GHA RepoRt 2012

Contents

Foreword 2

exeCutivesummary 3

Chapter1:humanitarianresponsetoCrises 9

WHeRe does tHe fundinG come fRom? 11

internationalcontributionsfromgovernments 11nationalgovernmentsprovidinghumanitarianassistancewithintheirborders 22privatecontributionsfromfoundations,companiesandindividualstonGos,unandtheredCross 25

WHeRe does tHe fundinG Go? 29

Countryvariations 29shiftingtrends 35

HoW does tHe fundinG Get tHeRe? 41

Fundingtofirst-levelrecipients 43Civilsocietyincrisis-affectedcountries 45pooledfunds 46themilitary 50

Chapter2:ForCesshapinGhumanitarianneed 55

driversofvulnerabilityandcrisis 56assessingthescaleofthecrisis 59responsetothecrisis–fundingappeals 62proportionalityinfinancingresponsestocrises 67

Chapter3:investmentstotaCklevulnerability 71

poverty,vulnerabilityandcrisis 73socialprotectionandcashtransfers 76investmentsindisasterriskreduction 78investmentsingovernanceandsecurity 80usingaidtoaddvalueinthecontextofotherresources 82

data&Guides 85

keydefinitions,conceptsandmethodology 87datasources 91acronymsandabbreviations 93referencetables 94

aCknowledGements 102

1

Foreword

welcometotheGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)report2012.

Ghatriestoanswersomeofthebasicquestionsaboutthewaythattheworldfinancesresponsetocrisisandvulnerability.howmuchisspentonhumanitarianassistance?wheredoesitgo?whatisitspenton?whospendsit?ouraimistoprovideclear,objectiveevidenceonresources,easilyaccessibleonpaperandonline,sothatdecisionsandpolicycanbebetterinformed.webelievethatbetterinformationmeansbetteraid.

Foranumberofyearsnow,wehavehighlightedthedataonresourcesforpeoplewholiveontheedgeofcrisis,inchronicpovertyandwhereviolentconflictiscommonandstatesarefragile.astheGhareport2012pointsout,buildingtheresilienceofvulnerablepopulationsisanessentialpartofachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andisnotwellservedbyresponsesthatcreateafalsepartitionbetweenchronicpovertyandvulnerabilitytocrisis.

sincetheG20inkoreain2010,buildingresiliencehasbecomeanincreasinglyvisiblepolicyconcern.theGhareport2012includesnewdatathatisofparticularrelevancetothisarea.Cash-basedprogramming,forinstance,enablespeopletomaketheirownchoicesaboutprioritiesandwhethertheyinvestfortheshortorlongerterm.between2008and2011humanitarianspendingoncashandvoucher-basedprogrammingrangedbetweenus$45millionandus$188million.spendingondisasterpreventionandpreparednessandriskreduction,essentialforbuildingresiliencetocriseslargeandsmall,remainsverylowatjust4%ofhumanitarianaidandlessthan1%ofdevelopmentassistance.

thelevelofunmethumanitarianneedin2011wastheworstforadecade:overathirdoftheneedsidentifiedintheunconsolidatedappealshaveremainedunfunded–leavingashortfallofus$3.4billion.theimpactofthisisexacerbatedbytheincreasingconcentrationofhumanitarianaidonasmallernumberofmega-crises.historicallythetopthreerecipientshaveabsorbedaround30%oftotalhumanitarianaid.in2010thatjumpedtonearlyhalf(49%)andothercountriesincrisiscollectivelysawareductionintheirshareoftotalfunding.

thegoodnewsisthat,at62million,thenumberofpeopleaffectedbycrisesin2011was12millionfewerthanin2010.totalspendingperpersonintheunconsolidatedappeal(Cap)hasfallenfromus$98perpersonin2010tous$90in2011.butthesecalculationsdonottellusenough.threeareaswherebetterdatacouldcontributetobetteraidarefundingaccordingtoneed,domesticresponseandaidinthecontextofotherresources.Fundingaccordingtoneedisaprincipleofgoodhumanitariandonorship,butitcannotbeimplementedwithoutbetterdataontargetpopulationsandmoretransparentandaccessibleinformationonneeds.localandnationalresponsestocrisisarevitallyimportantinsavinglivesandreducingvulnerability.ifbetterdatawasavailableonthescaleandnatureofdomesticresponse,theninternationalhumanitarianresourcescouldbeusedmoreefficientlytoaddvalue.humanitarianaidisjustoneoftheresourcesavailabletorespondtocrisesandbuildresilience:developmentassistance,militaryspending,domesticrevenues,remittances,peacekeeping,privateinvestmentaswellaspeople’sownresourcesareallpartofthepicture.betterinformationonallresourceshelpsmoreeffectiveallocations.Ghaisworkingtopublishmoredataintheseareasinordertocontributetothemoreeffectiveuseofresourcesforbuildingresilienceandreducingpovertyforveryvulnerablepopulations.

wehopethatyoufindthisreportandallthesupportingdataonlinehelpful.wearealwaysavailabletoanswerquestions,provideadditionalinformationorproducespecificgraphsandspreadsheetsthroughourphoneandonlinehelpdesk.pleasevisittheGhawebsite:www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org.

wewouldwelcomeyourfeedbackandsuggestionsaboutdatathatyouwouldfindmostuseful.

Judith Randelexecutivedirector,developmentinitiatives

2

3

eXecutiVe summARY

= 1 mill ion

Fewer people were in need of humanitarian assistance in 2011 than in 2010 – but numbers appear to be rising again in 2012.

Large volumes of international humanitarian aid are spent each year in places where people are acutely vulnerable to crises – where high proportions of the population live in absolute poverty, where violent conflict is common and where states are fragile.

2010 74million 2011 62million 2012 61million*

Source: UN consolidated appeals process (CAP)

*This includes 10 million

people in the Sahel affected by

food insecurity and added to

the appeal in May/June 2012

Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS, CRED, INCAF, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, SIPRI and World Bank data

39 countries receiving international

humanitarian aid had been affected by

conflict for five or more years over the previous

decade. They collectively

received US$10.7bn in 2010.

Just over US$8bn was spent in 46 countries

that had an above average share of their population affected by

natural disasters between 2001 and 2010.

In 2010, 53 of the 139 countries receiving

international humanitarian aid had higher than average

shares of their respective populations

living on less than US$1.25 a day.

45 states categorised as ‘fragile’ received 88.6% of the total

international humanitarian aid.

0%50% 60% 70% 80% 90%10% 20% 30% 40%

CONFLICT

STATE FRAGILIT

YPOVERTY

NATURAL DISASTER

100%

54.8%

85.9%

64.3%

88.6%

4

0%

50%

100%

US$0bn US$5bn US$10bn US$15bn US$20bn

The funding gap also widened for other appeals in 2011.

72.2%NEEDS MET

27.8%NEEDS UNMET

7 1.7%NEEDS MET

28.3%NEEDS UNMET

7 1.2%NEEDS MET

28.8%NEEDS UNMET

63.0%NEEDS MET

37.0%NEEDS UNMET

62.3%NEEDS MET

37.7%NEEDS UNMET

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Despite large increases in humanitarian financing, the gap between met and unmet needs in UN CAP appeals has widened by 10% over the last five years.

Source: UN OCHA FTS

Source: UN OCHA FTS and IFRC

Natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan drove sharp increases in both humanitarian needs and financing in 2010.

Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC data, UN OCHA FTS data and our own research

Major natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan contributed to a 23%

increase in international humanitarian aid in 2010.

The overall international humanitarian financing response fell back by 9% in 2011. Both private and government contributions remained

above 2009 levels.

Average level of needs met

Governments

Needs met in 2011

62%

67%

37%

47%50%67%

UN CAP appeal10-year average

UN non-CAP appeals10-year average

IFRC appeals5-year average

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

US$12.4bn

US$16.0bn

US$15.3bn

US$18.8bn

US$17.1bn

Private voluntary contributions

5

exeCutivesummary

in2010majornaturaldisastersinhaitiandpakistanhadwide-rangingeffectsonthecollectivehumanitarianresponse:drivingupoverallinternationalspendingby23%overthepreviousyear;drawinginnewgovernmentandprivatedonors;andinvolvingmilitaryactorsinresponsesonahugescale.thesecrisesalsoshiftedhistoricgeographicalconcentrationsofhumanitarianspending,exacerbatingthegapinunmetfinancingforanumberofothercountries.

in2011globalhumanitarianneedsweresmallerinscale,withtheun’sconsolidatedhumanitarianappealrequestingus$8.9billion,21%lessinfinancing,tomeetthehumanitarianneedsof62millionpeople,comparedwithus$11.3billionrequestedtomeettheneedsof74millionpeoplein2010.theoverallinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefellbackby9%,fromus$18.8billionin2010tous$17.1billionin2011.butdespitethereductioninneedsintheun’shumanitarianappeals,thegapinunmetfinancingwidenedtolevelsnotseenintenyears.

humanitariancrisesnotonlyoccurinpartsoftheworldwheremanypeoplearealreadypoor:theydeepenpovertyandpreventpeoplefromescapingfromit.buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskthereforeisnotonlytheconcernofaffectedcommunitiesandhumanitarians;itisoffundamentalimportanceinachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andintheeliminationofabsolutepoverty.

tHe Response to GlobAl HumAnitARiAn cRises

thecollectiveinternationalgovernmentresponsetohumanitariancrisesreachedanhistoricpeakin2010,growingby10%toreachus$13billion.basedonpreliminaryfigures,totalinternationalhumanitarianaidfromgovernmentsfellbyus$495million,or4%,in2011.humanitarianaidfromorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCd)developmentassistanceCommittee(daC)donorsincreasedbyus$1billionbetween2009and2010(9%)andfellbyus$266millionbetween2010and2011(2%).humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupincreasedbyus$156million(27%)between2009and2010,thenfellbyus$229million(31%)in2011.

privatefundinghasbecomeincreasinglyresponsivetoneedrelativetogovernmentsources.privatecontributionsgrewrapidlyin2010,upby70%(us$2.4billion)from2009levelsandreachingus$5.8billion.initialpreliminaryestimatesfor2011indicatethatlevelsofprivategivinghavefallenbackagainbutstillremainabove2009levels,atus$4.6billion.

theimpactoftheglobaleconomiccrisisisonlynowstartingtobefeltindevelopmentaidbudgets.officialdevelopmentassistance(oda)fromoeCddaCdonorsfellinabsolutetermsbyus$4.2billion(3%)in2011.humanitarianaidfellataslightlylowerrate(2%)thandevelopmentassistancemorewidely(3%)in2011,andthusgrewasashareoftotalodaby0.1%.intheyearfollowingthepakistanandhaiti‘mega-disasters’,whenoverallhumanitarianneedssubsided,areductionofjust2%demonstratedpartialresilienceinhumanitarianspendingamongstoeCddaCdonors,particularlywhenviewedagainstabackdropofaidbudgetcuts.theimpactoftheprospectofmoreseverecutsinodaonhumanitarianassistanceremainstobeseen.

whilesomedonorswereincreasingtheircontributionstomeetrisinglevelsofneedin2010,however,otherswerereducingtheirs,andoveraperiodofseveralyearsthedonordivisionoflabourhasgraduallyshifted.thetoptencountriesincreasingtheirhumanitarianaidspendingbetween2008and2010(theunitedstates,Canada,Japan,sweden,Germany,turkey,theunitedkingdom,norway,australiaandFrance)collectivelyincreasedtheircontributionsbyus$1.2billionovertheperiod.thetendonorswiththelargesthumanitarianaidspendingreductionsbetween2008and2010meanwhile(saudiarabia,theeuropeanunion(eu)institutions,thenetherlands,italy,kuwait,spain,ireland,austria,thailandandGreece)collectivelyreducedtheircontributionsbyus$1billion.

theoverallrisingtrendininternationalhumanitarianaidtorecipientcountriesin2010maskedanumberofshiftsinthetraditionaldistributionsofinternationalhumanitarianfunding.theus$3.1billionofhumanitarianfundschannelledtohaitiin2010wasofacompletelydifferentordertothevolumestypicallyreceived–morethandoubletheamountreceivedbythelargestrecipientinanyotheryeartodate.ineachyearsince2001,approximatelyone-thirdoftotalhumanitarianaidhasbeenconcentratedamongthetopthreerecipientcountries.in2010,however,theshareoftheleadingthreerecipientsjumpedtonearlyhalfofthetotal,withhaitireceiving25%andpakistan17%.

thereweresomeclear‘losers’amidsttheoverallgrowthininternationalhumanitarianaidspendingin2010.amongthe15countrieswiththegreatestreductionsinhumanitarianfundingbyvolume,five

6

experiencedanimprovementintheirhumanitariansituation;oftheremainingten,allexperiencedgreaterdifficultiesinraisingfundswithintheirunfundingappealsthaninthepreviousyear,withmanynotingseriousdifficultiesinraisingfundsinthefirsthalfoftheyear.inthemoststrikingexamples,theproportionoffundingneedsmetintheunappealsfornepalandChadwere33%and31%lower,respectively,in2010thanin2009.

foRces sHApinG HumAnitARiAn need And tHe miXed inteRnAtionAl Response

thescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesabatedin2011,with12.5millionfewerpeopletargetedtoreceivehumanitarianassistanceintheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap),andafurtherdropof10.4millionintheexpectednumbersofpeopleinneedofhumanitarianassistancein2012.in2011thenumberofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersfellto91million,substantiallylowerthanthe224millionin2010andthelowestfigureintenyears.

thestructuralvulnerabilitiesoftheglobaleconomicsystemthatgaverisetotheglobalfoodcrisisof2008remainlargelyunchanged,leadingtoasecondpricespikein2011,withenergypricesrisingby143%andfoodpricesby56%fromtheirlowestpointsin2009totheirpeaksin2011.pricevolatilityremainsacute,andtheoutlookisoneofcontinuedhighprices.

unmethumanitarianfinancingneedsroseacrosstheboardin2011,forunCapandotherappealsalike.theproportionofhumanitarianfinancingneedswithintheunCapappealthatremainedunmetin2011wasgreater,at38%,thaninanyyearsince2001,despiteoverallreducedrequirements.unappealsoutsideoftheCapin2011werefundedtojust37%overall,however,wellbelowtheaverageof46%fortheperiod2000–2011.internationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC)appealsin2009and2010hadunmetrequirementsof17%and21%respectively,comparedwithjust11%and10%inthetwoprecedingyears.internationalFederationoftheredCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)appealfundingrequirementswerejust50%metin2011againstanaverageof67%fortheperiod2006–2011.

in2010,consolidatedappeals–whichrepresentchronic,predictablehumanitariancrises–collectivelysawan11%reductionintheshareoftheirappealrequirementsmet.in2011regularconsolidatedappealsfaredslightlybetter,witha1%increaseintheshareofrequirementsmet,butthemajorityofthemwereworsefundedin2011thantheyweretwoorthreeyearspreviously.

inVestments to tAckle VulneRAbilitY

manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearecharacterisedascomplexcrises,withcountriesoftensufferingfromconflictandwithverylimitedcapacitytodealwithdisasters.allbutoneofthetoptenrecipientsbetween2001and2010areconsideredfragilestates,andallhavebeenaffectedbyconflictfor5–10years.

in2009,68%oftotalofficialhumanitarianassistancewasreceivedbycountriesconsideredlong-termrecipients,i.e.countriesreceivinganabove-averageshareoftheirtotalodaintheformofhumanitarianaidforaperiodof8ormoreyearsduringthepreceding15years.

buildingresiliencetocrisesintheseplacesisthemostefficientandcost-effectivewayofpreventingsufferingandprotectinglivelihoods,yetrelativelysmallsharesofinternationalresourcesareinvestedspecificallyinbuildingresilience.Just4%ofofficialhumanitarianaid(us$1.5billion)and0.7%(us$4.4billion)ofnon-humanitarianodawasinvestedindisasterriskreductionbetween2006and2010.

Conflict-affectedstatesreceivetheoverwhelmingmajorityofinternationalassistance:onaverage,between64%and83%ofinternationalhumanitarianassistancewaschannelledtocountriesinconflictorinpost-conflicttransitionbetween2001and2010.odainvestmentsinpeaceandsecuritysectorsgrewby140%overallbetween2002and2010–andby249%withinthetop20recipients.

aidisakeyresourcetomeettheneedsofpeoplevulnerabletoandaffectedbycrises.butmanyotherofficialandprivateresourceflowshavearoletoplayincreatingbroad-basedgrowth–growththathasthepotentialtoreducepovertyandvulnerability,provideditisequitableandbuiltoninvestmentsthatengagewithandsupportthepoor.

7

thestory

©vickiFrancis/departmentforinternationaldevelopment

in2010theinternationalhumanitariansystemwastestedbycrisesofenormousscale–notleastinpakistan,wheretenyearsofrainfellinoneweek,leaving20millionpeopleaffectedbywidespreadflooding.

traditionalresponsestohumanitariancrisesfallundertheaegisof‘emergencyresponse’:materialreliefassistanceandservices(shelter,water,medicinesetc.);emergencyfoodaid(short-termdistributionandsupplementaryfeedingprogrammes);reliefcoordination,protectionandsupportservices(coordination,logisticsandcommunications).buthumanitarianaidcanalsoincludereconstructionandrehabilitation,aswellasdisasterpreventionandpreparedness.

8

Credit

HumAnitARiAn Response to cRises

theglobalresponsetohumanitariancrisesisthecollectiveoutputofacomplexecosystemofcommunities,organisationsandnationalandinternationalgovernments,eachfacingarangeofchoicesabouthow,where,whenandhowmuchtheycontributetomeethumanitarianneed.

eachyearseeschangesinthenatureofhumanitariancrisesandtheglobalcontextinwhichtheyarise.in2010majornaturaldisastersinhaitiandpakistanhadwide-rangingeffectsonthecollectiveresponse:drivingupoverallinternationalspendingby23%overthepreviousyear;drawinginnewgovernmentandprivatedonors;andinvolvingmilitaryactorsinresponsesonahugescale.thesecrisesalsoshiftedhistoricgeographicalconcentrationsofhumanitarianspending,exacerbatingthegapinunmetfinancingforanumberofothercountries.

in2011globalhumanitarianneedsweresmallerinscale,withtheun’sconsolidatedhumanitarianappealrequestingus$8.9billion,21%lessinfinancing,tomeetthehumanitarianneedsof62millionpeople,comparedwithus$11.3billionrequestedtomeettheneedsof74millionpeoplein2010.theoverallinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefellbackby9%,fromus$18.8billionin2010tous$17.1billionin2011.butdespitethereductioninneedsintheun’shumanitarianappeals,thegapinunmetfinancingwidenedtolevelsnotseenintenyears.

thischapterquantifiesthescaleofofficialandprivatehumanitarianaidcontributionsandattemptstoanswersomebasicquestionsaboutwherethemoneycomesfrom,whereitgoesandhowitgetsthere.

9

QUANTIFIED

PARTIALLY QUANTIFIED

UNQUANTIFIED

UNQUANTIFIABLE

GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

INTE

RNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE: US$17.1bnGovernmentsUS$12.5bn

(2011, preliminary estimate)

Private voluntary contributions US$4.6bn

(2011, preliminary estimate)

National institutions

National governments

People

DOMESTIC RESPONSE

Other types of aid

Other types of foreign assistance

Humanitarian aiddelivered by the military

OTHER INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES

Other international resources are discussed in Chapter 3, Investments to tackle

vulnerability. There is also a section on the military's delivery of humanitarian aid in

Chapter 1, Section 1.3.

Domestic response is difficult to quantify. The role of national governments in crisis-affected states is covered in

Chapter 1, Section 1.1. Their role in social protection is referenced in Chapter 3.

The international humanitarian response is the main focus of the

analysis in Chapter 1, Humanitarian response to crises.

10

internationalContributionsFromGovernments

between2001and2010,governmentdonorsprovidedus$99billioninhumanitarianaidfinancing.95%ofthiswasprovidedbygovernmentsthataremembersofthedevelopmentassistanceCommitteeoftheorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCddaC).5%wasprovidedbygovernmentsoutsidetheoeCddaCgroup.

thelargestdonorthroughoutthisperiodwastheunitedstates,whichprovidedoverathirdofthetotalfundingfromgovernments.thefivelargestdonorsbetween2001and2010(theunitedstates,theeuinstitutions,theunitedkingdom,Germanyandsweden)collectivelycontributed69%ofthetotal.

whilethecontributionsoftheleadingdonors–allofwhomareoeCddaCmembers–accountforthelargestshareofgovernmenthumanitarianaidfinancing,thedivisionoflabouramongdonorsiscontinuallyevolvingandothergovernmentsoutsideofthetraditionaloeCddaCgroupareplayinganincreasinglyprominentrole.notably,saudiarabiaandtheunitedarabemirates(uae)arenowmajorhumanitarianaiddonorsandrankamongthetop20,aboveanumberofoeCddaCdonorgovernments.

1.1 WHeRe does tHe fundinG come fRom?

HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments

ourdefinitionofhumanitarianfundingfromgovernmentsincludesfundingfrom:

• 24oeCddaCmembers–australia,austria,belgium,Canada,denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,ireland,italy,Japan,korea,luxembourg,thenetherlands,newZealand,norway,portugal,spain,sweden,switzerland,theunitedkingdom,theunitedstatesandtheeuropeanunioninstitutions–whichreporttotheoeCddaC.

• othergovernmentsthatreporttheirhumanitarianaidcontributionstotheunitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(unoCha)Financialtrackingservice(Fts).becausereportingisvoluntary,thenumberofgovernmentsreportingvariesfromyeartoyear.in2010,130governmentdonorsreportedtheirhumanitarianaidcontributionstotheFts,whilein2011only84governmentsreported.thelargestofthese‘non-oeCddaC’or‘othergovernment’donorsincludesaudiarabia,uae,russia,turkey,China,india,Qatarandsouthafrica.

seethedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofhowwecalculatehumanitarianaidcontributionsfromgovernments.

