capacity of the teachers, CECs and authorities improved through training and
awareness campaigns. Improved coordination and capacity building of the MoE
and CECs members. 2000 displaced, returnees and other vulnerable children
assisted to transit into formal upper primary schools.
• 300 parents capacity enhanced to better protect the vulnerable boys and girls in
selected IDP settlements. Improved enrollment and retention among students from
poor families was supported by the project.
Total persons Affected
20 675
Disaster risk reduction link
Disaster risk reduction has a broader action on education to be accessed by everyone to
increase their opportunities to reduce the cycle of poverty. Within the MDGs it is
responding to the achievement of universal primary education.
58
Somalia (Health)Project Title
Control and response to outbreaks of communicable diseases in emergency health
setting including IDP camps and settlements in Somalia and provision of gaps fillings
activities for access to quality essential medicines and suppliers of identified vulnerable
population.
Aim of the Project
To ensure timely detection and appropriate response and control of communicable
disease outbreaks affecting populations of humanitarian concern across Somalia. To
prevent early death and disability due to communicable diseases outbreaks amongst
populations affected by humanitarian emergencies across Somalia. To provide access to
quality medicines and supplies and effective case management for cases of
communicable disease outbreaks across Somalia with focus on those in humanitarian
emergency.
Roll Out (years of Project)
Jan 2011 – Dec 2011
Focus Area
Health Cluster
Budget
$ 1 662 948
Outcomes (Realised/Outstanding)
Health workers trained both male and female in equal proportions where feasible on
communicable diseases outbreaks detection and case management.
Training (in service and on job training) and building capacity of health workers, both male
and female to respond to and effectively manage cases during outbreaks of
59
communicable diseases especially AWD: 2 trainings per region targeting at least 6
participants per district with 50% female where feasible including local health authorities.
Training of district based outbreak investigation teams including both men and women
(50% women when feasible) and members of local health authorities (at least 1 team per
region).
Essential medicines, supplies and emergency kits strategically prepositioned and
distributed to identify risk areas. Stockpile essential medicines, supplies and equipment
for disease outbreak control (cholera kits, cholera treatment centre supplies, and diarrheal
disease kits) in strategic warehouses: Mogadishu, Hargeisa, Garowe, Galkacyo, Merka
ready for distribution.
Total persons Affected
2,968,000
Disaster risk reduction link
Disaster risk reduction strategies are deduced through the trainings and public
awareness’s raised to reduce the outbreaks on Somalia. In addition the MDG 4 is
addressed, on promotion of gender equality and giving the women empowerment a
priority in the improving the services to the communities. Risk identification is viewed as
to practice disaster risk reduction.
60