11

4. GermanyUS$6.3bn

3. United KingdomUS$8.5bn

1. United StatesUS$34.1bn

2. EU institutionsUS$14.6bn

5. SwedenUS$5bn

6. NetherlandsUS$4.8bn

7. JapanUS$4.4bn

8. NorwayUS$4.2bn

9. FranceUS$3.5bn

10. SpainUS$3.4bn

11. ItalyUS$3.2bn

12. CanadaUS$3.2bn

13. AustraliaUS$2.8bn

14. SwitzerlandUS$2.3bn

15. DenmarkUS$2.2bn

16. Saudi Arabia

US$2.1bn

17. BelgiumUS$1.5bn

18. FinlandUS$1.2bn

19. IrelandUS$1.1bn

20. UAE US$0.9bn

fiGuRe 1: top 20 GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

12

portugal us$24mkorea us$24miranislamicrep. us$16mthailand us$12mmexico us$11mkuwait us$11malgeria us$10mindonesia us$7moman us$5mCzechrepublic us$5mbahrain us$5m

unitedstates us$4.9bneuinstitutions us$1.7bn

spain us$496mnorway us$470mnetherlands us$459mFrance us$435maustralia us$390m

italy us$283mdenmark us$259msaudiarabia us$256mbelgium us$227mswitzerland us$211mFinland us$167mireland us$128muae us$114m

austria us$65mturkey us$61mluxembourg us$54mrussia us$40mGreece us$39mChina us$38mindia us$37mnewZealand us$31mbrazil us$29mkazakhstan us$25m

unitedkingdom us$943mGermany us$744msweden us$690mJapan us$642mCanada us$550m

overus$1bn

us$500mtous$1bn

us$300mtous$500m

us$100mtous$300m

us$5mtous$25m

‹1%

1%

underus$5m

fiGuRe 2: GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid in 2010

note:datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases;thereforefordetailedanalysisweuse2010asthelatestavailableyear.153governmentsplusinstitutionsundertheeuparticipatedintheinternationalhumanitarianresponsetocrisesin2010,contributingus$13billionintotal.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

poland us$4mmorocco us$3mGhana us$3msudan us$3mazerbaijan us$3mnigeria us$3mdrC us$3megypt us$2mbangladesh us$2mequatorialGuinea us$2mQatar us$2miraq us$2mestonia us$1mafghanistan us$1mslovenia us$1mmalaysia us$1mslovakia us$1mGuyana us$1mtrinidadandtobago us$1mhungary us$1mukraine us$1mCongo,rep. us$1mGabon us$1mGambia us$1msenegal us$1msuriname us$1mtunisia us$1m

afurther13governments

‹us$1m

us$25mtous$100m

13

45%

25%

15%

11% 3%

inresponsetoincreasedneed(seeChapter2),thecollectiveinternationalgovernmentresponsetohumanitariancrisesreachedahistoricpeakin2010,growingby10%toreachus$13billion.basedonpreliminaryfigures,totalinternationalhumanitarianaidfromgovernmentsfellbyus$495million,or4%,in2011.thisfallwassignificantlylessthanthe21%reductioninfinancingrequestedthroughunhumanitarianappealsinthesameyear.

thispatterncorrespondswiththe‘ratcheteffect’onhumanitarianfundinglevelsobservedaroundothermajorhumanitariancrisesinthepastdecade,wherebyhumanitarianfundinglevelsincreasesharplyinpeakcrisis

years,butdonotfallbacktopre-crisislevelsinsubsequentyears.in2005,forexample,theinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponsefromgovernmentsincreasedby36%toathenrecordhighofus$11.4billioninresponsetomajordisasters(theindianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandthesouthasia(kashmir)earthquake)andremainedwellabovepre-2005levelsthereafter,fallingbyjust12%in2006.similarly,in2008theinternationalhumanitarianresponsescaledupby33%tomeetincreasedhumanitarianneeds–stemmingfromtheglobalfoodpricecrisis,cyclonesaffectingmyanmarandbangladeshandthesichuanearthquakeinChina–toanewhighofus$12.4billion,fallingbackbyjust5%in2009.

7.1 6.8

8.1 8.5

11.4

10.2 9.3

12.4 11.8

13.0 12.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N

Total from OECD DAC membersTotal from other governments

fiGuRe 3: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnment donoRs, 2001–2011

note:dataformembersoftheoeCddaCincludestheirbilateralhumanitarianaidcontributionspluscoreodatotheunitednationshighCommissionerforrefugees(unhCr),unreliefandworksagencyforpalestinerefugeesintheneareast(unrwa)andtheworldFoodprogramme(wFp)upto2010.datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleasesandestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.dataforoeCddaCmembersisbasedon2010constantprices.datafornon-oeCddaCmembergovernmentsincludesallothergovernmenthumanitarianaid,ascapturedbytheunoChaFts(currentprices).ourdistinctionbetweenthesetwogroupsofgovernmentdonorsisdrivenentirelybythedata.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

14

inresponsetoincreasedneed(seeChapter2),humanitarianaidfromoeCddaCdonorsincreasedbyus$1billionbetween2009and2010(9%)and(basedonpreliminaryfiguresfor2011)fellbyus$266millionbetween2010and2011(2%)–substantiallylessthanthefallinfinancingrequestedbytheun.

theimpactoftheglobaleconomiccrisisisonlynowstartingtobefeltindevelopmentaidbudgets.despitea4%fallingrossnationalincome(Gni)acrossoeCddaCeconomiesinaggregatein

2009,odafromoeCddaCgovernmentscontinuedtogrowin2009and2010.however,whileGnirecoveredslightlyin2010,growingby3%andagainby1%in2011,oeCddaCodafellinabsolutetermsbyus$4.2billion(3%)in2011.italsofellby0.1%asashareofGni.

6.5 6.7

8.0 8.3

10.8 9.9

9.0

11.5 11.3

12.3 12.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

) fiGuRe 4: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom oecd dAc membeRs, 2001–2011

note:datafor2011isanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases(constant2010prices)andestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

15

humanitarianaidfellataslightlylowerrate(2%)thandevelopmentassistancemorewidely(3%)in2011,andthusgrewasashareoftotalodaby0.1%.intheyearfollowingthepakistanandhaiti‘mega-disasters’,whenoverallhumanitarianneedssubsided,areductionofjust2%demonstratespartialresilienceinhumanitarianspendingamongstoeCddaCdonors,particularlywhenviewedagainstabackdropofaidbudgetcuts.theimpactoftheprospectofmoreseverecutsinodaonhumanitarianassistanceremainstobeseen.

humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgrouphasbeenmorevolatilethanthatoftheirdaCcounterparts.humanitarianassistancefromthisgroupincreased

byus$156million(27%)between2009and2010,thenfellbyus$229million(31%)in2011.trendssince2000showthatcontributionsfromgovernmentsoutsideofthedaCgrouphavefluctuatedconsiderably,withannualvariationsofupto222%.anoverallupwardtrendisneverthelessapparent,withsharpincreasesinyearsofmajoremergencies,suchasthesecondpalestinianintifadain2001,theindianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandthekashmirearthquakein2005,andtheChinaearthquakeandyemenfloodsin2008(seefigure7).

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

)

GNIODA as % of GNI

fiGuRe 5: oecd dAc GoVeRnment Gni And odA GRoWtH, 1990–2011

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

16

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

) Total ODA Total official humanitarian aidHumanitarian aid as a share of total ODA

fiGuRe 6: oecd dAc membeRs’ HumAnitARiAn Aid As A sHARe of tHeiR totAl odA, 2001–2011

note:thelineonthisgraphshowsclearpeaksinthehumanitarianshareofodain2003(afghanistan,iraq),2005(indianoceanearthquake/tsunamiandsouthasia(kashmir)earthquake)and2008(foodinsecurity,Chinaearthquake,cyclonesinmyanmarandbangladesh).datafor2011isbasedonpartialpreliminarydata(constant2010prices).source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

664

2001

98

2002

155

2003

192

2004

619

2005

287

2006

311

2007

941

2008

582

2009

738

2010

509

2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

fiGuRe 7: HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments outside tHe oecd dAc GRoup, 2001–2011

note:thenumberofdonorsreportingvariesinthisperiodfromaminimumof40in2003toamaximumof130in2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

17

wedonotyethaveanindicationof2011developmentassistanceflowsfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCbut,asagroup,theyexperiencedaverageannualgrowthratesintheirodaandoda-likeconcessionalflowsfordevelopmentcooperationof8%between2006and2010,comparedwithannualgrowthratesinoda(excluding

debtrelief)foroeCddaCmembersof6%.severalofthelargestdonorsexperiencedparticularlyrapidgrowthduringthisperiod,withChina’soda-likeconcessionalflowsincreasingbyanannualaverageof19%between2006and2010,whiletheodaflowsofbothsaudiarabiaandindiaincreasedannuallyby14%.

GrowthindevelopmentassistanceflowsfromgovernmentsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupshouldalsobeconsideredinthecontextofrobusteconomicgrowth,particularlyinChina,whereaverageannualgrowthratesingrossdomesticproduct(Gdp)between2006and2010reached10%inrealterms.

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N

Saudi ArabiaChinaUAETurkey India 20 other government donors

fiGuRe 8: odA And odA-like concessionAl floWs fRom otHeR GoVeRnments outside tHe oecd dAc GRoup, 2006–2010

note:includesnetdisbursementsofodaflowsforoeCdmemberswhicharenotmembersofthedaCgroup(Czechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,poland,slovakrepublic,sloveniaandturkey)andothernon-oeCdgovernments(Chinesetaipei,Cyprus,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,romania,saudiarabia,thailandanduae),plusdataforconcessionaloda-likeflowsfordevelopmentcooperation,whichmaynotcorrespondwithstrictodadefinitionsforbriCsgovernments(brazil,russia,india,Chinaandsouthafrica).source:oeCddaCdata

note:includesGdpforbrazil,China,Cyprus,Czechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,india,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,poland,romania,russia,saudiarabia,slovakrepublic,slovenia,southafrica,thailand,turkeyanduae,incurrentprices.dataforuaeisreportedonlyfor1992–2007andforliechtensteinforallyearsupto2009;thelatestavailableyearhasbeensubstitutedinyearswherenocurrentdataisavailable.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbankdata

fiGuRe 9: Gdp GRoWtH of otHeR GoVeRnment contRibutoRs of deVelopment AssistAnce floWs, 1990–2010

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2000

PR

ICES

)

Other government donors IndiaTurkeyUAESaudi ArabiaChina

18

theoverallhumanitarianaidfinancingresponsefromgovernmentdonorshasprovedresilienttotheglobalfinancialandeconomiccrisis,withgovernmentdonorscontinuingtorespondtorisingdemandupto2010.whilesomedonorswereincreasingtheircontributionstomeetrisinglevelsofneedin2010,however,otherswerereducingtheirs,whichoveraperiodofseveralyearshasgraduallyshiftedthedonordivisionoflabour.

thetoptencountriesincreasingtheirhumanitarianaidspendingbetween2008and2010(theunitedstates,Canada,Japan,sweden,Germany,turkey,theunitedkingdom,norway,australiaandFrance)collectivelyincreasedtheircontributionsbyus$1.2billionovertheperiod.thetendonorswiththelargesthumanitarianaidspendingreductionsbetween2008and2010meanwhile(saudiarabia,theeuinstitutions,thenetherlands,italy,kuwait,spain,ireland,austria,thailandandGreece)collectivelyreducedtheircontributionsbyus$1billion(seefigure10overleaf).

insomecases,thesereductionsreflectarebalancingofaidspendingfollowingexceptionalcontributionsin2008inresponsetotheglobalfoodcrisis–notably,fortheeuinstitutionsandsaudiarabia.butinothercountries–includingGreece,irelandandthenetherlands–alonger-termtrendofreducedhumanitarianspendinghasemerged.

spaindoubleditsshareoftotalcontributionsfromgovernments,from2.5%in2005to5%in2009,butithasalsobeguntofollowadownwardtrendinitshumanitarianspending,beginningin2010,andsawitssharefallbackto3%in2011(basedonpreliminaryfigures).thisreflectsrevisionsinitsaidbudgetmorebroadly,whichfellbyalmostathirdin2011aspartofitsdomesticausteritymeasures.

theunitedstatesmeanwhilehasexperiencedgrowthinitsalreadydominantshareofthetotal,contributing36–37%ofthetotalprovidedbyallgovernmentsbetween2008and2011,comparedwithaten-yearaverageof35%.

absolutevolumeisnottheonlywaybywhichonecanmeasurethesignificanceofhumanitarianassistancewithindonorbudgets.theunitedstates,forexample,providedthelargestoverallshareofhumanitarianaidcontributionsin2010,andhumanitarianaidisaprioritywithinitsaidspending.butincomparisonwithitsnationalwealth,theunitedstatesisnotamongstthemostgenerousdonors,withhumanitarianaidspendingequivalenttojust0.03%ofGniin2010orjustus$15peruscitizen.

themostgeneroushumanitarianaiddonorsin2010weresweden(0.15%ofGni)andluxembourg(0.14%ofGni).oeCddaCeumemberstatesasagroup,however,providedhumanitarianaidequivalenttojust0.02%oftheirGni.in2010,contributionstothehaitiandpakistancrisesdrewinnewgovernmentdonorsandtheGambia,whichdonatedus$1milliontothehaitiresponse,rankedasthethirdmostgenerousdonoronthismeasure,givingtheequivalentof0.13%ofitsGniashumanitarianaid.

ofthetop30donorsbyvolumein2010,theuaeallocatedthelargestshare(28%)ofitsaidbudgettowardshumanitarianaid,followedbytheunitedstates(16%)andsweden(15%).Chinaallocatedthelowestshareofitsaid-likeflowstowardshumanitarianaid(0.1%),followedbysaudiaarabia(3%)andFrance(4%).

19

us$ million incReAse/decReAse sHARe of HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments

donoR 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2008 2009 2010 2011*

Governmenttotal 3076 -572 1168 -495

daCtotal 2446 -213 1012 -266 92.4% 95.1% 94.3% 95.9%

non-daCtotal 630 -359 156 -229 7.6% 4.9% 5.7% 4.1%

10 lARGest incReAses 2008-2010

unitedstates 1350 -52 444 -228 36.1% 37.4% 37.4% 37.1%

Japan 166 -6 332 169 2.5% 2.6% 4.9% 6.5%

Canada 73 -24 152 -86 3.4% 3.4% 4.2% 3.7%

sweden 64 38 76 24 4.6% 5.2% 5.3% 5.7%

Germany 75 -9 66 -59 5.5% 5.7% 5.7% 5.5%

turkey -1 -5 56 3 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

unitedkingdom 140 131 -86 157 7.2% 8.7% 7.2% 8.8%

norway -34 -14 55 1 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8%

australia 157 45 -11 49 2.9% 3.4% 3.0% 3.5%

France 40 -30 63 -98 3.2% 3.1% 3.3% 2.7%

10 lARGest decReAses 2008-2010

saudiarabia 353 -484 174 -173 4.6% 0.7% 2.0% 0.7%

euinstitutions 287 -330 114 74 15.1% 13.0% 12.7% 13.8%

netherlands 65 -95 -27 -121 4.7% 4.1% 3.5% 2.7%

italy 38 -49 -51 35 3.1% 2.8% 2.2% 2.5%

kuwait 85 -55 -30 3 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

spain 207 21 -101 -88 4.6% 5.0% 3.8% 3.3%

ireland -5 -72 -3 1 1.6% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

austria 35 -17 -7 -12 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%

thailand 29 -28 11 -11 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Greece 5 -4 -7 -7 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

fiGuRe 10: incReAses And decReAses in HumAnitARiAn Aid eXpendituRe, 2008-2011

note:*datafor2011foroeCddaCmembersisanestimatebasedonpartialpreliminarydatareleases(constant2010prices)andestimatedcoreodacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

20

Char

t not

to s

cale

Leas

t pri

ority

Nor

way

10.

3%

Ital

y 10

.2%

Irel

and

14.3

%EU

inst

itut

ions

13.

1%C

anad

a 10

.7%

Swit

zerl

and

9.3%

Swed

en 1

5.2%

Luxe

mbo

urg

13.3

%

Finl

and

12.5

%

Aus

tral

ia 1

0.2%

UA

E 27

.6%

Uni

ted

Stat

es 1

6.1%

Mos

t pri

ority

to h

uman

itari

an a

id w

ithin

ove

rall

aid

prog

ram

mes

in 2

010

(%O

DA)

Mos

t pri

ority

Leas

t

Mon

aco

US$

23Sw

itze

rlan

d U

S$28

Liec

hten

stei

n U

S$19

UA

E U

S$24

Irel

and

US$

28

Den

mar

k U

S$47

Bel

gium

US$

21N

ethe

rlan

ds U

S$28

Finl

and

US$

31

Swed

en U

S$74

Luxe

mbo

urg

US$

109

Nor

way

US$

97

Mos

t gen

erou

s co

untr

ies

in 2

010

(per

citi

zen)

Mos

t

Leas

tBel

gium

0.0

5%Fi

nlan

d 0.

07%

Nor

way

0.1

1%

Gre

at B

rita

in 0

.04%

Net

herl

ands

0.0

6%

Irel

and

0.07

%

Den

mar

k 0.

08%

Guy

ana

0.05

%

Saud

i Ara

bia

0.06

%

Swed

en 0

.15%

Gam

bia

0.13

%Luxe

mbo

urg

0.14

%

Mos

t gen

erou

s co

untr

ies

in 2

010

(%G

NI)

Mos

t

Smal

lest

Net

herl

ands

US$

459m

Can

ada

US$

550m

Ger

man

y U

S$74

4m

Aus

tral

ia U

S$39

0mN

orw

ay U

S$47

0mSw

eden

US$

690m

Fran

ce U

S$43

5mSp

ain

US$

496m

Japa

n U

S$64

2m

US

US$

4.9b

nU

K U

S$94

3m

EU in

st. U

S$1.

7bn

Big

gest

don

ors

in 2

010

Big

gest

GOVERNMENTS

21

domesticactorsareoftenamongthefirsttorespondtocrises,inthemostcriticalfirsthoursanddays.thegovernmentsofcrisis-affectedcountriesmoreoverhavetheprimaryresponsibilitytotakecareofvictimsofdisastersontheirownsoil,anditisonlywhenanaffectedgovernmentdoesnothavethecapacitytomeetalloftheneedsarisingfromacrisisthatinternationalactorsshouldbecalledupontorespond.

inhigh-incomedevelopedcountries,governmentsanddomesticcivilsocietytypicallytaketheleadindisasterresponse(see‘domesticresponsetodisasterinJapan’onpage24).

manygovernmentsindevelopingcountriesalsoplaycriticalrolesinprovidingmaterialassistance,andinensuringsecurity,lawandorderandanenablingenvironmentforinternationalassistance.inseptember2011,forexample,anearthquakemeasuring6.8ontherichterscalehittheindia/nepalborderarea.thenextday,theindiangovernmentdeployed5,000armypersonnel,searchandrescueteams,ateamofarmydoctorsandninetonnesofreliefsuppliestotheaffectedarea.thegovernmentofnepalearmarkedrs25,000(aroundus$283)tobespenton‘temporaryrelief’foreachaffectedpersonandallowedvictimsaccesstomedicaltreatmentfreeofcharge.similarly,inethiopia,thegovernment

hasplayedapivotalroleinthetargeting,managementandimplementationoftheproductivesocialsafetynetsprogramme(psnp)whichprovedtobethemosttimelyandefficientresponseintheregionduringthe2011hornofafricafoodsecuritycrisis(seeChapter3foranin-depthdiscussionofethiopia’spsnp).

thedomesticcontributionsofcommunities,organisationsandgovernmentsincrisis-affectedcountriesarelargelyinvisibleinassessmentsofglobalresponsetocrises.whilesomegovernmentshavereportedthefinancialcostofsomeoftheirdomesticresponsestocrisestotheunoChaFts,thisrepresentsatinyfractionoftherealinvestments.

withoutabetterunderstandingofthecontributionsofdomesticactorstocrisisresponse,theinternationalhumanitariansystemisunlikelytobeabletoimprovecoordination,complementarityoreffectivesupporttodomesticcrisisresponse.

theunhumanitarianresolution,resolution46/182of1991,says:

‘eachstatehastheresponsibilityfirstandforemosttotakecareofthevictimsofnaturaldisastersandemergenciesoccurringonitsterritory.hence,theaffectedstatehastheprimaryroleintheinitiation,organisation,coordination,andimplementationofhumanitarianassistancewithinitsterritory’.

nationalGovernmentsprovidinGhumanitarianassistanCewithintheirborders

22

fiGuRe 11: RepoRted domestic finAncinG contRibutions to HumAnitARiAn cRises, 2007–2011

source:unoChaFtsdata

NepalUS$52m

IraqUS$59.2m

LesothoUS$1m Burkina

FasoUS$1.3m

KenyaUS$22.4bn

VietnamUS$0.8m

SwitzerlandUS$0.8m

PeruUS$0.7m

LebanonUS$0.6m

BurundiUS$0.6m

MalawiUS$0.5m

MozambiqueUS$0.2m

Laos US$0.2m

Zimbabwe US$0.2m

DRCUS$0.04m

Chad US$0.03m

Pakistan US$27.9m

AfghanistanUS$25.2m

SudanUS$68.4m

EthiopiaUS$8.9m

Philippines US$3.5m

Colombia US$18.8m

23

Nicaragua floodingUS$33

El Salvador floodingUS$12

Sri Lanka floodingUS$21

Japan floodingUS$486,758

fiGuRe 12: fundinG peR disAsteR-Affected peRson in 2011 (us$)

note:nicaragua,elsalvadorandsrilankafiguresarebasedonnumberoftargetedbeneficiariesandfundingreceivedinunflashappealsin2011.source:unoChaFtsandministryofFinance,Japan

source:developmentinitiativesbasedondatafromthefirstandthirdsupplementarybudgetsofthefiscalyear2011,ministryofFinance,Japan

fiGuRe 13: JApAn’s nAtionAl fundinG foR its 2011 eARtHquAke And tsunAmi Response (us$ billion)

Disaster reliefDisposal of disaster wasteAdditional public works for reconstruction and recoveryDisaster-related public financing programmesLocal allocation tax grantsReconstruction grantsExpenses related to reconstruction from the nuclear disasterNational disaster prevention measuresOther expenses related to the earthquakeCompensation for extraordinary financing from pension fund

7.2 9.3

33.6

16.5

22.4 19.6

14.5

7.2

36.1

31.2 Disaster reliefDisposal of disaster wasteAdditional public works for reconstruction and recoveryDisaster-related public financing programmesLocal allocation tax grantsReconstruction grantsExpenses related to reconstruction from the nuclear disasterNational disaster prevention measuresOther expenses related to the earthquakeCompensation for extraordinary financing from pension fund

7.2 9.3

33.6

16.5

22.4 19.6

14.5

7.2

36.1

31.2

domestic Response to disAsteR in JApAn

theearthquakeandtsunamithathitnortheasternJapanon11march2011andthesubsequentdamagetotheFukushimadaiichinuclearpowerplantcausedadisasterwhichexceededallcontingencyplansoftheJapanesegovernment.however,inahigh-income

country,thewell-resourcedJapanesegovernmenttooktheleadroleinrespondingtothedisaster.

thegovernmentapprovedseveralextraordinarybudgetsamountingtous$198billionforthenationalreliefandreconstructionresponse

totheearthquakeandtsunami.thetotalinvestmentfromtheJapanesegovernmentperaffectedpersondwarfedtheinternationalcontributionsreceivedinunflashappealsfornaturaldisastersin2011.

24

note:allfiguresfor2011arepreliminaryestimates.privatecontributionfiguresfor2006–2010arebasedonourownresearchofastudysetofnGos,unagenciesandredCrossorganisations;thefigurefor2011isapreliminaryprojectionbasedontheextrapolationofsharesofprivatefundingtomsFin2011.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata,annualreportsandourownresearch(seedata&Guidessection)

fiGuRe 14: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Response, 2006–2011

10.2

2.1 12.3

2006

9.3

3.0 12.4

2007

12.4

3.6

16.0

2008

11.8

3.4 15.3

2009

13.0

5.8

18.8

2010

12.5

4.6

17.1

2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N

Private voluntary contributionsGovernmentsPreliminary estimateInternational humanitarian response

privatefundinghasbecomeincreasinglyresponsivetoneedrelativetogovernmentsources.privatecontributionsgrewrapidlyin2010inthefaceofurgentneed,upby70%(us$2.4billion)from2009levelsandreachingus$5.8billion.theproportionofthetotalinternationalhumanitarianresponsedrawnfromprivatefundinghasalsoincreasedover

recentyears,from17%in2006to31%by2010.initialpreliminaryestimatesfor2011indicatethatlevelsofprivategivinghavefallenbackagainbutstillremainabove2009levels,atus$4.6billion.

privateContributionsFromFoundations,CompaniesandindividualstonGos,unandtheredCross

25

morethanthree-quartersofprivategivingbetween2006and2010,anestimated76%,camefromprivateindividuals.Foundationsandprivatecorporationsaccountedfor7%and8%respectively.afurther9%camefromotherprivatedonors,themajorityofwhichwerenationalcommitteesofunorganisations,suchasuniCeF,andredCrossandredCrescentnationalsocieties.

therearedatalimitationsinassessingtheresponseofthesedifferentsourcesofprivatefinancetospecificemergenciesandappeals.Forexample,largestreamsofprivateincome,includingfundsraisedbyplatformssuchastheuk’sdisastersemergencyCommittee(deC),arenotalwaysincluded,andsomemajorhumanitarianorganisations,notablymsF,donotreporttheirprivateincometounoCha’sFts.

13.3

1.2

1.4

1.7

IndividualsPrivate foundationsCompanies and corporationsOther private donors

fiGuRe 15: totAl pRiVAte VoluntARY contRibutions bY donoR tYpe, 2006–2010 (us$ billion)

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonourownresearch(seedata&Guidessection)

pRiVAte GiVinG to medecins sAns fRontieRes (msf)

msFconsistentlyraiseslargevolumesofprivatefundingtosupportitshumanitarianwork,anditincreaseditsprivateincomefromus$613millionin2006tous$1.1billionin2011.onaverage,lessthan10%ofmsF’sfundingcomesfromdonorgovernmentsandinstitutions.moreover,themajorityoftheorganisation’sprivatefunds–86%–aredonatedbysomefivemillionprivatesupportersaroundtheworld.

despiteitsheavyrelianceonprivategiving,msFrarelylaunchesspecificemergencyappealsandfundsmosthumanitarianoperationsfromtheregulardonationsitreceives.infact,whenamajorhumanitariandisasteroccurs,spontaneousdonationsoftenexceedoperationalrequirements.onlyfivedaysafterthe2004indianoceanearthquake/tsunami,msFpubliclyannouncedahaltinitsfundraisingasthefundingreceived(us$137million)alreadyexceeded

thecostofitsplannedemergencydeployment.thisdecisionprovedcontroversialbothamongthemediaandthehumanitariancommunity,whowerefearfulthatitwouldundercutanunprecedentedwaveofprivategiving.however,msF’sdecisionwasperfectlyalignedwithitsneeds-drivenfundraisingstrategy,bywhichitseekstoraiseonlyasmuchmoneyasitcanreasonablyspendontheemergencyresponse,takingintoaccountitscapacity,thescaleofneedsandconstraintsinhumanitarianaccess.

large-scaleemergenciestypicallytriggerspontaneousgivingforthecrisisathandandalsotendtoattractnewdonors,whothenbecomeregularmsFsponsors.msFestimatesthatnearlyonemillionnewdonorssupporteditsresponsetothehaitiearthquakeandcholeraoutbreak,andthemajorityofthemremainregularsupporterstwoyearsafterthecrisis.

26

HoRn of AfRicA cRisis us$m sHARe of totAl pRiVAte contRibutions

private charities and foundations 69.5 13%

ikeaFoundation 62.0 12%

bill&melindaGatesFoundation 7.2 1%

Jolie-pittFoundation 0.3 0%

private corporations 1.0 0%

Coca-ColaCompany 1.0 0%

unicef national committees 103.7 20%

uniCeFnationalCommittee,Germany 17.5 3%

uniCeF nationalCommittee,France 14.3 3%

usaFundforuniCeF 13.9 3%

others 58.0 11%

private individuals and organisations 349.5 67%

total private funding 523.7

JApAn eARtHquAke us$m sHARe of totAl pRiVAte contRibutions

private charities and foundations 4.7 0.8%

starbucksFoundation 1.2 0.2%

bill&melindaGatesFoundation 1.0 0.2%

bpFoundation 1.0 0.2%

GeneralmillsFoundation 0.7 0.1%

GeneralmotorsFoundation 0.5 0.1%

private corporations 41.6 7.2%

JefferiesGroupinc. 5.3 0.9%

CanonGroup 3.7 0.6%

toyotamotorCorporation 3.7 0.6%

Glaxosmithkline 3.4 0.6%

abbottlaboratories 3.0 0.5%

unicef national committees 0.0 0.0%

private individuals and organisations 532.2 92.0%

total private funding 578.4

fiGuRe 16: pRiVAte donoRs to tHe HoRn of AfRicA cRisis And JApAn eARtHquAke, 2011

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

inspiteoftheselimitations,theFtsprovidesdetailedinformationonthetypesofprivatedonorsrespondingtoparticularcrises.thesharesoftotalprivatefundingreportedtotheFtscomingfromprivatecharitiesandfoundationsrangefromaslittleas0.8%inthecaseoftheJapanearthquakeandtsunamiin2011toasmuchas13%inthehornofafricacrisis.Corporate

givingvariesfrom0.2%inthecaseofthehornofafricaemergencyto8%fortheearthquakesinhaitiandJapan.thecontributionsofuniCeFnationalcommitteesandprivateindividualsandorganisationsamountedtoanaverageof13%and71%respectivelyacrossmajorhumanitariancrisesin2010and2011.

27

28

©mattdunham/ap/pressassociationimages

28

thetohokuearthquakeandtsunamithathitnorth-easternJapanon11march2011affected400,000peopleanddevastatedlocalinfrastructure.theJapanesegovernmentledtheresponse,whileinternationalactorsprovidedadditionaltechnicalcapacityandresources.(inthispicture,amemberofabritishsearchandrescueteamlooksfortrappedsurvivorsinofunato.)

thecontributionsofcommunities,civilsocietyandthegovernmentsofcrisis-affectedstatesareoftenoverlookedinassessmentsofcrisisresponse.

Credit

thestory

inthetenyearsbetween2001and2010,151countriesreceivedus$86billioninhumanitarianassistance.Fundingwasconcentratedamongarelativelysmallgroupofrecipients,withthetop20recipientsreceiving75%ofthetotalovertheperiod;25%wasreceivedbythethreelargestrecipientsalone.

manyoftheleadingrecipients,whichaccountedforthelargestshareofhumanitarianassistanceoveranextendedperiod,experiencedcomplexcrisesaffectedbybothconflictandnaturaldisaster,withahighincidenceoflong-term,chronicpoverty.eighteen

ofthetop20recipientsofhumanitarianaid,forexample,wereaffectedbyconflictfor5ormoreyearsinthe10yearsbetween2001and2010;14ofthemhadpopulationsofoveramillionpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisasters;and14countriesareconsideredlong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianaid(seeChapter3).whilethetop20recipientsaccountfor13%oftheworld’spopulation,theyarehometo21%oftheworld’spopulationlivingonlessthanus$1.25aday.

1.2 WHeRe does tHe fundinG Go?

Countryvariations

tRAckinG fundinG to Recipient countRies

ourcalculationofinternationalhumanitarianresponsereliesondatafromtheoeCddaCforcontributionsfromoeCddaCdonors,whoprovided95%ofthetotalfundsfromgovernmentsbetween2001and2010.in2012,thelatestavailabledatafromtheoeCddaConhumanitarianaidflowstorecipientcountrylevelisavailableupto2010.whiledataonresourceflowstrackedwithintheoChaFtsisavailablefor2011,thesetwosourcesarenotdirectlycomparable.analysisinthissectionthereforefocusesoninternationalhumanitarianresponseuptoandincluding2010.

wealsodistinguishhumanitarianfundingthatisallocabletorecipientcountries.whilegovernmentdonorsprovidedus$99billioninhumanitarianaidbetween2001and2010,us$86billionwasreceivedatrecipientcountrylevel;thebalancewaschannelledtoregional-levelprogrammesandotheractivitiessupportingthehumanitariansectorthatwerenotattributabletoaspecificcountry.

seethedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourmethodologyandcalculations.

29

Sudan US$9.7bn

Palestine/OPT US$6.5bn

AfghanistanUS$5.6bn

EthiopiaUS$5.3bn

IraqUS$5.2bn

PakistanUS$4.6bn

HaitiUS$3.7bn

DRCUS$3.7bn

SomaliaUS$2.7bn

IndonesiaUS$2.4bn

KenyaUS$1.9bn

Sri LankaUS$1.8bn

LebanonUS$1.7bn

ZimbabweUS$1.7bn

UgandaUS$1.6bn

ChadUS$1.4bn

JordanUS$1.3bn

AngolaUS$1.2bn

BurundiUS$1.2bn

MyanmarUS$1bn

fiGuRe 17: top 20 Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

30

1.0 1.

2 1.2 1.3 1.

4 1.6 1.

7

1.7 1.8 1.9

2.4

2.7

3.7

3.7

4.6

5.2

5.3

5.6

6.5

9.7

0 2

4 6

8 10

Mya

nmar

Bur

undi

Ang

ola

Jord

an

Cha

d

Uga

nda

Zim

babw

e

Leba

non

Sri L

anka

Ken

ya

Indo

nesi

a

Som

alia

DR

C

Hai

ti

Pak

ista

n

Iraq

Ethi

opia

Afg

hani

stan

Pal

esti

ne/O

PT

Suda

n

US$

BIL

LIO

N

inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid (us$bn)

% of tHe totAl inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY

% of tHe populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY

numbeR of people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs (million)

totAl populAtion of conceRn to unHcR oR unRWA (million)

YeARs conflict-Affected

1su

dan

9.7

11.3

%19

.8%

5.9

2.0

10

2p

ales

tine/

op

t6.

57.

6%0.

04%

0.00

14.

610

3af

ghan

ista

n5.

66.

5%no

dat

a3.

21.

310

4et

hiop

ia5.

36.

1%39

.0%

29.1

0.2

10

5ir

aq5.

26.

1%2.

8%0.

071.

810

6p

akis

tan

4.6

5.3%

21.0

%37

.94.

010

7h

aiti

3.7

4.3%

61.7

%5.

00.

017

8d

rC

3.7

4.3%

87.7

%0.

32.

410

9so

mal

ia2.

73.

2%no

dat

a8.

21.

510

10in

done

sia

2.4

2.8%

18.1

%11

.10.

016

11k

enya

1.9

2.2%

43.4

%14

.90.

85

12sr

ilan

ka1.

82.

1%7.

0%5.

70.

48

13le

bano

n1.

72.

0%no

dat

a0.

00.

0110

14Zi

mba

bwe

1.7

2.0%

nod

ata

9.8

0.01

0

15u

gand

a1.

61.

8%38

.0%

3.2

0.6

10

16C

had

1.4

1.6%

61.9

%3.

70.

58

17Jo

rdan

1.3

1.5%

0.1%

0.0

0.5

0

18an

gola

1.2

1.4%

54.3

%1.

00.

026

19b

urun

di1.

21.

3%81

.3%

2.5

0.2

8

20m

yanm

ar1.

01.

2%no

dat

a3.

20.

99

fiG

uR

e 18

: keY

dAt

A f

oR

tH

e to

p 2

0 R

ecip

ien

ts o

f in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

, 200

1–20

10

not

e:t

hen

umbe

rof

peo

ple

livin

gon

less

than

us$

1.25

ad

ayis

exp

ress

edto

the

late

sta

vaila

ble

year

.our

defi

niti

ono

f‘co

nflic

t-af

fect

ed’i

nclu

des

both

inci

denc

eof

con

flict

and

/or

the

pres

ence

ofa

mul

tilat

eral

pea

ceke

epin

gop

erat

ion.

sou

rce:

dev

elop

men

tini

tiativ

esb

ased

on

oeC

dd

aC,u

no

Ch

aFt

s,w

orld

ban

k,C

red

em

dat

,un

hC

r,u

nr

wa,

upp

sala

Con

flict

dat

aan

dsi

pr

imul

tilat

eral

pea

ceke

epin

gop

erat

ions

dat

a

us$

bil

lio

n

1.0 1.

2 1.2 1.3 1.

4 1.6 1.

7

1.7 1.8 1.9

2.4

2.7

3.7

3.7

4.6

5.2

5.3

5.6

6.5

9.7

0 2

4 6

8 10

Mya

nmar

Bur

undi

Ang

ola

Jord

an

Cha

d

Uga

nda

Zim

babw

e

Leba

non

Sri L

anka

Ken

ya

Indo

nesi

a

Som

alia

DR

C

Hai

ti

Pak

ista

n

Iraq

Ethi

opia

Afg

hani

stan

Pal

esti

ne/O

PT

Suda

n

US$

BIL

LIO

N

inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid (us$bn)

% of tHe totAl inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY

% of tHe populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY

numbeR of people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs (million)

totAl populAtion of conceRn to unHcR oR unRWA (million)

YeARs conflict-Affected

1su

dan

9.7

11.3

%19

.8%

5.9

2.0

10

2p

ales

tine/

op

t6.

57.

6%0.

04%

0.00

14.

610

3af

ghan

ista

n5.

66.

5%no

dat

a3.

21.

310

4et

hiop

ia5.

36.

1%39

.0%

29.1

0.2

10

5ir

aq5.

26.

1%2.

8%0.

071.

810

6p

akis

tan

4.6

5.3%

21.0

%37

.94.

010

7h

aiti

3.7

4.3%

61.7

%5.

00.

017

8d

rC

3.7

4.3%

87.7

%0.

32.

410

9so

mal

ia2.

73.

2%no

dat

a8.

21.

510

10in

done

sia

2.4

2.8%

18.1

%11

.10.

016

11k

enya

1.9

2.2%

43.4

%14

.90.

85

12sr

ilan

ka1.

82.

1%7.

0%5.

70.

48

13le

bano

n1.

72.

0%no

dat

a0.

00.

0110

14Zi

mba

bwe

1.7

2.0%

nod

ata

9.8

0.01

0

15u

gand

a1.

61.

8%38

.0%

3.2

0.6

10

16C

had

1.4

1.6%

61.9

%3.

70.

58

17Jo

rdan

1.3

1.5%

0.1%

0.0

0.5

0

18an

gola

1.2

1.4%

54.3

%1.

00.

026

19b

urun

di1.

21.

3%81

.3%

2.5

0.2

8

20m

yanm

ar1.

01.

2%no

dat

a3.

20.

99

fiG

uR

e 18

: keY

dAt

A f

oR

tH

e to

p 2

0 R

ecip

ien

ts o

f in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

, 200

1–20

10

not

e:t

hen

umbe

rof

peo

ple

livin

gon

less

than

us$

1.25

ad

ayis

exp

ress

edto

the

late

sta

vaila

ble

year

.our

defi

niti

ono

f‘co

nflic

t-af

fect

ed’i

nclu

des

both

inci

denc

eof

con

flict

and

/or

the

pres

ence

ofa

mul

tilat

eral

pea

ceke

epin

gop

erat

ion.

sou

rce:

dev

elop

men

tini

tiativ

esb

ased

on

oeC

dd

aC,u

no

Ch

aFt

s,w

orld

ban

k,C

red

em

dat

,un

hC

r,u

nr

wa,

upp

sala

Con

flict

dat

aan

dsi

pr

imul

tilat

eral

pea

ceke

epin

gop

erat

ions

dat

a

us$

bil

lio

n

31

in2010,forthefirsttimeinfiveyears,sudanwasovertakenasthelargestrecipientbyhaitiwhich,inabsolutevolumeterms,receivedoverthreetimesasmuch.theus$3.1billionofhumanitarianfundschannelledtohaitiin2010wasofacompletelydifferentordertothevolumestypicallyreceived–morethandoubletheamountreceivedbythelargestrecipientinanyyeartodate(seereferencetablessectionforvolumesoffundingtoleadingrecipientsfrom2001to2010).

thevolumesofassistancereceivedcanbeputintoperspectivewhenviewedalongsidelevelsofneed.pakistan,for

example,alsoreceivedalargevolumeofhumanitarianfundsin2010–us$2.1billion–inresponsetothefloods(seeChapter2).intermsoffundingreceivedperaffectedpersontargetedinunappeals,however,fundingtopakistan(us$115)wassubstantiallylowerthanpalestine/opt(us$319),thedemocraticrepublicofCongo(drC)(us$228),therepublicofCongo(us$139)orsudan(us$134).haiti,bycontrast,receivedthreetimesmorefundingpertargetedbeneficiary(us$1,022)thanpalestine/optandmorethan100timesmorepertargetedbeneficiarythannepal(us$9).

fiGuRe 19: sHARes of tHe us$12.5 billion in inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid AllocAble bY countRY in 2010

25%

17%

7%

HaitiPakistanSudanEthiopiaPalestine/OPTAfghanistanDRCKenyaChadSomalia133 others

26%

5%5%

5%

4%

2%

2%

2%

25%

17%

7%

HaitiPakistanSudanEthiopiaPalestine/OPTAfghanistanDRCKenyaChadSomalia133 others

26%

5%5%

5%

4%

2%

2%

2%

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

32

internationalassistancetorecipientcountriesvariesnotonlyinvolumebutalsointhetypeofhumanitarianassistancereceived.thislargelyreflectsthenatureofthecrisis.ethiopia,forexample,whichischaracterisedbychronicfoodinsecurity,received80%ofitshumanitarianaidintheformofemergencyfoodaidbetween2006and2010,comparedwithjust3%iniraqand10%inpalestine/opt.afghanistan,whichhasexperiencedseveredamagetoinfrastructureasaconsequenceofwar,receivedoverone-thirdofitshumanitarianaidbetween2006and2010inreconstructionrelief.

sourcesofhumanitarianfinancingalsovaryconsiderablybetweencrisesandrecipientcountries.Forexample,whiletheoverwhelmingshareofinternationalhumanitarianaidoverallisprovidedbyoeCddaCdonors(90%between2001and2010),haitireceived37%ofitshumanitarianaidfromprivatedonorsbetween2006and2010.thistrendwasdrivenprimarilybytheus$1.3billioninprivatefundingreceivedinresponsetothe2010earthquake.

fiGuRe 20: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid peR beneficiARY tARGeted in un cAp AppeAls in 2010 (us$ peR peRson)

Palestine/OPT US$319

HaitiUS$1,022

Sudan US$134

AfghanistanUS$86

MongoliaUS$16

ZimbabweUS$44

DRCUS$228

KenyaUS$44

YemenUS$44

ChadUS$111

KyrgyzstanUS$98

CARUS$34

UgandaUS$41

Congo, Rep.US$139

NepalUS$9

SomaliaUS$74

PakistanUS$115

GuatemalaUS$44

note:targetbeneficiarynumbersarethehighestbeneficiarynumberstatedineachcountry-levelconsolidatedorflashappealin2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCapappeals,oeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

33

pakistanreceivedjust72%ofitshumanitarianaidfromoeCddaCdonorsbetween2006and2010,with17%(us$576million)providedbyothergovernments,ofwhichus$435millionwascontributedin2010alone.majornon-oeCddaCgovernmentdonors

topakistanincludedtheuae(us$182million),saudiarabia(us$231million)andturkey(us$54million).

lebanonalsoreceivedarelativelylargeshare(13%)ofitshumanitarianaidfromothergovernmentsbetween2006

and2010.thistrendwasinfluencedbycontributionsofus$136millionfrom30non-oeCddaCgovernmentsin2006,withmajorcontributionsfrommiddleeasterngovernments,includingus$65millionfromsaudiarabiaandus$25millionfromtheuae.

fiGuRe 21: HumAnitARiAn Aid bY eXpendituRe tYpe to tHe leAdinG Recipients, 2006–2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Suda

n

Pak

ista

n

Hai

ti

Pal

esti

ne/O

PT

Ethi

opia

Afg

hani

stan

DR

C

Som

alia

Iraq

Ken

ya

Disaster prevention and preparednessReconstruction relief Relief coordination; protection and support services Emergency food aid Emergency/distress relief

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

fiGuRe 22: donoR sHARes of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Response to tHe 20 lARGest Recipients, 2006–2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Afg

hani

stan

Ang

ola

Bur

undi

Cha

d

DR

C

Ethi

opia

Hai

ti

Indo

nesi

a

Iraq

Jord

an

Ken

ya

Leba

non

Mya

nmar

Pak

ista

n

Pal

esti

ne/O

PT

Som

alia

Sri L

anka

Suda

n

Uga

nda

Zim

babw

e

PrivateOther governmentsOECD DAC members

34

theoverallrisingtrendininternationalhumanitarianaidtorecipientcountriesin2010maskedanumberofshiftsinthetraditionaldistributionsofinternationalhumanitarianfunding.theregionaldistributionofhumanitarianaidalsoshiftedin2010.africa’sshareofthe

totalfellfrom55%to34%(areductioninvolumeofus$1.3billion),andthemiddleeast’ssharefellfrom20%to10%(areductioninvolumeofus$846million).theshareoftheamericas,meanwhile,grewfrom4%in2009to26%in2010(anincreaseinvolumeofus$3billion).

ineachyearsince2001,approximatelyone-thirdoftotalhumanitarianaidhasbeenconcentratedamongthetopthreerecipientcountries.in2010,however,theshareoftheleadingthreerecipientsjumpedtonearlyhalfofthetotal,withhaitireceiving25%andpakistan17%.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N Africa

AsiaAmericasMiddle EastEurope

fiGuRe 23: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid bY ReGion, 2001–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

top3recipients 31.7% 28.7% 36.1% 36.8% 32.2% 30.1% 30.7% 30.1% 31.0% 48.5%

next10recipients 26.4% 29.1% 31.7% 31.7% 39.0% 42.2% 36.5% 38.0% 42.9% 30.2%

allotherrecipients 42.8% 42.1% 32.2% 31.5% 28.8% 27.7% 32.8% 31.9% 26.1% 21.4%

fiGuRe 24: concentRAtion of HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce WitHin Recipient countRies, 2001-2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

shiFtinGtrends

35

8 top 10 recipientsAll other recipientsHaitiPakistan

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N

fiGuRe 25: sHiftinG Volumes of HumAnitARiAn Aid AmonGst tHe leAdinG Recipients And tHe Rest, 2001–2010

notonlydidhumanitarianaidbecomemoreconcentratedinjusttwocountriesin2010,butallotherrecipientscollectivelysawareductionbothintheirsharesofthetotalandintheabsolutevolumestheyreceived.

thereweresomeclear‘losers’amidsttheoverallgrowthininternationalhumanitarianaidspendingin2010.amongthe15countrieswiththegreatestreductionsinhumanitarianfundingbyvolume,5experiencedanimprovementintheirhumanitariansituation(Zimbabwe,indonesia,Georgia,ethiopiaandmyanmar).amongtheremainingten,someexperiencedanimprovement

intheirhumanitariansituation,butallexperiencedgreaterdifficultiesinraisingfundswithintheirunfundingappealsthaninthepreviousyear,withmanynotingseriousdifficultiesinraisingfundsinthefirsthalfoftheyear.inthemoststrikingexamples,theproportionoffundingneedsmetintheunappealsfornepalandChadwere33%and31%lower,respectively,in2010thanin2009.

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

36

2009

-201

0u

s$m

in

cR

eAse

eXp

lAn

Atio

n20

09-2

010

us$

m

dec

ReA

seeX

plA

nAt

ion

Hai

ti2,

921

ove

rth

ree

mill

ion

peop

le(3

0%o

fthe

pop

ulat

ion)

affe

cted

by

the

7.0

mag

nitu

dee

arth

quak

eon

12

Janu

ary

2010

.un

is

sued

afl

ash

appe

alr

eque

stin

gu

s$1.

5bi

llion

.

suda

n-5

28

Gra

dual

shi

ftto

war

dsr

econ

stru

ctio

nan

dde

velo

pmen

tfu

ndin

g,b

uth

uman

itari

ans

ituat

ion

rem

aine

dse

riou

sw

ithd

eter

iora

tion

ins

outh

sud

an.t

hep

erce

ntag

eof

hu

man

itari

anfu

ndin

gne

eds

met

inth

eu

na

ppea

lfel

lby

5%

in2

010.

pak

ista

n1,

498

maj

orfl

oodi

nga

ffect

edm

ore

than

20

mill

ion

peop

le.t

he

un

laun

ched

the

larg

este

ver

flash

app

ealr

eque

stin

gu

s$2

billi

on.

pal

estin

e/o

pt

-485

Fu

ndin

gne

eds

inu

na

ppea

lwer

ere

vise

ddo

wna

rds

by

us$

61m

illio

nat

the

mid

-yea

rpo

intf

ollo

win

gpo

orfu

ndin

gre

spon

se.F

undi

ngr

equi

rem

ents

met

fell

by2

4%in

201

0.

nig

er18

1u

ne

stim

ated

ove

r7

mill

ion

peop

le,4

6%o

fthe

pop

ulat

ion,

w

ere

affe

cted

by

mod

erat

eto

sev

ere

food

inse

curi

ty

follo

win

gha

rves

tfai

lure

inla

te2

009.

ac

oup

d’ét

ate

arly

in

the

year

allo

wed

gre

ater

hum

anita

rian

acc

ess

and

scal

e-up

of

res

pons

e.

som

alia

-338

w

hile

the

cris

isr

emai

ned

seri

ous

with

3.2

mill

ion

peop

lein

ne

edo

fass

ista

nce,

un

app

ealr

equi

rem

ents

–a

lrea

dy1

9%

low

erth

an2

009

–w

ere

revi

sed

dow

nard

sby

us$

93m

illio

now

ing

tos

hrin

king

hum

anita

rian

acc

ess

and

poor

fund

ing

resp

onse

inth

efir

sth

alfo

fthe

yea

r.

kyr

gyz

Rep

ublic

70vi

olen

tcla

shes

bet

wee

net

hnic

kyr

gyz

and

uzb

eks

inth

eco

untr

y’s

sout

hle

dto

400

dea

ths

and

disp

lace

men

tof

375,

000

peop

le.

iraq

-293

ac

ute

hum

anita

rian

nee

dss

ubsi

ded

in2

010,

but

un

app

eal

for

iraq

(non

-Cap

)was

just

38%

fund

eda

ndth

ere

gion

al

resp

onse

app

ealf

orir

aqir

efug

ees

just

29%

fund

ed.u

n

repo

rted

this

had

‘pro

foun

d’e

ffect

son

abi

lity

tod

eliv

era

ssis

tanc

e.

chi

le69

an8

.8m

agni

tude

ear

thqu

ake

affe

cted

1.8

mill

ion

peop

le.

Zim

babw

e-2

01

hum

anita

rian

situ

atio

nim

prov

eda

fter

cho

lera

out

brea

kan

dfo

odin

secu

rity

in2

009

and

form

atio

nof

incl

usiv

eG

over

nmen

tin

2009

led

tog

reat

ere

cono

mic

sta

bilit

y.

Gua

tem

ala

37tr

opic

als

torm

aga

tha

stru

ckG

uate

mal

aan

dth

ep

acay

avo

lcan

ole

ftn

earl

y40

0,00

0pe

ople

inn

eed

ofh

uman

itari

an

assi

stan

ce.

indo

nesi

a-1

56

had

rec

eive

din

crea

sed

fund

ing

in2

009

due

toa

nea

rthq

uake

and

aft

ersh

ocks

.no

un

fund

ing

appe

alw

as

mad

ein

201

0.

Jord

an35

Jord

anc

ontin

ued

toh

ostr

efug

ees

from

iraq

and

pal

estin

e/o

pt.

d

Rc

-118

h

uman

itari

anc

risi

sre

mai

ned

wid

espr

ead

plus

190

,000

ne

wly

dis

plac

edin

equ

ator

pro

vinc

e.p

erce

ntag

eof

fund

ing

need

sin

un

app

ealm

etfe

llby

2%

in2

010.

Yem

en28

inse

curi

ty,d

ispl

acem

enta

ndfo

odin

secu

rity

left

an

estim

ated

2.5

mill

ion

peop

lein

nee

dof

hum

anita

rian

as

sist

ance

.

ken

ya-1

14

per

cent

age

offu

ndin

gne

eds

inu

na

ppea

lmet

fell

by1

8%in

201

0.

fiG

uR

e 26

: tH

e 10

lA

RG

est

cH

An

Ges

in in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

flo

Ws,

200

9–20

10

37

2009

-201

0u

s$m

in

cR

eAse

eXp

lAn

Atio

n20

09-2

010

us$

m

dec

ReA

seeX

plA

nAt

ion

pap

ua n

ew

Gui

nea

23an

est

imat

ed2

0,00

0pe

ople

inr

emot

epa

rts

ofe

asts

epik

p

rovi

nce,

nor

thw

este

rnp

apua

new

Gui

nea,

affe

cted

by

flood

ing.

Geo

rgia

-90

impr

ovem

ents

inth

ehu

man

itari

ans

ituat

ion

follo

win

g20

08

confl

ict.

tim

or-l

este

18C

ontin

ued

reco

very

nee

dsa

ndc

hron

icp

over

ty.

uga

nda

-70

impr

ovem

ents

inth

ehu

man

itari

ans

itutio

nw

ithm

any

idp

sre

turn

ing

hom

e.b

utd

espi

tem

uch

low

erfu

ndin

gre

quir

emen

tsin

the

un

app

eal,

the

appe

alw

asth

ew

orst

fu

nded

ith

adb

een

ins

ixy

ears

att

hem

id-y

ear

poin

t.

thai

land

17es

timat

ed4

.2m

illio

npe

ople

affe

cted

by

flood

ing.

et

hiop

ia-6

0r

educ

tion

inp

eopl

ein

nee

dof

food

ass

ista

nce

follo

win

gbe

tter

than

exp

ecte

dha

rves

tin

earl

y20

10.

mal

i13

incr

ease

dfo

odin

secu

rity

with

mor

eth

an2

50,0

00p

eopl

efo

odin

secu

rein

201

0.

syri

a-5

51.

3m

illio

naf

fect

edb

ydr

ough

tin

2010

.Fun

ding

re

quir

emen

tsfo

ru

n(n

on-C

ap)a

ppea

lrev

ised

dow

nard

sby

18%

follo

win

gpo

orfu

ndin

gre

spon

se.

solo

mon

is

land

s13

am

agni

tude

7.2

ear

thqu

ake

gen

erat

eda

tsun

ami,

dam

agin

gor

des

troy

ing

appr

oxim

atel

y10

0to

200

hom

esa

nd

affe

ctin

gan

est

imat

ed5

00p

eopl

e.

mya

nmar

-52

impr

ovem

enti

nth

ehu

man

itari

ans

ituat

ion

follo

win

gcy

lone

nar

gis

in2

008,

alt

houg

hpe

ople

affe

cted

by

flood

s,

land

slid

esa

ndc

yclo

neG

irii

n20

10.

sam

oa13

eart

hqua

kea

nda

ssoc

iate

dts

unam

iin

dec

embe

r20

09le

ft

appr

oxim

atel

y10

00in

divi

dual

sdi

spla

ced.

nep

al-4

8G

radu

alim

prov

emen

tin

hum

anita

rian

situ

atio

nan

dsh

ift

tow

ards

tran

sitio

nac

tiviti

esfo

llow

ing

sign

ing

ofp

eace

ag

reem

enti

n20

06.h

owev

er,f

undi

ngr

equi

rem

ents

met

in

nep

al’s

un

app

eal(

non-

Cap

)fel

lby

33%

in2

010.

iran

12ea

rthq

uake

sin

Jul

yan

dd

ecem

ber.

cha

d-4

4in

add

ition

toe

xist

ing

need

sof

1.2

mill

ion

peop

le,1

.6

mill

ion

wer

ene

wly

affe

cted

by

drou

ghta

ndfo

odin

secu

rity

in

201

0.p

erce

ntag

eof

fund

ing

need

sin

un

app

ealm

etfe

llby

31%

in2

010.

sour

ce:d

evel

opm

enti

nitia

tives

bas

edo

no

eCd

daC

,un

oC

ha

Fts

and

un

fund

ing

appe

ald

ocum

ents

38

trendsintheformofhumanitarianassistancehavebeenrelativelyconstant,with50–60%ofoeCddaChumanitarianaidspentonemergencyrelief,includingprovisionofemergencyhealthcare,shelter,waterandsanitation.responsehasbeendrivenbythenatureofneed,illustratedbythesharpincreaseintheproportionofassistancedeliveredasemergencyfoodaidin2008followingtheglobalfoodcrisis.however,proportionssubsequentlyfellbacktopre-2008levelsin2010(25%).

despiteconsiderablerhetoric,spendingondisasterpreparednessandpreventionhasnotreachedabove4%ofthetotalhumanitarianspendingbyoeCddaCmembersinanyofthefiveyearsbetween2006and2010.whilelevelshaverisenslightlyovertheperiod,thismaybeafunctionofimproveddonorreportingasmuchasshiftingdonorpriorities(seeChapter3foradetaileddiscussionofgovernmentfundingfordisasterpreparednessanddisasterriskreduction).

fiGuRe 27: officiAl HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom oecd dAc membeRs bY ActiVitY tYpe, 2006–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Emergency/distress relief Emergency food aidReconstruction reliefRelief coordination; protection and support servicesDisaster prevention and preparedness

39

40

©Gettyimages/CiCr/depardon,mathias

40

politicalunrestinthemiddleeastexemplifiesthecomplexconsequencesofcrisesinagloballyconnectedworld.Civilconflictandnatomilitaryinterventioninlibyaaffectednotonlythelibyanpopulationbutalsopromptedtheflightoftensofthousandsofmigrantworkersintoneighbouringcountries.armedcombatantsfledfromlibyaintomali,creatingunrestthatcontributedtoamilitarycoupinearly2012.theinterruptioninoilproductionandexportcontributedtorisingenergyandconsequentlyfoodprices.

Credit

thestory

humanitarianfundingfollowsavarietyofpathways,sometimespassingthroughmultipletransactionsbetweendonors,fundsanddeliveryagenciesenroutetocrisis-affectedpopulations.

donorsfacearangeoffchoiceswhendecidinghowbesttospendtheirhumanitarianfundingenvelopestobestmeettheneedsofpeopleincrisis,whilealsorespectingtheirowncommitmentstoprinciplesandpolicies.theymayprovideunearmarkedfundingtomultilateralorganisations–typicallyunagencies–tospendastheydeterminefit,ortheymayprovidetightlyearmarkedbilateralfundstomultilateralagenciesstipulatingwhereandonwhattypeofactivitiesthefundsmustbespent.theymaychoosetocontributetopooledhumanitarianfunds,whichhavebeenestablishedtopromotemoretimelyandneeds-basedallocationsoffundingandaremanagedbytheunsystem.donorsmayalsochoosetodirectlyfundinternationalnGos,theinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovementornGosincrisis-affectedcountries.lessfrequently,donorsmayprovidefundsdirectlytoanaffectedgovernmentortheymayimplementtheirfundsdirectlythemselves,often,forexample,throughtheirownmilitaryforces.

inpractice,donors’humanitarianbudgetsarespreadwidelyacrossthespectrumofpossiblechannels.however,beyondthisfirstleveloftransactions,wherefundspassfromdonorstotheirfirstrecipients,weknowrelativelylittleabouttheroutesandsubsequentlevelsoftransactionsthroughwhichhumanitarianfundspasstoreachaffectedpopulations(seeinfographiconpage42).withoutbetterinformationontheflowthroughoutthesystemtothepointofdeliverytoaidrecipients,there

islittlescopetoassesstheefficiencyofthesystemortomeaningfullyholdthechainofdeliveryofassistancetoaccount.however,theinternationalaidtransparencyinitiative(iati)hasthepotentialtoprovidetransaction-leveldatainrealtimethatwouldfillinmanyofthesecurrentinformationblanks.

1.3 HoW does tHe fundinG Get tHeRe?

dAtA And tHe inteRnAtionAl Aid tRAnspARencY initiAtiVe

trackingthehumanitariandollarthroughthesystemiscurrentlyhinderedbythelackinformationonwhathasbeendeliveredtowhomandtheabsenceofafeedbackloopthatenablesthepeopleaffectedbycrisestosaywhattheyhavereceived,andwhen.withoutthisfeedbackoraggregateddataonwhatcommoditiesandserviceshavebeendelivered,theeffectivenessandefficiencyofthehumanitarianresponseishardtomeasure.

transparencywasakeyissueatthehighlevelForumonaideffectivenessheldinbusan,koreainlate2011,wheredonorssigneduptoimplementacommon,openstandardforelectronicpublicationofaidinformation,basedontheinternationalaidtransparencyinitiative(iati)andoeCddaCstatisticalreportingstandards.Forty-twoorganisationshavenowpublisheddataontheiraidprojectsinlinewiththeiatistandard.theseincludebilateralandmultilateralaidorganisations,animplementingorganisation(theunitednationsofficeforprojectservices–unops),philanthropicfoundationsand

27nGosandinGos.sofar,organisationshavebeenfocusingonpublishinginformationontheirdevelopmentaid;however,theiatistandardappliestoallresourceflowsandasdonorsimplementtheirbusancommitmenttopublishtoacommonstandardby2015,itwillbeappliedtomanymorehumanitarianactors.iati’sconsultationwithdevelopingcountrystakeholdershasindicatedademandforbetterinformationonhumanitarianassistanceandalsoonsouth–southandtriangularcooperationflows.

Focusingonhumanitarianactorswillencourageiatitoconsiderfurtherhowdetailedinformationcanbepublishedinastimelyamanneraspossibletomeettheoperationaldatarequirementsofhumanitarianstakeholders.unopsbecamethefirstpublishertoshareitssub-nationalgeographicinformationintheiatiopendataformat,andasthenumberoforganisationsprovidingthistypeofinformationincreases,thiscouldsupporthumanitarianeffortstoensurethatassistancereachesthecommunitiesmostinneedofit.

41

US$1

8.8bn

Inte

rnat

iona

lhu

man

itari

anre

spon

se

Oth

er g

over

nmen

tsU

S$0.

7bn

Priv

ate

fund

ing

US$

5.8b

nO

ECD

DAC

don

ors

US$

12.3

bn

Oth

erU

S$0.

5bn

Red

Cro

ss /

Cre

scen

tU

S$1.

4bn

Publ

ic s

ecto

rU

S$1.

8bn

CER

FU

S$42

9mC

HF

US$

261m M

ultil

ater

al a

genc

ies

and

fund

s

ERF

US$

165m

Mul

tilat

eral

ag

enci

esU

S$7.

9bn

NG

Os

and

CSO

sU

S$?

143m

US$

?US$

98m

US$

61m

US$48m

US$

415m

US$

HU

MAN

ITAR

IAN

FU

ND

ING

CH

ANN

ELS

Trac

king

hum

anita

rian

fund

ing

thro

ugh

the

hum

anita

rian

resp

onse

sys

tem

from

don

or to

inte

nded

be

nefic

iari

es is

pro

blem

atic

. Fur

ther

dow

n th

e ch

ain

of

tran

sact

ions

, inf

orm

atio

n be

com

es in

crea

sing

ly s

pars

e.

With

out t

rans

actio

n-le

vel d

ata,

the

impa

ct a

nd e

ffici

ency

of

the

syst

em c

anno

t be

held

to a

ccou

nt.

Inflo

ws

may

not

alw

ays

mat

ch o

utflo

ws

due

to re

port

ing

inco

nsis

tenc

ies

in s

ome

case

s an

d be

caus

e no

t all

fund

s re

ceiv

ed w

ill b

e di

sbur

sed

in th

e sa

me

cale

ndar

yea

r. O

nly

US$

1.7b

n of

pri

vate

fina

ncin

g is

trac

eabl

e.

Sour

ces:

Dev

elop

men

t Ini

tiativ

es b

ased

on

OEC

D D

AC, U

N O

CH

A FT

S,

UN

CER

F

Cor

e un

earm

arke

dO

ther

bila

tera

l

3.2bn

US$

6.1bn

US$

1bnUS$

IN 2

010

42

FundinGtoFirst-levelreCipients

First-levelrecipientsreceivehumanitarianfundingdirectlyfromthedonorsource(thisbeingadaCgovernment,othergovernmentorprivatedonor).First-levelrecipientscanbethepublicsector,includinginstitutionsofdonorandlocalgovernments;multilateralorganisations,rangingfromunagenciestotheworldbankandothersupranationalinstitutions;international,donorcountry-basedandlocalnGosandcivilsocietyorganisations(Csos);theinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovement;andanyothertypeofhumanitarianorganisationthatcanchanneldonorfinancing.inturn,thesefirst-levelrecipientscanchoosetopassthefundingreceivedontoanotherorganisationtoimplement,thusmovingbeyondthefirst-levelrecipientchoicecontrolledbythedonor.

oeCddaCmembersprovidedthelargestshareoffundingtofirst-levelrecipients(83%)in2010,9%morethantheirshareofoverallhumanitarianassistance;however,thiswasnearly10%lessthaninthepreviousyear.privatedonorsincreasedtheirshareofthetotalfrom2%in2009to12%in2010,driven

mainlybythehugemobilisationofpublicandprivatesectorgivingforthehaitiemergency.othergovernmentdonorscontributed5%,aslightincreaseof0.7%from2009levels.

duringtheperiod2006–2010,multilateralorganisationsreceived,onaverage,justoverhalfofallfundingtraceabletofirst-levelrecipientorganisations(54%).overthesameperiod,nGosandCsosreceivedanaverageof17%ofthefunding,risingto21%in2010.representationbytheredCrossandredCrescentmovementalsoincreasedovertheperiod,fromjust4%in2006to10%in2010.Finally,publicsectorinstitutionsreceivedonaverage14%oftheinternationalhumanitarianfinancingbetween2006-2010.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

OtherPublic sectorRed Cross MovementNGOs and CSOsMultilateral organisations

fiGuRe 28: fiRst-leVel Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2006–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandoChaFtsdata

43

differentdonorsfavourdifferentfirst-levelrecipientorganisationswhenitcomestodecidinghowtochanneltheirhumanitarianfinancing.oeCddaCmembercountriesconcentrated55%ofalltheirfundingthroughmultilateralorganisations,with17%tonGos,13%tothepublicsector,7%totheredCrossand8%tootherchannelsduringthe2006–2010period.thisaveragehidesvariationsamongstindividualdonors:theunitedstates,forexample,channelledonaverageover60%ofitsfundingthroughmultilateralorganisations,whileswitzerlanddedicatedlessthenone-third.Conversely,aquarterofallswitzerland’sfundingwaschannelledthroughtheredCross,comparedwithjust3.5%fromtheunitedstates.Francechannelledthebulkofitshumanitarianfunding(80%)throughtheeu,comparedwithonly26%bytheuk.Finally,euinstitutionsspent65%ofthefundingthroughonlytwochannels:multilateralorganisations(37%)andthepublicsector(28%).

GovernmentsoutsidethedaCgroupsplittheirfinancingamongthepublicsectorandmultilateralorganisationsevenly,at37%and40%respectivelyonaverage.Furthermore,theywerefourtimesmorelikelytofundaredCross/redCrescentorganisationthanannGo.theuaechannelled,onaverage,40%ofitsfundingthroughtheuaeredCrescentsociety,whilebrazilchannelledoverhalfofitshumanitarianmoneythroughgovernmentalinstitutionsinrecipientcountries.

privatedonorsfavouredmultilateralorganisations,mainlyuniCeF,tochannel46%oftheirfunding.another34%and14%respectivelywereallocatedtonGosandtheredCross/redCrescent,whilethepublicsectorreceivedascanty0.3%ofallprivatefunding.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DAC donors Non-DAC donors Private funding

OtherMultilateral organisationsRed Cross MovementNGOs and CSOsPublic sector

fiGuRe 29: fiRst-leVel Recipients As A sHARe of donoRs’ HumAnitARiAn finAncinG, 2006–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCandunoChaFtsdata

44

thecontributionsofCsosincrisis-affectedcountries,includinglocalnGos,faith-basedorganisationsandlocalredCrossandredCrescentsocieties,isextremelydifficulttoquantify,althoughtheircontributionsareconsideredvital.inmanycrises,theseorganisationsoftenplayacriticalrole,respondingbeforetheinternationalcommunityarrives,accessingpopulationsthatinternationalactorsmaynotbeabletoreachandcontinuingtosupportcommunitiesastheyrecoverfromcrisis,aftertheinternationalresponsehaswaned.

domesticactorsoftenstruggletoaccessinternationalfunding,anditiscurrentlynotpossibletotrackcomprehensivelythevolumesoffundspassedonthroughtheinternationalsystemtosuchactors.manydonorgovernmentscannot,bypolicy,ordonot,bypreference,funddomesticnGosdirectly.domesticnGos,therefore,receiverelativelysmallvolumesofinternationalhumanitarianaidcontributionsdirectlyfromdonorgovernments.however,since2006,country-levelhumanitarianpooledfundshaveenableddomesticnGostoaccessfundingdirectly,withthetotalfundschannelledthroughemergencyresponse

funds(erFs)andcommonhumanitarianfunds(ChFs)growingten-fold,fromus$1.7millionin2007tous$17.8millionin2011.in2011,contributionsfromdonorsandpooledfundsincreasedby77%and263%respectively.thelargestincreasewasinsomaliawheredomesticnGos,whichplayamajorroleincrisisresponse,accessinginsecureareasthatinternationalactorscannot,receivedus$10.9millionviapooledhumanitarianfunds,andus$6.7millionfromgovernmentdonors.

accesstointernationalhumanitarianresponsefundsfordomesticnGosisoftenmediatedbyunagenciesandinternationalnGos,whopassonaproportionoftheirdonorandprivatefundingtonationalnGostoimplementhumanitarianprogrammes.thisfinalstepinthejourneyofhumanitarianfundsislargelyuntraceablewithintheoeCddaCandoChaFtsdata,makingitextremelydifficulttofullyaccountforfundsandtoassesstheextenttowhichdonorsandinternationalorganisationsareworkinginpartnershipwithlocalactors.

wealsoknowverylittleaboutthevolumesofresourcesraiseddomesticallybytheseorganisations.asanindication,

Good HumAnitARiAn donoRsHip commitment to suppoRt locAl ActoRs

‘principle 8:strengthenthecapacityofaffectedcountriesandlocalcommunitiestoprevent,preparefor,mitigateandrespondtohumanitariancrises,withthegoalofensuringthatgovernmentsandlocalcommunitiesarebetterabletomeettheirresponsibilitiesandco-ordinateeffectivelywithhumanitarianpartners.’

fiGuRe 30: HumAnitARiAn Aid to nAtionAl nGos in cRisis-Affected countRies fRom inteRnAtionAl donoRs And pooled HumAnitARiAn funds, 2007–2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

OtherUN agenciesERFsCHFsGovernments

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

basedonasurveyof42localredCrosssocietyannualfinancialreports,anestimated10%oftheirtotalcollectivebudgetsofus$251millionbetween2007and2010wasraisedfromdomesticsources.theJapaneseredCrossnationalsocietyraisedus$483millionfromprivatesourceswithinthecountry–ofthis,us$122millionalonecamefromprivatedonationsfromJapanesecitizens.

CivilsoCietyinCrisis-aFFeCtedCountries

45

fiGuRe 31: top 10 donoR contRibutoRs to HumAnitARiAn pooled funds, 2006–2011

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsandunCerFdata

29.2%

15.3%

13.9% 11.0%

6.0% 4.7% 4.3%

2.3% 1.7% 1.6%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Net

herl

ands

Swed

en

Nor

way

Spai

n

Can

ada

Irel

and

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y

Aus

tral

ia

US$

MIL

LIO

N

CERFCHFERF% of total contributions to pooled funds 2006-2011

pooledFunds

pooledhumanitarianfundswerecreatedtofacilitatemoretimelyandefficientfundingforcrises,proportionatewithneedsandinlinewithprioritiesidentifiedbyunhumanitariancoordinators.

sincetheinceptionofpooledhumanitarianfunds,increasingvolumesoffinancinghavebeenchannelledviathesemechanisms,fromus$583millionin2006tous$900millionin2011.in2011,5%oftotalinternationalhumanitarianaidfinancingfromgovernmentsandprivatedonorswaschannelledviapooledfunds.

pooledhumanitarianfundsprovideaconduitfordonorswhohavelittleexperienceorcapacitytoallocateandadministerpooledfundstochannelfundstowardspriorityhumanitarianneeds.in2010arecord161donors,includinggovernments,privateindividuals,corporationsandfoundations,

contributedtotheCerF,56donorstoerFsand16toChFs.however,overthelifetimeofthefundstodate,theleadingtendonorshaveprovided90%ofthetotalfundsreceived.

theCerFhasreceivedthelargestshare(52%)ofthetotalchannelledviapooledfunds,followedbycountry-levelChFs(37%)anderFs(11%).

inanumberofrecipientcountries,primarilythosewiththelargestChFsanderFs,asignificantproportionofhumanitarianfundsisreceivedviapooledfunds.thedrCandsudan,inparticular,benefitfromsubstantialpooledmechanisms,whichconstituted46%and15%respectivelyoftheirtotalhumanitarianfundsbetween2006and2010.

pooled HumAnitARiAn funds

• theun’sCentralemergencyresponseFund(CerF)allowsdonors(includinggovernments,privatecorporations,individuals,trustsandfoundations)topooltheirfinancingonagloballeveltoenablemoretimelyandreliablehumanitarianassistancetopeopleaffectedbyhumanitariancrises.

• Commonhumanitarianfunds(ChFs)aremanagedandfundsareallocatedaccordingtotheneedsandprioritiesidentifiedatrecipientcountrylevel.ChFstypicallyallocatefundstoprojectswithinaunhumanitarianworkplanoractionplan.

• emergencyresponsefunds(erFs)arealsomanagedatcountrylevelandexistincountriesthatmaynothaveaunhumanitarianworkplanandmaynotregularlyparticipateintheunappealsprocess.erFsareabletofinancesmall-scaleprojects,allowingnationalnGostoaccessfundsdirectly.

46

fiGuRe 32: totAl fundinG to pooled funds, 2006–2011

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsandunCerFdata

299

385

453

392

429

467

263

284

295

243

261

362

21

44

106

96

165

71

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

US$ MILLION

ERF CHF CERF

fiGuRe 33: sHARes of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid ReceiVed ViA HumAnitARiAn pooled funds, 2006–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,oChaFtsandunCerFdata

15.3%

45.9%

9.5%

9.7%

4.4% 3.6% 7.8% 2.8%

7.2% 6.3%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Suda

n

DR

C

Ethi

opia

Som

alia

Hai

ti

Pak

ista

n

Ken

ya

Afg

hani

stan

Sri L

anka

Zim

babw

e

US$

BIL

LIO

N

Other international humanitarian aidCERFCHFERFPooled funds as % of total international humanitarian response

47

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

fiGuRe 34: contRibutions to countRY-leVel common HumAnitARiAn funds

2 11 9 8

92

118

143

111 99

20

93

171 167

150

122 132

164

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

SudanSomaliaDRCCAR

fiGuRe 35: contRibutions to emeRGencY Response funds, 2006–2011 (us$ million)

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl

Afghanistan 6.3 4.8 11.1

cAR 5.8 6.2 12.0

colombia 1.4 2.1 2.4 5.9

ethiopia 15.7 16.4 68.2 45.6 16.7 43.4 206.0

Haiti 5.5 81.9 0.5 87.8

indonesia 0.5 0.3 1.5 3.0 2.3 7.6

iraq 2.1 6.1 15.6 4.9 28.7

kenya 2.6 3.7 6.3

nepal 0.1 0.1

pakistan 36.6 0.9 37.6

palestine/opt 5.4 2.5 7.5 3.2 3.8 22.4

somalia 5.1 13.0 12.5 13.4 8.9 52.8

uganda 0.3 0.6 0.9

Yemen 2.6 5.7 8.3

Zimbabwe 1.3 3.4 3.9 0.7 0.9 10.1

total 21.3 44.3 105.9 93.3 164.5 68.5 497.7

48

FourChFswereoperationalin2011,inCentralafricanrepublic(Car),drC,somaliaandsudan.Followingtheindependenceofsouthsudanin2011,thesudanChF,theoldestandlargestofthefunds,wasseparatedatthebeginningof2012intotwoseparatefundsforsudanandsouthsudan.

theoverallincreaseinfundsreceivedbytheChFsin2011wasaresultofasharpincreaseincontributionstotheChFsforsomaliaandsudan,withbothcountriesexperiencinganincreasedburdenofhumanitarianneedsassociatedwithinsecurityanddrought.

FundingtoerFs,bycontrast,fellin2011,followingapeakin2010drivenbycontributionstotheerFsinhaitiandpakistan.ContributionstotheerFforethiopiamorethandoubledin2011inresponsetoincreasedhumanitarianneedsarisingfromthefoodsecuritycrisis.

theerFsinCarandsomaliawereconvertedtoChFsin2008and2010respectively.theerFforugandawasclosedin2011.newerFsforpakistanandyemenwerecreatedin2010.

theCerFreceivedus$467millioninfundingforhumanitariancrisesin2011,providinganimportantinjectionoffundstocrisesboththroughitsrapidresponsewindow,whichallocated66%ofthetotalfundsin2011,andtounder-fundedemergencies,whichreceived34%offunds.

fiGuRe 36: top 10 Recipients of tHe centRAl emeRGencY Response fund, 2006–2011 (us$ million)

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCerFdata

Recipient countRY

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1 drC 38.0 drC 52.5 drC 41.1 somalia 60.5 pakistan 51.8 somalia 53.0

2 sudan 35.5 bangladesh 26.7 ethiopia 31.5 drC 30.4 haiti 36.6 ethiopia 46.5

3 afghanistan 32.3 sudan 25.5 myanmar 28.4 Zimbabwe 26.8 niger 35.0 pakistan 32.4

4 kenya 27.2 somalia 15.7 kenya 26.0 kenya 26.3 drC 29.1 southsudan 22.8

5 somalia 16.6 uganda 13.0 pakistan 18.7 sudan 25.8 sudan 23.9 kenya 22.7

6 srilanka 10.0 ethiopia 12.4 afghanistan 18.2 srilanka 23.5 Chad 22.8 Chad 22.6

7 ethiopia 10.0 mozambique 12.2 haiti 16.0 dprk 19.0 kenya 20.0 sudan 18.3

8 Chad 9.4 Zimbabwe 12.0 sudan 16.0 ethiopia 15.6 ethiopia 16.7 Côted’ivoire 16.3

9 eritrea 5.9 dprk 11.1 nepal 12.6 philippines 11.9 srilanka 15.7 srilanka 16.1

10Côted’ivoire 5.8 srilanka 10.9 srilanka 12.5 niger 11.7 yemen 14.5 niger 15.7

% of total 73.5% 54.7% 51.6% 63.3% 64.1% 62.5%

total top 10 190.7 192.0 221.2 251.7 266.2 266.3

total recipients 259.3 350.9 428.8 397.4 415.2 426.2

49

themilitary

militaryactorshavealonghistoryofprovidingsupportintimesofemergency–bothathomeandabroad.however,thefrequencyandscaleofforeignmilitaryinvolvementinhumanitarianactionhaveincreasedinthepastdecade,drivenbybothcapacityneedsandlogisticalexpediency.

naturaldisastershaveincreasedinfrequencyandseverityand,insomecircumstancescivilianagenciessimplydonothaveadequatecapacitytorespondtohumanitarianneedsonalargescale,especiallywhereinfrastructureisbadly

damaged.bothdomesticandforeignmilitarieshaveplayedasignificantroleinrespondingtolarge-scaledisasters,includingthe2004indianoceanearthquake/tsunami,the2005kashmirearthquakeand,morerecently,theearthquakeinhaitiin2010–when34foreignmilitariesarethoughttohavedeployedtroops,assetsandsuppliesintheresponse.

Foreignmilitaryactorshavealsofoundthemselvesincreasinglypresentinareasofhumanitarianneedinthepastdecade,duetotheexpansioninmultilateral

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

MIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

)

United StatesAustraliaSpainAustriaKoreaGreeceCanadaFinlandDenmarkPortugalSwitzerlandBelgiumIreland

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 totAl 2006-2010

united states 161.5 129.0 176.2 117.8 528.2 1,112.6

Australia 11.7 32.0 71.3 114.9

spain 15.0 0.3 41.4 1.4 58.2

Austria 1.2 27.0 18.4 46.6

korea 7.9 8.1 5.1 1.6 22.6

Greece 18.7 0.2 2.7 21.7

canada 0.1 3.0 3.1

finland 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.8

denmark 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.1

portugal 0.3 0.3

switzerland 0.2 0.3

belgium 0.1 0.2

ireland 0.1 0.1

total 200.8 186.7 280.6 185.5 530.0 1,383.5

fiGuRe 37: HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA donoR defence AGencies RepoRted to tHe oecd dAc, 2006–2010

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

50

peacekeepingoperations,aswellasthemajorforeignmilitaryinterventionsiniraqandafghanistan.

theoeCddaCcriteriaforodaallows‘additionalcostsincurredfortheuseofthedonor’smilitaryforcestodeliverhumanitarianaidorperformdevelopmentservices’tobecountedtowardsagovernment’sodacontributions.aproportionofmilitaryhumanitarianactivityisthereforecapturedwithindaCstatistics.

theunitedstateschannelsthelargestvolumesoffundsviaitsdefenceapparatus.thevolumeofthesecontributionsincreaseddramaticallyin2010,reflectingtheusGovernment’smajorcontributionsofmilitaryassetsandpersonneltothereliefeffortfollowingtheearthquakeinhaiti.

theusdepartmentofdefense(dod)actsbothasanimplementingagencyinhumanitariancrisesandasadonor.alargeproportionoftheusGovernment’s

militaryhumanitarianaiddoesnot,however,involveactivitiesdirectlyimplementedbythedod;alargeportionofthefundsreportedtotheoeCddaCisinfactfundschannelledviatheusdodtothirdpartyimplementingpartnerstocarryoutprojectactivities,inparticularthroughtheusCommander’semergencyresponseprogram(Cerp).

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 totAl 2006-2010

pakistan 86.4 afghanistan 54.0 afghanistan 108.8 afghanistan 69.6 haiti 380.8 haiti 380.8

afghanistan 19.7 iraq 47.1 iraq 41.2 Chad 18.4 afghanistan 22.9 afghanistan 275.1

lebanon 13.3 lebanon 20.1 Chad 27.3 iraq 11.0 iraq 18.7 iraq 125.9

iraq 7.9 america,regional

6.1 myanmar 12.9 Georgia 9.1 pakistan 14.8 pakistan 104.6

indonesia 7.3 sudan 1.6 america,regional

8.8 myanmar 2.6 indonesia 4.4 Chad 46.9

america,regional

5.8 Chad 1.2 lebanon 7.0 kosovo 2.6 Chile 1.1 lebanon 42.1

timor-leste 3.6 pakistan 1.0 China 2.1 lebanon 1.6 kosovo 0.4 america,regional

21.3

bosnia-herzegovina

2.5 ethiopia 0.8 pakistan 1.9 China 0.9 Guatemala 0.1 myanmar 15.5

drC 1.9 southofsahara,regional

0.7 Georgia 1.7 bolivia 0.9 Chad 0.04 indonesia 12.2

Guatemala 0.2 serbia 0.6 europe,regional

0.6 america,regional

0.5 Georgia 10.8

fiGuRe 38: Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA militARY ActoRs, 2006-2010 (us$ million)

51

fiGuRe 39: HumAnitARiAn contRibutions fRom militARY ActoRs RepoRted to un ocHA fts, 2007–2011

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

United StatesTurkeySwitzerlandSwedenSurinameSpainRussia IndonesiaGreeceGermanyFranceChinaBrazil

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

United StatesTurkeySwitzerlandSwedenSurinameSpainRussia IndonesiaGreeceGermanyFranceChinaBrazil

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl

brazil 0.5 0.5

china 4.6 4.6

france 17.0 17.0

Germany 6.0 3.8 10.0 19.8

Greece 1.4 0.1 1.8 3.2

indonesia 2.0 2.0

Russia 2.0 2.0

spain 4.8 4.8

suriname 1.0 1.0

sweden 0.1 0.1

switzerland 0.3 0.1 0.4

turkey 0.6 0.6

united states 3.4 25.0 8.7 559.2 89.7 685.9

total 9.5 26.3 12.8 594.6 98.7 741.9

52

militaryhumanitariancontributionsthatarenotoda-eligiblemaybetrackedwithintheoChaFtsdata,thoughmanyofthecontributionsreportedaredescriptionsofin-kindreliefgoodsandservices.theunitedstatesisthelargestdonorreflectedintheFtsdatabutthecontributionsofagreaterdiversityofdonors,includingmanydonorsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgrouping,arealsovisibleinthedata.inadditiontomajorcontributionsfromtheunitedstatesin2010,France,nicaragua,Chile,Colombia,brazil,suriname,uruguay,

Jordan,italyandJamaicaallreportedmilitaryhumanitariancontributionstothehaitiearthquakeresponse,whileegypt,indonesiaandrussiareportedcontributionstothepakistanfloodingresponse.

in2011,thelargestcontributionofmilitaryhumanitarianassistancewastoJapan,withcontributionstotallingus$89.6millionfromtheusdodandus$4.6millionfromChina.

fiGuRe 40: Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid cHAnnelled ViA militARY ActoRs RepoRted to un ocHA fts, 2007–2011 (us$ million)

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 totAl 2007-2011

afghanistan 6.0 Georgia 21.0 indonesia 4.3 haiti 506.4 Japan 94.2 Haiti 509.0

dominicanrep. 1.8 haiti 2.6 afghanistan 3.8 pakistan 70.0 libya 3.8 Japan 94.2

nicaragua 1.0 myanmar 1.4 pakistan 3.0 afghanistan 10.0 pakistan 0.6 pakistan 73.6

peru 0.6 China 1.3 philippines 0.8 Chile 6.1 tajikistan 0.1 Georgia 21.0

bolivia 0.1 elsalvador 0.6 drC 0.8 honduras 0.1 Afghanistan 19.8

Jordan 0.3 Guatemala 0.8 chile 6.1

kyrgyzstan 0.2 indonesia 4.3

region 0.1 libya 3.8

China 0.1 dominican Rep. 1.8

china 1.4

53

©tonkoene

multiplecrisesinpakistanandneighbouringafghanistanhaveledtotheforceddisplacementofmillionsofpeople.pakistanhosted1.7millionrefugeesand453,000internallydisplacedpeoplein2011.

manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianaidareaffectedbymultiple,overlappingcrises.pakistanishometo35.2millionpeoplelivinginabsolutepoverty.itexperiencesdomesticandregionalconflictandhasenduredlarge-scalefloodingfortwoconsecutiveyears.

thestory

54

Credit

55

foRces sHApinG HumAnitARiAn need

thescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesabatedin2011,with12.5millionfewerpeopletargetedtoreceivehumanitarianassistanceintheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap),andafurtherdropof10.4millionintheexpectednumbersofpeopleinneedofhumanitarianassistanceatthebeginningof2012.

irrespectiveofthismostrecentdownwardtrendinpeopleaffectedbycrises,however,majorstructuralglobalcrisisrisks–includinghighfoodpricesandmarketvolatilityandtheincreasingthreatofweather-relatedhazards–meanthatlargenumbersofpeople,particularlythepoorandthoseinfragilestates,areacutelyvulnerabletocrises.

theinternationalresponsetohumanitariancriseshasbeenmixed.despitelowerfinancerequeststhaninpreviousyears,thegapbetweenneedsandfundingwidenedin2011,withtheunCapappealreportingthelowestproportionoffundingrequirementsmetinadecade.timelinessandinequitableresponsesbetweencrisesarealsoofcontinuedconcern.

thischapterconsidersrecenttrendsindriversofhumanitariancrisesandreflectsontheinternationalresponsetomeetingthosefinancingneeds.

andthemixedinternationalresponse

driversoFvulnerabilityandCrisis

theprimarydriversofhumanitariancrisesaretypicallynaturaldisastersand/orconflict,intersectingwithpeople’svulnerabilityto,andabilitytocopewith,theimpactofsuchevents.

in2011thenumberofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersfellto91million,substantiallylowerthanthe224millionin2010andthelowestfigurein10years.thenumberofpeopleaffectedinlow-incomecountriesin2011wasthelowestin5years,at11million.similarly,inlowermiddle-incomecountries,18millionpeoplewereaffectedin2011,thelowestnumberin8yearsandhalfthatof2010.

theestimatedcostofdamagesassociatedwiththesenaturaldisasters,however,rosesubstantiallytous$290billionin2011,upfromus$127billionin2010.themajorityofthesedamages,someus$210billion,wereincurredinJapan,wherearound400,000peoplewereaffectedbythetohokuearthquakeandtsunami,illustratingthehugefinancialcostofnaturaldisastersinahigh-incomeoeCdcountry.

173

109

658

255

162 160 126

211 222 199

224

91

2000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

PEO

PLE

AFF

ECTE

D (M

ILLI

ON

)

High-income: non-OECD countriesHigh-income: OECD countriesUpper middle-income countriesLower middle-income countriesLow-income countriesTotal

fiGuRe 1: people Affected bY nAtuRAl disAsteRs, 2000–2011

note:incomegroupsareattributedusingworldbankclassification,april2012.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonCentreforresearchontheepidemiologyofdisasters(Cred)em-dat

56

fiGuRe 2: tRends in tHe incidence of Violent conflict, 2001–2010

source:uppsalaConflictdataprogram(datasetsuCdp/prioarmedConflictdatasetv.4-2011,1946–2010;uCdpnon-stateConflictdatasetv.2.3-2011,1989–2010;uCdpone-sidedviolencedatasetv1.3-2011,1989–2010)

34

31

30

2001

30

35

46

2002

28

37

42

2003

30

26

44

2004

30

29

33

2005

31

27

31

2006

32

18

28

2007

35

35

27

2008

34

26

19

2009

28

26

18

2010

NU

MB

ER O

F C

ON

FLIC

T IN

CID

ENTS

One-sidedNon state-basedState-based

datafor2011mayyetreversethistrend,withnewconflictsinlibyaandsyriaandincreasedlevelsofviolenceinanumberofcountries,includingsomalia,sudan,southsudan,pakistanandyemen.however,thenumberofincidentsofviolentconflict(violentincidentswhichresultinatleast25deaths)wasinrelativelysteadydeclinebetween2002and2010–withtheexceptionof2008.therehavebeennotablereductionsintheincidenceofone-sidedattacksoncivilians,from46eventsin2002to18in2010.

themajorproximatecausesofhumanitariancrisesmayhaveeasedin2011,butglobalforcescontributingtovulnerability,particularlyforthepoorestpeople,remainverymuchpresent.

57

thestructuralvulnerabilitiesoftheglobaleconomicsystemthatgaverisetotheglobalfoodcrisisof2008remainlargelyunchanged,leadingtoasecondpricespikein2011,withenergypricesrisingby143%andfoodpricesby56%fromtheirlowestpointsin2009totheirpeaksin2011.pricevolatilityremainsacute,andtheoutlookisoneofcontinuedhighprices.Foodproductionremainssensitivetoweatherandtoagriculturalandenergypolicies,includingcontinuedinvestmentinbiofuelsinpreferencetofoodproductioninmanycountries.politicalunrestinthemiddleeast,particularlyinlibyain2011,hasdisruptedoilproduction.volatilityinenergymarketsalsohasanimpactonfoodprices,withproductiondependentonfertiliser,anddistributionandprocessingdependentonfuel.Forcountriesdependentonfoodimports,thiscombinationofhighpricesandvolatilityleavespoorpopulations,whospendlargeproportionsoftheirhouseholdincomeonfood,extremelyvulnerabletoshocksofbothanidiosyncraticandco-variantnature.

disastersrelatedtoincreasinglyunpredictableweatherpatternsandextremeweathereventsarepredictedtooccurwithincreasingfrequency.the2011droughtinthehornofafricacannotbedefinitivelyattributedtoclimatechange,althoughaffectedcommunitiesreportthatdroughtnowoccursatshorterintervals,reducingtheiropportunitiestorecover.whatthehornofafricacrisisdemonstratesveryclearly,however,isthatwherethereisweakgovernance,orwheregroupsofvulnerablepeople,suchaspastoralists,aremarginalisedfromthesupportmechanismsofthestate,andwherepeopledependonlivelihoodsthatareacutelysensitivetotheweather,weather-relatedhazardscanhavedevastatingconsequences.Giventhatthesehazardsareincreasinglylikely,dealingwiththesevulnerabilitiesisessential.

fiGuRe 3: cHAnGes in commoditY pRices, 1990–2012

note:Foodandenergypriceindiceshereshowvariationfrom2005,whentheindexvalueissetatus$100.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbankGlobaleconomicmonitordata

58

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

MO

NTH

LY IN

IDIC

ES B

ASE

D O

N N

OM

INA

L U

S D

OLL

AR

S, 2

005=

100

Food price index Energy price index

membersoftheGoodhumanitariandonorship(Ghd)grouphavemadeaclearcommitmenttofundonaproportionatebasisandinaccordancewithassessedneeds.thisambitionisconstrained,however,bythelimitedavailabilityofobjectiveandcomparableevidenceabouthumanitarianneeds.thisinevitablyhasconsequencesforthedecisionsultimatelymadeabouthowresourcesaredirected.withoutrobustandcomparableevidence,peoplelivingincrisiscannotbeassuredaproportionateshareoftheavailableglobalhumanitarianfundsandprovidersofassistancecannotbeeffectivelyheldtoaccount.

therehasbeenmuchgreaterattentiontothisprobleminrecentyears,andimprovementsintheevidencebasearebeginningtofilterintotheunCap,whichremainstheprimaryglobalassessmentofhumanitarianneedsandfundingallocationguidancetoolfordonors.

in2011theinter-agencystandingCommittee(iasC)needsassessmenttaskforceproducedandfield-testednew‘operationalGuidanceforCoordinated

assessmentsinhumanitarianCrises’,apolicydocumentwhichestablishesrolesandresponsibilitiesforactorsincoordinatedassessments.italsopublishedthe‘multi-Cluster/sectorinitialrapidassessment(mira)manual’,designedtopromotethecollectionofmorereliableandtimelydataonhumanitarianneedsintheearlystagesofcrises.inaddition,globalclustershaveagreedasetofkeyhumanitarianindicatorsagainstwhichthescaleandseverityofcrisescanbemonitoredonanongoingandcomparablebasis.

in2012severalunconsolidatedappealsincludehumanitarian‘dashboards’,whichprovidesummaryanalysisofhumanitarianneeds,coverageandgaps.manyofthesedashboardsincorporatethebasicoutcome-levelindicatorsagreedbytheiasCin2011–crudemortalityrate,under-5mortalityrate,morbidityrate,under-5globalacutemalnutritionandunder-5severeacutemalnutrition–whichenablecomparisonsofhumanitarianneedsacrosscrisesandovertime.kenya,somalia,Chad,yemen,thephilippinesandafghanistancarriedoutmulti-clusterassessments

Good HumAnitARiAn donoRsHip (GHd)

theGhdinitiativeisaninformaldonorforumthataimstopromoteasetofagreedprinciplesandgoodpractices,including:

• principle 5:whilereaffirmingtheprimaryresponsibilityofstatesforthevictimsofhumanitarianemergencieswithintheirownborders,strivetoensureflexibleandtimelyfunding,onthebasisofthecollectiveobligationofstrivingtomeethumanitarianneeds.

• principle 6: allocatehumanitarianfundinginproportiontoneedsandonthebasisofneedsassessments.

• principle 11:strivetoensurethatfundingofhumanitarianactioninnewcrisesdoesnotadverselyaffectthemeetingofneedsinongoingcrises.

• principle 14:Contributeresponsibly,andonthebasisofburden-sharing,tounitednationsConsolidatedinter-agencyappealsandtointernationalredCrossandredCrescentmovementappeals,andactivelysupporttheformationofcommonhumanitarianactionplans(Chaps)astheprimaryinstrumentforstrategicplanning,prioritisationandcoordinationincomplexemergencies.

Ghdmembersin2012include(oeCddaCmembersarehighlighted):Australia, Austria, belgium,brazil,bulgaria,canada,Croatia,Cyprus,Czechrepublic,denmark,estonia,european commission, finland, france, Germany, Greece,hungary,ireland, italy, Japan,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,luxembourg,malta,mexico, the netherlands, new Zealand,norway, poland, portugal, Republic of korea,romania,slovakrepublic,slovenia,spain, sweden, switzerland, the united kingdom, the united states.

assessinGthesCaleoFtheCrisis

59

thatinformedtheir2012Capappeals,andmanycountriesnowcompiletheirappealsusingtheonlineprojectsystem(ops)whichmapsprojectsbygeographiclocationandnumbersofbeneficiariestargeted.thisallowscoordinatorstobettertrackgapsandduplication.innovationsinvolvinghumanitarianactorsatrecipientcountrylevelarealsoimprovingtheevidencebase,enablingmorestrategicmatchingofhumanitarianfundingtoneeds(seeaboveboxonColombia’shsri).

improvementsintheevidencebaseonthescaleandseverityofhumanitarianneedsarebeginningtobearfruit,yetdisproportionateandlateresponsestohumanitariancrisessuggestthatthereareothersubstantialbarrierstofundingaccordingtoneeds,asidefrominsufficientinformation.

manydonorscontinuetouseanarrowdefinitionofhumanitarianneedsthatprioritisesacutehumanitarianneeds(whereacleartriggeringeventmeansthathumanitarianthresholdsarerapidlybreached)abovechronicneeds(where

crisesareprotractedandhumanitarianindicatorsareoftenatoraroundcrisisthresholdlevels)andabovetheriskofcrisis.whencriseswithchronicneedsormountingriskandvulnerabilityareforcedtocompetewiththosewithmoreacuteneeds,thelatterwilloftenreceivefundingpriority(seediscussioninChapter1on‘winners’and‘losers’in2010andthediscussionbelowontrendsinfinancingforchroniccriseswithintheunCap).inaddition,theprevailinginstitutionalandconceptualdividebetweenhumanitariananddevelopmentprogrammingandfundingstreamsleavesnoclearresponsibilityforaddressingunderlyingvulnerabilitytocrises.thiscombinationoffactorspermitspreventablecrisestoescalateintosituationsofacuteneed,asevidencedveryclearlyin2011bytheslowdonorresponsetoclear,earlyevidenceofabuildingcrisisinthehornofafrica.

colombiA’s HumAnitARiAn situAtion Risk indeX (HsRi)

unofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(oCha)andtheuniversidadsantotomásinColombiabeganworkingtogetherin2006andhavecreatedacountry-levelhumanitarianriskindextoassistdecisionmakersinrationalisingawiderangeofcomplexinformation,inacontextwhereaccesstoaffectedareasisoftenrestricted,tobetterprioritiseandcoordinatehumanitarianresponse.

Colombiaisarelativelydata-richcountry,withinformationoneconomicandsocialconditionscollectedbythegovernment.theindexcombinesthisinformationfrommunicipalitylevelwithinformationonconflictandresponsecapacitytoassessvulnerabilityandthreataswellasthelikelyimpactofcrises.

aswithothercompositeriskindices–forexample,theeCdirectorateGeneralforhumanitarianaidandCivilprotection(eCho)GlobalneedsassessmentindexandoCha’sGlobalFocusmodel–thehsricannotprovidereal-timeinformationontheevolutionofcrisesorprovidenumbersofaffectedpeopleforresponseplanningpurposes,andsomustbecomplementedbyup-to-datesituationanalysisfrompeopleontheground.however,thehrsihasprovedvaluableinachievingconsensusonpriorityareasforearlyactionandresourceallocationandisacoretoolusedinallocatingfundingwithintheColombiaemergencyresponseFundandthecountry’sCommonhumanitarianFrameworktoselectbeneficiaries.

thehsrihasprovedextremelysuccessfulinpredictinglikelymassdisplacementandindicatingwherethegreatestnumberofaffectedpeoplearelikelytobe.Followingasurveyofavailablemethodologies,theGovernmentofColombiaoptedtobuilduponhsritocreateavictimizationriskindex,withthegoalofestimatingareaswithriskdifferentiatedbytypeofharmsuffered.thistoolwasdesignedtoinformgovernmentrestitutionprocessesunderthe2011victimsandlandrestitutionlawandwillincludetheconstructionofaninformationsystemdesignedtosystematisetheprocessofcalculatingtheindexandproducingonlinemaps.

www.colombiassh.org/irsh

foReWARned is not AlWAYs foReARmed

tHe finAncinG Response to tHe HoRn of AfRicA food cRisis in kenYA And somAliA in 2011

thefoodcrisisinthehornofafricawasanticipatedwellinadvanceofitreachingcrisisproportions.asearlyasaugust2010,usaid’sFamineearlywarningsystemsnetwork(Fewsnet)issuedwarningsthattheeffectsoflaniñacouldhavesignificantfoodsecurityimplicationsineastafrica.thefailureoftwoconsecutiverainyseasons(october–december2010andmarch–may2011)broughtthatpredictiontopass,givingrisetoadangerouscombinationofverylowcropyields,highlivestockmortalityrates,diminishedopportunitiesforwork,fallinglivestockpricesandrisingstaplefoodandfuelprices.

despiteclearwarningsofabuildingcrisis,initialunconsolidatedappealrequirementsforsomaliafor2011wererelativelymodestatjustus$530million.thesefailedtoanticipatethescaleoftheunfoldingcrisis.thedonorresponsetothehumanitarianappealswasslowanddisappointinginthefirsthalfof2011,hamperingtheabilityofagenciestoscaleupprogrammesthatcouldhavepreventedormitigatedsomeoftheeffectsofthecrisisonpeople’slivesandlivelihoods.Just38%ofrevisedrequirementsfortheappealforkenyaand28%ofrevisedfundingrequirementsforsomaliahadbeenmetbyJune2011,weeksbeforefaminewasofficiallydeclaredinpartsofsomalia.

inJuly2011,fundingrequirementswererevisedupwardsforbothkenyaandsomalia,andweresubsequentlyrevisedupwardsagainforsomaliainaugust.Fundingforbothappealsbegantorapidlyincreaseaftertheofficialdeclarationoffamine.

60

US$ MILLION

Ken

ya

69

78

222

172

192

209

230

256

283

514

675

777

814

848

902

244

256

275

280

385

444

467

483

512

526

51

Som

alia

Dec

201

1N

ov 2

011

Oct

201

1Se

p 20

11A

ug 2

011

Jul 2

011

Jun

2011

May

201

1A

pr 2

011

Mar

201

1Fe

b 20

11Ja

n 20

11D

ec 2

010

feb

Ru

AR

Y 20

11

mA

Rc

H 2

011

mAY

201

1

Jun

e 2

011

JulY

201

1

Au

Gu

st 2

011

sep

tem

beR

201

1

oct

ob

eR 2

011

dec

emb

eR 2

011

the

un

say

sth

atth

ree

area

sof

som

alia

are

no

long

er

cons

ider

edfa

min

ezo

nes.

h

owev

er,i

twar

nsth

atth

esi

tuat

ion

iss

tillf

ragi

lea

nd

appe

als

for

cont

inue

dsu

ppor

t.

the

un

201

2hu

man

itari

an

appe

alfo

rk

enya

is

laun

ched

,see

king

$76

4m

illio

n;u

s$1.

5bi

llion

is

requ

ired

tom

eett

hen

eeds

of

four

mill

ion

som

alis

stil

lin

nee

dof

ass

ista

nce.

Few

sn

etw

arns

that

,w

ithp

oor

wea

ther

fo

reca

sts,

cri

sis

isli

kely

to

wor

sen.

exi

stin

gre

lief

effo

rts

are

note

noug

hto

pre

vent

am

ajor

cri

sis

and

agen

cies

are

urg

ed

tob

egin

pla

nnin

ga

larg

e-sc

ale

hum

anita

rian

re

spon

se.

Few

sn

etw

arns

of

wor

seni

ngc

ondi

tions

in

the

hor

nof

afr

ica,

w

ithp

oor

apri

lrai

ns

brin

ging

maj

orfo

od

secu

rity

con

cern

s.

the

un

say

sth

ats

ix

regi

ons

ofs

omal

ia

are

now

fam

ine

zone

s,a

ddin

gth

eso

uthe

rnb

ayr

egio

nto

the

list.

the

un

dec

lare

sth

atfa

min

eha

sre

ache

dth

ree

new

reg

ions

ofs

omal

ia:

the

afgo

yec

orri

dor

idp

set

tlem

ent,

the

mog

adis

huid

pc

omm

unity

and

th

eb

alaa

dan

dad

ale

dist

rict

sof

m

iddl

esh

abel

le.t

heu

nr

evis

esit

s20

11a

ppea

lreq

uire

men

tsfo

rso

mal

ia

upw

ards

aga

in,t

ou

s$1.

1bi

llion

.

the

un

form

ally

dec

lare

sfa

min

ein

the

sout

hern

bak

ool

and

low

ers

habe

llere

gion

sof

so

uthe

rns

omal

ia.t

hem

id-y

ear

revi

ewo

fun

app

eals

revi

ses

requ

irem

ents

for

som

alia

up

war

dsto

us$

562

mill

ion

and

ken

yato

us$

605

mill

ion.

aid

agen

cies

war

nth

at

the

dad

aab

refu

gee

com

plex

ink

enya

is

full,

aft

erth

ousa

nds

of

new

som

alir

efug

ees

cros

sth

ebo

rder

.

fiG

uR

e 4:

fu

nd

inG

to

un

co

nso

lid

Ated

Ap

peA

ls f

oR

ken

YA A

nd

so

mA

liA

, 201

1

sour

ce:u

no

Ch

aFt

s

the

un

and

aid

ag

enci

esw

arn

that

se

vere

dro

ught

in

som

alia

has

left

nea

rly

one

inth

ree

child

ren

acut

ely

mal

nour

ishe

din

som

ear

eas.

61

evaluatingtheresponsetoglobalhumanitariancrisesisreliantonmeasuringtheextenttowhichhumanitarianneedsexpressedinpublicrequestsorappealsforfundinghavebeenmet.inreality,theseappealsareonlyapartialrepresentationofthetotalglobalneeds.inthecaseoftheunhumanitarianappeal,onlycrisesconsideredhigh-priorityareincluded,andnotallneedswithinacrisisaretargetedwithinanappeal.Forexample,accordingtounoChaFts,therewere35naturaldisastersthatinvolvedinternationalhumanitarianresponsesin2011but,ofthose,only5weresubjecttoanappealortoaspecificfinancialtrackinginitiative.nevertheless,fundingappealsremainthemostcomprehensiveandwidelyreferencedsourceofinformationonhumanitarianfundingrequirements.inordertoconsideramorecomprehensivepictureoffundingrequirements,theunCapappealmaybeconsideredalongsideunappealsoutsideoftheCapandappealsfromothermajorhumanitarianorganisationsnotparticipatingintheunappeals,suchastheinternationalFederationofthe

responsetotheCrisis–FundinGappeals

tHe un consolidAted AppeAls pRocess

Coordinatedbytheunitednations,theconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap)isundertakeninacountryorregiontoraisefundsforhumanitarianactionaswellastoplan,implementandmonitoractivities.twodifferentkindsofappealaregeneratedbytheCap:consolidatedappealsandflashappeals.

Consolidatedappealsincludeprojectedactivitiesforthefollowingyear,ofteninconflictandpost-conflictsituationswhereneedsarerelativelypredictable.thesecountryandregionalconsolidatedappealsareamalgamatedbytheun,withthelaunchofthehumanitarianappealeachnovember.

Flashappealsarearapidstrategicandfundraisingtoolbasedon

immediatelyidentifiedneeds,andmaybeissuedfollowingsudden-onsetdisasterssuchasearthquakesorcyclones.Flashappealsareaddedtotheoverallunhumanitarianappealasnewcrisesoccur.

thefundingrequirementsoftheentireunCapappeal–includingbothconsolidatedandflashappeals–arerevisedandupdatedatthemid-yearpoint.

theunalsocoordinatesappealsoutsideoftheunCapforcountriesandcriseswhosefundraisingneedsareconsideredtobeofalowerpriority,orwherethegovernmentofthecrisis-affectedstateelectsforanappealnottobeincludedintheunCap.

1.1 0.8

1.9

2000

1.4

1.1

2.6

2001

3.0

1.4

4.4

2002

4.0

1.3

5.2

2003

2.2

1.2

3.4

2004

4.0

2.0

6.0

2005

3.5

1.7

5.2

2006

3.7

1.4

5.1

2007

5.1

2.0

7.1

2008

6.9

2.8

9.8

2009

7.3

4.0

11.3

2010

5.5

3.4

8.9

2011

US$

BIL

LIO

N

Unmet needsFundingRequirements

fiGuRe 5: un cAp RequiRements, fundinG And unmet needs, 2000–2011

note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:unoChaFtsdata

62

redCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)andtheinternationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC).

in2011,theinternationalresponsetohumanitariancriseswithintheunhumanitarianappealfellfurthershortofmeetingglobalhumanitarianneedsthanithadformorethanadecade.humanitarianfundingrequirementsexpressedintheunhumanitarianappealfelltous$8.9billionin2011,followinganhistorichighinrequirementsin2010drivenbythehugeflashappealsforhaitiandpakistan(withrequirementsofus$1.5billionandus$1.9billionrespectively–seeChapter1).buttheproportionofhumanitarianfinancingneedswithintheunappealthatremainedunmetin2011wasgreater,at38%,thaninanyyearsince2001,despiteoverallreducedrequirements.

outsidetheunCapprocess,unoChaFtstrackshumanitarianfundingtoaseriesofnon-Capappeals.thesearemainlyjointunandnationalgovernmentappealsforcriseswhichdonotundergo

thesamecoordinationandconsolidationastheCapappeal.theboundariesbetweenwhatmakesaCapandanon-Capappeal,however,arequiteflexible.sometimesnon-CapappealsbecomeCapappeals(forinstance,theinitialpakistanFloodsflashappealandthemongoliadzudappealsin2010),bringingfurtherattentiontobearontheirlevelsoffunding.Fromadonorpointofview,thismeansthataconsiderableproportionofthefinancialeffortofsomedonorsgoeslargelyunnoticed,despitebeingalignedwiththecorehumanitarianprincipleoffundingonthebasisofneedandwheneverandwhereverneedsarise.evenmoreimportantly,suchnomenclatureishardlyrelevantforaffectedpopulations,whohavethesameexpectationsaspeoplelivingincountriesthatareapriorityfortheunCap.

source:unoChaFts

fiGuRe 6: un AppeAls needs met And unmet As A peRcentAGe of ReVised RequiRements, 2000–2011

59.2

%

55.4

% 67

.5%

75.8

%

64.3

%

67.2

%

66.5

%

72.2

%

71.7

%

71.2

%

63.0

%

62.3

%

40.8

%

44.6

%

32.5

%

24.2

% 35

.7%

32.8

%

33.5

%

27.8

%

28.3

%

28.8

%

37.0

%

37.7

%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% needs met% needs unmet

63

non-CapappealstendtobeconsiderablymoremodestinrequirementsthantheCap:between2000and2011theaverageCapappealsoughtus$262million,comparedwithjustus$132milliononaveragerequestedbyanon-Capappeal.however,thereweretwosignificantexceptions:in2006,us$2billion,or94%ofallfundingrequirementsfornon-Capappeals,wassoughtforthetransitionalassistanceprogrammeforafghanistan(afghanistantapa)appeal.similarly,in2010,asingleappeal–thepakistanhumanitarianresponseplan–represented40%oftherequirements,amountingtous$661million.

non-CapappealfundingtrendsalsotendtobemuchmorevolatilethanthoseoftheunCap.non-Capappealsarealsomorepoorlyfunded.onaverage,Capappealshaveseen66%oftheirneedsmetintheperiod2000–2011,comparedwithonly46%inthecaseofnon-Capappeals.non-Capappealsin2011werefundedtojust37%overall,however,wellbelowtheaverage.

2,117

73 14

707

461

929

214

1,645

542

204

2,500

2,000

1,500

1000

500

163

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

Unmet needsFundingRequirements

fiGuRe 7: non-cAp AppeAl RequiRements, fundinG And unmet needs, 2000–2011

source:unoChaFts

64

fiGuRe 8: non-cAp AppeAl needs met And unmet As A peRcentAGe of AppeAl RequiRements, 2000–2011

source:unoChaFts

58.0

%

31.0

%

17.5

%

36.4

%

28.2

%

61.3

%

56.3

%

61.9

% 74

.3%

43.7

%

37.1

%

42.0

%

69.0

% 82

.5%

63.6

%

71.8

%

38.7

%

43.7

%

38.1

%

25.7

%

56.3

%

62.9

%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Needs metNeeds unmet

theiFrCandtheiCrChavetheirownappealsystems,whicharenotalignedwithorintegratedintheunCap.theiCrCmanagesoneofthesinglelargesthumanitarianbudgetsinthesector,regularlyexceedingus$1billioninfunding,thebulkofwhichgoestowards

itsannualemergencyappeal.theiCrC’shumanitarianworkfocusesonconflictandprotractedcrises.appealsin2009and2010hadunmetrequirementsof17%and21%respectively,comparedwithjust11%and10%inthetwoprecedingyears.

630

200

830

2006

709

91

800

2007

891 93

985

2008

858

178

1,036

2009

863

233

1,097

2010

US$

MIL

LIO

N

Unmet requirementsIncome Requirements

fiGuRe 9: fundinG to icRc emeRGencY AppeAls AGAinst RequiRements, 2006–2010

note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:developmentinitiativesbasedoniCrCannualfinancialreports

65

81

32

112

2006

117

59

176

2007

284

129

413

2008

54

39

93

2009

392

73

466

2010

84

83

167

2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

Unmet needsFunding Requirements

fiGuRe 10: fundinG to ifRc emeRGencY AppeAls AGAinst RequiRements, 2006–2011

note:numbersmayvaryduetorounding.source:developmentinitiativesbasedoniFrCfinancialdata

thehumanitarianworkoftheiFrCisfocusedonrespondingtonaturaldisasters;thereforefundingrequirementsaremuchmorevolatileinrelationtothepeaksinhumanitarianneedsassociatedwithnaturaldisasterevents.exceptionallyhighiFrCemergencyappealrequirementsin2008werepromptedbyChina’ssichuanearthquake,myanmar’sCyclonenargisandafoodsecuritycrisisinthehornofafrica.in2010,requirementswerepropelledbythehaitiandChileearthquakesandthepakistanfloods.theaverageleveloffundingrequirementsmetbetween2006throughto2011was67%.theleveloffundingneedsmetin2011,however,wasthelowestinthe2006–2011period,atjust50%.

unmethumanitarianfinancingneedsroseacrosstheboardin2011,forunCapandotherappealsalike.however,therearesomeindicationsthatprivatefundingmayhaveprovedmoreresilientandmoreresponsivetoneeds,withprivatefundingtomédecinssansFrontières(msF),forinstance,stayingcloseto2010levelsin2011(seeboxonpage26inChapter1).donationsfromprivateindividualsactuallyroseby4%andonlyfundingfromprivatecharitiesandcorporationsexperiencedasignificantdecrease(around40%)fromtheheightsofthehaitiresponsein2010.thepredominanceofprivategivingfromindividualsalmostcancelledtheslumpinprivatefinancingfrominstitutions.

66

atthesametimeastheoverallfundinggapwidened,fundingtoindividualcrisisappealswithintheunconsolidatedappealwasdistributeddisproportionately,withanumberofcrisesfaringworsethanothers.moreover,manyofthecountriesinprotractedcrisis,whichareregularparticipantsintheunappealsprocess,haveexperiencedasustaineddownwardtrendinthesharesoftheirappealrequirementsmetoverthepastfiveyears.

everyyearthereiswidevariationbetweenthebest-andworst-fundedappeals.in2011somaliawasthebest-fundedwith89%ofneedsmet,althoughfundswerelatetoarrive(seefigure4onpage62),followedbytheflashappealforlibya,whichwas82%funded.theworst-

fundedappeal,theflashappealforfloodresponseinnicaragua,wasjust30%fundedagainstrequirements.

in2010,consolidatedappeals–whichrepresentchronic,predictablehumanitariancrises–collectivelysawan11%reductionintheshareoftheirappealrequirementsmet.in2011regularconsolidatedappealsfaredslightlybetter,witha1%increaseintheshareofrequirementsmet,butthemajorityofthemwereworsefundedin2011thantheyweretwoorthreeyearspreviously.

source:unoChaFts

fiGuRe 11: sHARes of needs met in tHe best- And WoRst-funded un cAp AppeAls, 2000–2011

proportionalityinFinanCinGresponsestoCrises

82% 89% 95%

121%

96% 89%

123%

100%

100% 91%

74%

89%

59% 55%

67% 76%

64%

67%

67%

72%

72% 71%

63% 62%

17% 22%

18% 22% 14%

30% 36%

12%

35% 32%

19% 30%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Highest level of needs metOverall level of needs met (all appeals)Lowest level of needs met

ZIMBABWE ZAMBIA FLOODS

GREAT LAKES AND CENTRAL AFRICA LEBANON CRISIS

HAITI EARTHQUAKESUDAN

CONGO, REP.

MONGOLIA DZUD

SOMALIA

NICARAGUA FLOODS

BOLIVIA LA NIÑA

HONDURAS FLOODS

CHAD INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

67

fiG

uR

e 12

: sH

AR

es o

f A

pp

eAl

Req

uiR

emen

ts m

et in

ReG

ulA

R c

on

soli

dAt

ed A

pp

eAls

, 200

7–20

11

sour

ce:u

no

Ch

aFt

s

20

07

2

00

8

20

09

2

01

0

20

11

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

cH

An

Ge

2007

-201

1

afgh

anis

tan

76.4

%65

.2%

59.5

%-1

6.9%

Car

74.6

%90

.4%

73.0

%46

.3%

50.1

%-2

4.5%

Cha

d10

0.0%

81.0

%91

.3%

60.0

%56

.5%

-43.

5%

dr

C65

.7%

76.6

%63

.8%

62.2

%63

.2%

-2.6

%

ken

ya66

.0%

84.4

%66

.2%

70.7

%4.

7%

pal

estin

e/o

pt

65.1

%74

.5%

79.1

%54

.9%

56.6

%-8

.5%

som

alia

80.2

%73

.9%

65.6

%68

.9%

89.4

%9.

2%

suda

n81

.4%

70.1

%70

.3%

65.5

%68

.8%

-12.

6%

wes

tafr

ica

56.9

%67

.4%

64.3

%54

.4%

40.2

%-1

6.7%

Zim

babw

e57

.9%

68.6

%63

.2%

47.6

%46

.1%

-11.

8%

68

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaandunoChaFtsdata

fiGuRe 13: fundinG to tHe un AppeAls foR pAkistAn 2010-11 And 2011-12

2010 2011

totalnumberofpeopleaffected 20.6millionaffected 9.2millionaffected

18millioninneed 5.2millioninneed

numberofdeaths 1,985 520

homesdamaged/destroyed 1.7million 0.8million

FundinGaCCordinGtoneedsinpakistan

theinternationalfinancingresponsetohumanitarianneedsassociatedwithmajorfloodinginpakistanacrosstwoconsecutiveyearshasbeeninconsistent,withquitedifferentlevelsofresponsetoneedsin2010,whenthedisasterwashigh-profile,andin2011,whenthecrisisreceivedlittlemediaattention.

pakistanwasstillrecoveringfromtheeffectsofthe2010floodswhennewfloodsbeganinmid-august2011.inthefollowingmonthsoverfivemillionpeoplewereaffected,mostlyintheprovincesofsindhandbalochistan,bothofwhichwerealsoseverelyaffectedthepreviousyear.

anestimated35%ofthecommunitiesaffectedin2011werealsoaffectedthepreviousyear,meaningthatmorethanamillionpeoplehadbarelyrecoveredorwerestilltryingtorecoverfromtheimpactofthepreviousyear’sfloodingwhenthemostrecentfloodshit.

the2011unconsolidatedappealwasrelativelymodestcomparedwiththatof2010,seekingjustus$66perpersoncomparedwiththeus$97perpersonrequestedthepreviousyear.however,afarlowerproportionofthosereducedfundingneedsweremetin2011.

Pakistan Floods Relief and Early Recovery ResponsePlan (August 2010 - July 2011)

Pakistan Rapid Response Plan Floods 2011(September - March 2012)

US$

MIL

LIO

N Revised requirements

Funding within the appealFunding outside of the appeal

1,380 1,282

357 170 105

1,963

PER PERSON

2010

PER PERSONUS$53US$148

2011

PER PERSON

2010

PER PERSONUS$53US$148

2011

total funding to the crisis

69

70

millionsofpeopleliveinsituationsofextremevulnerabilityyetinvestmentstobuildresilienceremainsmallinscaleanddisconnected.spendingondisasterpreventionandpreparednesswasjust4%oftotalofficialhumanitarianaidbetween2006and2010.humanitarianaidalonecannotaddressthesesituationsoffragility.

thesetreesinsindh,pakistan,becamecocoonedinthewebsofspidersclimbingtoescapetherisingwaterfollowingthefloodsin2010.

thestoryCredit

©russellwatkins/departmentforinternationaldevelopment

71

inVestments to tAckle VulneRAbilitY

yearafteryear,alargeshareofinternationalhumanitarianaidisspentinplacesthatarenotnecessarilythemostexposedtoseverehazards,butwhicharehometothepeoplewhoaremostvulnerabletohazardsingeneral.theseareoftenplaceswherelargeproportionsofthepopulationliveinabsolutepoverty,whereviolentconflictiscommonandwherestatesarefragile.buildingresiliencetocrisesintheseplacesisthemostefficientandcost-effectivewayofpreventingsufferingandprotectinglivelihoods,yetrelativelysmallsharesofinternationalresourcesareinvestedspecificallyinbuildingresilience:just4%ofofficialhumanitarianaid(us$1.5billion)and0.7%(us$4.4billion)ofnon-humanitarianofficialdevelopmentassistance(oda)wasinvestedindisasterriskreductionbetween2006and2010.

humanitariancrisesnotonlyoccurinpartsoftheworldwheremanypeoplearealreadypoor,theydeepenpovertyandpreventpeoplefromescapingfromit.thefoodpricespikeof2010–2011,forexample,isestimatedtohavepushed49millionpeopleinlow-andmiddle-incomecountriesintopovertyintheshortterm.droughtandconflictinthehornofafricain2011reducedmorethan600,000peopletolivinginrefugeecampsinkenyaandleftmorethanfourmillionpeopleinsomaliaunabletosustainthemselveswithouthumanitarianaidin2012.buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskthereforeisnotonlytheconcernofaffectedcommunitiesandhumanitarians;itisoffundamentalimportanceinachievingthemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs)andintheeliminationofabsolutepoverty.

inthischapterweconsiderwhetherthecurrentemphasisandscaleofinvestmentsarebothadequateandeffectivelytargetedtoimprovetheresilienceofcommunitiesatriskofcrisis.wealsolookatodainvestments,includinghumanitarianaid,incontextwithotherinternationalanddomesticresources.

RESOURCE FLOWS TO CRISIS-AFFECTED STATES IN 2010

GOVERNMENTREVENUES

DO

MES

TIC

FLO

WS

SUDAN PAKISTAN

FOREIGN DIRECTINVESTMENT

REMITTANCES

INTERNATIONALHUMANITARIANASSISTANCE

NON-HUMANITARIANODA

OTHER OFFICIALFLOWS

MULTILATERALPEACEKEEPING

Humanitarian aid is just one of several types of resource that might flow into a crisis-affected state. Each type of resource has a particular role to play in creating broad-based growth and reducing poverty and vulnerability.

Sources: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS, World Bank, IMF, SIPRI and UNCTAD data

Notes: Government revenues are expressed net of ODA grants

US$12.4bn US$35.8bn

US$1.6bn US$2.0bn

US$3.2bn US$9.4bn

US$909m US$2.1bn

US$1.1bn US$1.5bn

US$86m US$732m

US$2.7bn

HAITI

US$1.8bn

US$150m

US$1.5bn

US$3.1bn

US$1.3bn

US$612m

PR

IVAT

E FL

OW

SO

FFIC

IAL

INTE

RN

ATIO

NAL

FLO

WS

72

poverty,vulnerabilityandCrisis

thereisastrongcorrelationbetweencountriesthataremajorrecipientsofhumanitarianaidoverextendedperiodsoftimeandconflict,statefragilityandalackofprogressinpovertyreduction.thenumbersofpeoplelivinginabsolutepovertyhavedecreaseddramaticallyinthepast20years,andtheworldisontracktomeetmdGtarget1(a)tohalve

thenumberofpeoplewhoseincomeislessthanus$1.25adaybetween1990and2015.yetprogressinpovertyreductionhasbeenuneven,withmanyofthemostvulnerablecountries,particularlythoseinsub-saharanafrica,stilllaggingfarbehind.

fiGuRe 1: pRopoRtion of tHe totAl populAtion liVinG on less tHAn us$1.25 A dAY

note:levelsofcolourindicatelevelsofpoverty.source:worldbankstaffcalculationsfrompovcalnetdatabase

East Asia and Pacific

of which China

Europe and Central Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Middle East and North Africa

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Total

Total excl. China

2005 2008

No data

No data

20151990

73

whilethetop20recipientsofodaaccountfor13%oftheworld’spopulation,theyarehometo21%oftheworld’spopulationlivingonlessthanus$1.25aday.thetoprecipientsalsoincludesomeofthecountriesthataremakingtheleastprogressagainstthemdGs(includingthedemocraticrepublicofCongo(drC),somalia,iraqandafghanistan).

theoverwhelmingmajorityofthoseaffectedbynaturaldisasterseachyearliveinmiddle-incomecountries.intheten-yearperiodfrom2002to2011,81%ofpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisasterslivedinChina,indiaandbangladesh.yetbecausemiddle-incomecountriestypicallyhavegreatercapacitytoprepareforandrespondtodisasters,theyseldomreceivelargesharesofinternationalhumanitarianaid.manyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianassistanceareaffectedbynaturaldisasters–ofthetoptenrecipients,sevenhavehadmorethanthreemillionpeopleaffectedbynaturaldisastersbetween2001and2010,butthesearecharacterisedascomplexcrises,withcountriesoftensufferingfromconflictandwithverylimitedcapacitytodealwithdisasters.allbutoneofthetoptenrecipientsbetween2001and2010areconsideredfragilestates,andallhavebeenaffectedbyconflictfor5–10years.Conflict-affectedstatesreceivethe

overwhelmingmajorityofinternationalassistance:onaverage,between64%and83%ofinternationalhumanitarianassistancewaschannelledtocountriesinconflictorinpost-conflicttransitionbetween2001and2010(seefigure3).

humanitarianassistanceisalsohabituallyspentinthesamecountriesoverextendedperiodsoftime.in2009,68%oftotalofficialhumanitarianassistancewasreceivedbycountriesconsideredlong-termrecipients,i.e.countriesreceivinganaboveaverageshareoftheirtotalodaintheformofhumanitarianaidforaperiodof8ormoreyearsduringthepreceding15years.ofthe26countriesthatfitthecriteriaaslong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistance,19wereaffectedbyconflictduringtheperiod2001–2010;ofthose,16experiencedviolenceand/orhostedamultilateralpeacekeepingmissionfor7ormoreofthose11years(seefigure4).

aspovertyreductionproceedselsewheretowardsachievingthemdGtargets,thesesituationswheremosthumanitarianaidisspentyearafteryearwillbeleftfurtherbehindunlesstherootcausesofandvulnerabilitytothesecomplexcrisesaretackled.

fiGuRe 2: VulneRAbilitY indicAtoRs in tHe top 10 Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid

sources:developmentinitiativesbasedonworldbank,CenterforGlobaldevelopmentmdGprogressindex2011,oeCdinternationalnetworkonConflictandFragility(inCaF)listoffragilestates2011,oeCddaCdataanddevelopmentinitiativesresearch

% of populAtion liVinG beloW us$1.25 A dAY

pRoGRess AGAinst mdGs, 2011 (RAnk out of 133)

fRAGile stAte conflict-Affected (numbeR of YeARs 2001 And 2010)

lonG-teRm HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce Recipient

sudan 19.8% 90 yes 10 long-term

palestine/opt 0.04% 100 yes 10 long-term

afghanistan nodata 126 yes 10 long-term

ethiopia 39.0% 29 yes 10 long-term

iraq 2.8% 130 yes 9 long-term

pakistan 21.0% 49 yes 7 medium-term

haiti 61.7% 115 yes 7 medium-term

drC 87.7% 133 yes 10 long-term

somalia nodata 133 yes 10 long-term

indonesia 18.1% 29 no 6 medium-term

74

fiGuRe 3: inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid ReceiVed bY conflict-Affected stAtes, 2001–2010

notes:seedata&Guidessectionforourdefinitionofconflict-affectedstates.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,unoChaFts,stockholminternationalpeaceresearchinstitute(sipri)anduppsalaConflictdataprogram

% of humanitarian aid to top 3conflict-affected recipients% of humanitarian aid to all otherconflict-affected recipients% of humanitarian aid to non- conflict-affected recipients

29.2%

28.7%

36.1%

36.8%

32.2%

30.1%

30.7%

30.1%

31.0%

48.5%

35.2%

35.6%

41.1%

38.6%

51.5%

55.9%

47.7%

49.8%

51.8%

33.7%

35.6%

35.7%

22.8%

24.5%

16.3%

14.0%

21.6%

20.1%

17.2%

17.8%

0% 100%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

fiGuRe 4: lonG-, medium- And sHoRt-teRm Recipients of HumAnitARiAn Aid, 2001–2010

note:Countriesclassifiedaslong-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearethosereceivinganaboveaverage(10.4%)shareoftheirodaashumanitarianassistanceforeightormoreyearsbetween1996and2010.medium-termrecipientsofhumanitarianassistancearethosethathavereceivedmorethan10.4%oftheirodaashumanitarianassistanceforbetweenfourandeightyearsoverthisperiod.thesuddenincreaseinthevolumeoffundsreceivedbymedium-termrecipientsreflectsthehugeincreaseinfundsreceivedbyhaitiandpakistanin2010.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

) Short-term (under 3 years)Mid-term (3-7 years inclusive)Long-term (8 years or more)

75

socialsafety-netsprovideopportunitiestorespondtohumanitarianneedsinatimelyandcost-effectivefashion,tobuildresilienceor,attheveryleast,tohelppreventdeteriorationoflivelihoodsintimesofcrisis.

thehumanitariancommunityhasincreasinglyincorporatedelementsofsocialprotectionprogrammingintoitscrisisresponseasanalternativetocommoditydistributions,witharangeofmodalitiesincludingprovisionofcash,vouchersandcash-for-work.

thenumberofdonorsfundingcashtransferprogrammesinhumanitarianemergenciesincreasedfrom6in2006to21in2011,peakingat41donorsin2010inresponsetotheemergenciesinhaitiandpakistan.

palestine/optreceivedatotalofus$334.7millioninhumanitariancashtransferfinancingbetween2006and2011,makingitthelargestrecipientoverthefive-yearperiod.pakistanwasthesecondlargest,receivingus$66.7million,themajorityofwhich(us$60.3million)wasreceivedin2010(seefigure7).

Cash-basedhumanitarianprogramminghasanumberofmajorbenefits,includingstimulatinglocalmarketsandprovidingrecipientswithgreaterchoice.insomecasesitmightalsohelppeopletobuildproductiveassetsandprovidethemwithresourcestoprotectandrebuildtheirlivelihoods.

inordertofunctioneffectivelyatscale,however,socialprotectionrequiresthecollectiveexpertiseandeffortsofgovernments,developmentactorsandhumanitarianactors.

soCialproteCtionandCashtransFers

fiGuRe 5: HumAnitARiAn eXpendituRe on cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmminG

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

fiGuRe 6: top 10 donoRs to HumAnitARiAn cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmmes (us$ million)

note:*opeCFundforinternationaldevelopment.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

75

6

45

151

188

90

2006

20

0

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US$

MIL

LIO

N

VoucherCash transferCash-for-workTotal

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1 unrwa 52.9 eCho 4.6 us 30.0 euinstitutions 41.8 us 97.7 us 31.4

2 eCho 7.4 us 0.5 eCho 8.7 us 39.6 eCho 16.8 eCho 21.4

3 Japan 6.8 norway 0.5 austria 1.6 uk 10.6 unrwa 8.7 Canada 11.3

4 spain 2.1 France 1.5 QatarCharity 10.0 erF 8.2 netherlands 4.8

5 belgium 1.3 norway 1.2 kuwait 6.5 Canada 7.0 ChF 4.7

6 norway 0.5 CerF 1.0 France 5.2 australia 5.6 sweden 4.0

7 italy 0.5 Canada 4.8 sweden 4.8 belgium 3.9

8 spain 0.4 netherlands 4.5 FondationdeFrance

3.3 opeC* 2.0

9 luxembourg 0.1 belgium 4.2 belgium 3.1 erF 1.8

10 switzerland 3.9 brazil 3.0 ireland 1.6

76

fiGuRe 7: leAdinG Recipients of HumAnitARiAn cAsH-bAsed pRoGRAmmes (us$ million)

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunoChaFtsdata

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1 palestine/opt 70.2 burundi 4.2 afghanistan 49.7 palestine/opt 139.8 palestine/opt 60.5 palestine/opt 55.6

2 afghanistan 4.0 uganda 1.0 palestine/opt 8.6 afghanistan 3.1 pakistan 60.3 somalia 12.7

3 burundi 0.7 pakistan 0.5 burundi 3.1 kenya 2.3 haiti 52.8 pakistan 5.4

4 somalia 2.3 Zimbabwe 1.3 sudan 2.5 kenya 4.2

5 haiti 0.1 sudan 1.3 srilanka 2.5 afghanistan 3.0

6 honduras 0.1 pakistan 1.1 niger 1.8 Côted’ivoire 2.9

7 srilanka 0.02 somalia 0.7 Zimbabwe 1.4 yemen 1.6

8 indonesia 0.6 somalia 0.8 srilanka 1.5

9 burundi 0.4 burundi 0.7 Chad 1.0

10 egypt 0.2 ethiopia 0.1 philippines 1.0

etHiopiA’s pRoductiVe sAfetY nets pRoGRAmme (psnp)

thelargestsocialsafetynetsprogrammeinafrica,theethiopiapsnp,demonstratedavarietyofcomparativeadvantagesovertraditionalhumanitarianresponsestofoodinsecurityduringthe2011hornofafricafoodcrisis.

theethiopiapsnpwascreatedin2005outofadesiretofindsustainablealternativestotheannualprovisionoflargeamountsofhumanitarianfoodaid,andregularlyprovidespredictablecashand/orfoodtransfersto7–8millionruralandfood-insecurehouseholdsforsixmonthsofeveryyeartobridgeaperiodofpredictablefoodneeds.thepsnp,togetherwithothercomponentsofthegovernment’sfoodsecurityprogramme,aimstoenablehouseholdstobuildtheirassetsandtoincreaseincomeoverafive-yearperiodsothattheycanultimately‘graduate’outofchronicfoodinsecurity.thepsnpalsoaimstobuildcommunityassets,includingarestorednaturalresourcebase,inordertoaddresstheunderlyingcausesoffoodinsecurity,ratherthansimplyaddressingthesymptoms.

thepsnphasinbuiltmechanismstoscaleupandrespondtoincreasedacutefoodneedsthroughacontingencybudgetandriskfinancingmechanism

(rFm).inaugust2011,astheextentofthegrowingfoodcrisisbecameapparent,theethiopiangovernmenttriggeredtherFmforthefirsttime.thisallowedthepsnptoextendthedurationofsupportto6.5millionregularrecipientsandtooffersupportforthreemonthstoanadditional3.1millionpeopleinpsnpareas,bridgingthefoodgapuntilthenovember2011harvest.

incontrast,innon-psnpareas,wheretraditionalhumanitarianactorsincludingunagenciesandnGoswereresponsibleformeetingemergencyfoodneeds,thelagsbetweenidentifyingandassessingthecrisis,mobilisingfundingandrespondingtohumanitarianneedsweremuchlonger.thetypicallead-timebetweenidentifyingandrespondingtofoodsecuritycrisesinethiopiacanbeuptoeightmonths,whereaswhenthepsnprFmisactivated,theresponsetimecanbereducedtotwomonths.moreover,notallthefundingrequiredforthehumanitarianfoodaidresponsewasforthcoming,andagencieshadtodistributehalf-rationsinsomedistributionrounds.

asanestablishedprogrammewithpredictablerequirements,thepsnpcanbenefitfromthebestdealswhen

procuringcommodities;italsousesestablisheddistributionnetworks,andisthereforemorecost-effective.thepsnpresponsetothecrisiscostanestimatedus$53perbeneficiarycomparedwithus$169perbeneficiarytargetedthroughtheun-andnGo-managedpipeline(basedonourowncalculations).moreimportantly,inadditiontocostsavings,becausethereisasystemalreadyinplacewhichmonitorsthesituationandhasinvestedinstructurestoassistwithafastandsmoothdeliveryofassistance,thepsnpismoreresponsivetoearlyindicationsofcrisis.itisthereforemoreefficientinamelioratinghumanitariancrisisandistransformativeinthemediumterm,liftinghouseholdsoutofchronicfoodinsecurity.

PER PERSON

PSNP

PER PERSONUS$169US$53

Humanitarian

PER PERSON

PSNP

PER PERSONUS$169US$53

Humanitarian

77

disasterriskreduction(drr)involvesmakinginvestmentstobuildresilience,inordertomakethepoorestpeoplelessvulnerabletoshocks.inadditiontosavinglivesandlivelihoods,thereisgrowingevidencethatsuchinvestmentsarecost-effectiveinavoidingorreducingthecostsofrespondingtocrises.

volumesofodafundsinvestedindrrareverydifficulttotrackandassess,butneverthelessarewellbelowthetargetsrecommendedatthethirdsessionoftheunitednationsinternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction(unisdr)Globalplatformfordisasterriskreductionin2009,whereparticipantsrecommendedthattheequivalentof10%ofhumanitarianfundingand10%ofpost-disasterreconstructionfundingshouldbeallocatedtowardsdrrwork,aswellasatleast1%ofalldevelopmentfunding.

theamountofhumanitarianfundingspentexplicitlyondisasterpreventionandpreparedness(dpp)increasedfromus$56millionin2006toahighofus$501millionin2009–fallingslightlytous$492millionin2010.buttheoverallshareofhumanitarianaidspentondppbyalldonorsreportingtotheoeCddaC–includingourassessmentofspendingonpartialdppactivities–iswellbelowthe10%target,atjust4%between2006and2010.

individualdonorsvarywidelyintheircommitmentstoinvestingtheirhumanitarianexpenditureindpp.overthe2006–2010periodoverall,Japanandkoreaspentmorethan10%oftheirtotalofficialhumanitarianaidondppactivities,whiletheunitedstatesandthenetherlandsspentlessthan2%.

itisnotcurrentlypossibletoseparatefundingforpost-disasterreconstruction,butoverallodainvestmentsindrrwere0.7%oftotaldevelopmentspendingfortheperiod2006–2010,againstanalreadyverymodesttargetof1%.

Giventhathumanitarianaidispredominatelystillcharacterisedbyshort-termfundinghorizonsandprogrammingcycles,andisoftenbymandateandhabitlessdirectlyengagedwithnationalgovernments(whobeartheprimaryresponsibilityforprotectingandassistingvulnerablecitizens),thetargetsrecommendedattheGlobalplatformfordisasterriskreductionplaceaperplexingemphasisonthehumanitariancommunity.theresponsibilityforaddressingvulnerabilitycannotrestprimarilyontheshouldersofhumanitarianactorsalone.rather,itisasharedresponsibilitybetweenthegovernmentswhosecitizensarevulnerabletocrisisandinternationalactorsworkingtoreducevulnerability

investmentsindisasterriskreduCtion

fiGuRe 8: HumAnitARiAn disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness spendinG bY All donoRs, 2006–2010

note:seedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourassessmentofdrrexpenditure.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

4.6%

2.7%

3.9%

5.5% 4.7%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

MIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

) Other or partial humanitarian DPP Humanitarian DPPDPP/DRR as a share of humanitarian aid

commitments At tHe second session of tHe GlobAl plAtfoRm foR disAsteR Risk Reduction, 2009

•theunsecretary-Generalcalledforatargettohalvethelossesoflivesfromdisastersby2015,whenthetermofthehyogoFrameworkforactionends.

•10%ofhumanitarianrelieffundstogotodrrwork.

•10%asatargetshareofpost-disasterreconstructionandrecoveryprojectsandnationalpreparednessandresponseplans.

•atleast1%ofallnationaldevelopmentfundingandalldevelopmentassistancefundingtobeallocatedtoriskreductionmeasures,withdueregardforqualityofimpact.

78

fiGuRe 9: GoVeRnment donoR HumAnitARiAn eXpendituRe on disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness, 2006–2010 (us$ million)

bilAteRAl spendinG on dpp/dRR imputed contRibutions to dpp/dRR spendinG ViA multilAteRAl oRGAnisAtions

disAsteR pReVention And pRepARedness

pARtiAl dpp/dRR HumAnitARiAn spendinG

dpp/dRR spendinG ViA tHe eu

dpp/dRR spendinG ViA WoRld bAnk

dpp/dRR spendinG ViA Wfp

totAl HumAnitARiAn dpp/dRR spendinG

totAl HumAnitARiAn dpp/dRR spendinG As % of totAl officiAl HumAnitARiAn Aid

australia 85.0 20.9 14.8 0.9 121.6 7.5%

austria 2.2 0.6 8.8 10.6 0.2 22.3 6.5%

belgium 24.7 15.4 13.0 0.1 53.1 5.6%

Canada 39.7 88.3 0.0 31.1 2.2 161.2 7.4%

denmark 15.1 0.5 7.8 8.1 3.7 35.0 2.6%

Finland 5.7 2.8 5.8 4.4 0.7 19.4 2.7%

France 0.8 73.6 45.6 0.3 120.3 6.0%

Germany 53.9 26.4 79.6 75.1 0.6 235.6 6.7%

Greece 0.4 7.3 2.3 10.0 4.2%

ireland 23.4 11.4 4.2 4.0 1.1 44.0 5.6%

italy 9.7 0.5 48.3 19.5 1.6 79.6 4.7%

Japan 187.3 117.2 1.0 305.5 18.3%

korea 10.2 0.7 5.0 0.01 16.0 14.0%

luxembourg 4.4 1.1 1.1 0.2 6.8 2.6%

netherlands 4.3 0.02 17.0 10.0 4.7 36.0 1.4%

newZealand 7.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 8.7 5.1%

norway 52.3 14.6 11.9 2.9 81.7 3.7%

portugal 0.01 0.4 4.8 1.5 0.01 6.8 5.5%

spain 68.7 1.1 30.5 22.3 1.6 124.2 5.2%

sweden 53.8 0.1 10.1 22.4 6.4 92.7 3.2%

switzerland 2.4 9.3 18.8 0.2 30.7 2.8%

unitedkingdom 93.5 64.3 54.5 80.0 0.4 292.7 6.2%

unitedstates 212.8 15.9 89.0 317.7 1.6%

andrespondtocrisesonbothsidesofthehumanitariananddevelopmentdivide.

thewaysinwhichgovernments,developmentactorsandhumanitarianactorswork–andthewaystheyworktogether–needtochangeinordertobetteranticipate,respondtoandrecover

fromshocks.responseswillrequiregreaterflexibilityinfinancingandprogrammingapproaches,ensuringthatdevelopmentinvestmentsinsituationsofpersistentvulnerabilityincludethebuildingofcapacityandresiliencetoriskasafundamentalobjective.

note:seedata&Guidessectionforadetailedexplanationofourmethodologyforimputingsharesofdrrexpenditureviamultilateralorganisations.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaCdata

79

Conflictandstatefragilityarecommontomanyoftheleadingrecipientsofhumanitarianaid.donorgovernmentshavegivenincreasedprioritytoactivitiesaimedatbuildingthecapacityofstatestogovernandsupportingpeaceandsecuritywithintheirodaspending.investmentsinpeaceandsecuritysectorsgrewby140%overallbetween2002and2010–andby249%withinthetop20recipients.thetop20recipientsofhumanitarianaidoverthetenyearsreceivedonaveragejustoverathirdofalldonorodaexpenditureonthegovernance,peaceandsecuritysectorsbetween2006and2010.

investmentsinGovernanCeandseCurity

fiGuRe 10: GRoWtH in spendinG on GoVeRnment And ciVil societY, peAce-buildinG And conflict Resolution, 2002–2010

source:oeCddaCdata

0

5

10

15

20

25

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N (C

ON

STA

NT

2010

PR

ICES

)

All other recipientsOther top 20 humanitarian aid recipientsPakistanIraq Afghanistan

80

note:economicCommunityofwestafricanstates(eCowas);organizationforsecurityandCo-operationineurope(osCe).source:developmentinitiativesbasedonsipridata

fiGuRe 11: eXpendituRe on multilAteRAl peAcekeepinG opeRAtions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

US$

BIL

LIO

N

OSCENATOEUECOWASAU UN

inadditiontoaidspendingtowardspeaceandsecurity,governmentsinvestpublicfundsinmultilateralpeacekeepingoperations.expenditureonunpeacekeepingoperationsmorethandoubledfromus$2.6billionin2000tous$6billioninthepeakyear2009,beforefallingbacktous$5.6billionin2010.expenditureonnon-un-convenedpeacekeepingmissionshasexperienceddramaticgrowth,withexpenditureonafricanunion(au)missionsincreasing25-foldbetween2003(us$78million)and2010(us$2billion)andspending

oneuropeanunion(eu)missionsincreasing36-fold,between2001(us$52million)and2010(us$1.9billion).iffulldetailsofthecostofnorthatlantictreatyorganisation(nato)operationswerepubliclyavailable,itislikelythattheywouldeclipsethecostofunpeacekeepingmissions.

81

aidisakeyresourcetomeettheneedsofpeoplevulnerabletoandaffectedbycrises.butmanyotherofficialandprivateresourceflowshavearoletoplayincreatingbroad-basedgrowth–growththathasthepotentialtoreducepovertyandvulnerabilityprovideditisequitableandbuiltoninvestmentsthatengagewithandsupportthepoor.

remittances,forexample,areavitalresource,connectinghouseholdsdirectlywiththeglobaleconomyandpotentiallychannellingmoneydirectlyintothehandsofpoorpeople.remittanceflowsmaybecounter-cyclicalagainsteconomicshocks,withmigrantsincreasingremittancesintimesofcrisis,andthereforemaybeparticularly

importantasahouseholdstrategytoensuresocialprotectionincountriesaffectedbyregularcrisesandwithpoorlyfunctioningpublicserviceinfrastructure,suchassomalia.

privatesectorinvestmenthasafundamentalroletoplayinlong-termsustainableeconomicdevelopment.Foreigndirectinvestment(Fdi)isakeyelementininternationaleconomicintegration,growthanddevelopment,withthepotentialtodirectlycontributetothereductionofpovertyandvulnerabilitythroughjobcreationandthegenerationofdomestictaxrevenues.

usinGaidtoaddvalueintheContextoFotherresourCes

note:thereiscurrentlynoremittancedataavailableforafghanistan,Chad,drCandsomaliaandnodataongovernmentrevenuesforpalestine/optandsomalia.Governmentrevenuesareexpressednetofodagrants.source:developmentinitiativesbasedonoeCddaC,unoChaFts,unCtad,sipri,imFandworldbankdata

fiGuRe 12: pRiVAte And officiAl ResouRce floWs in tHe top 10 Recipients of inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid in 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Hai

ti

Pak

ista

n

Suda

n

Ethi

opia

Pal

esti

ne/O

PT

Afg

hani

stan

DR

C

Ken

ya

Cha

d

Som

alia

US$

BIL

LIO

N

FDIRemittancesMultilateral peacekeepingGovernment revenues Other official flowsNon-humanitarian ODAInternational humanitarian aid

82

privatesectorinvestmentcanalsohavenegativeimpacts,andtheeffectsofFdiflowsdependonthecharacteristicsoftheinvestmentsbeingmade,aswellasconditionswithintherecipientcountry.privatesectorinvestmentinsub-saharanafricacurrentlyexhibitssometroublingcharacteristics.

profitremittancesfromsub-saharanafricatotalledus$32.1billionin2010,equivalentto80%ofFdiinflowsor9%ofFdistocks.theregionsawadisproportionatelyhighincreaseinprofitremittanceoutflowsduringtheglobaleconomiccrisis,withprofitremittancesalmostdoublingbetween2006and2008,fromus$23.9billiontous$47.1billion.profitremittanceshavefallenbelowtheirpeak2008values,butremainsignificantlyhigherthaninotherregions.

in2009and2010,Fdiinflowstosub-saharanafricacreatedonaveragejust119jobsperonemillionpeople,comparedwith315directjobsperonemillionpeopleworldwide.themajorityofFdiflowstotheregiongotowardsinvestmentsintwosectors:coal,oilandnaturalgas;andmetals.extractiveindustriesinsub-saharanafricacreaterelativelyfewjobs,however.despiteaccountingfor47%oftotalFditotheregionover2006–2011,thecoal,oilandnaturalgassectoraccountedfor

only7%oftotaljobscreatedbyFdi(developmentinitiativesbasedonplannedinvestmentdatafromFinancialtimesfdiintelligence).

investmentsarealsohighlyconcentratedinafewcountries,aswellasafewsectors:threecountries(southafrica,angolaandnigeria)accountedfor55%ofinflowstosub-saharanafricaover2010.

illicitfinancialoutflowsfromsub-saharanafricawereestimatedatus$33.3billionin2008(GlobalFinancialintegrityestimates),which,whencombinedwiththe(legal)outflowofprofitremittancesonFdi,meansthatoutflowsrelatedtoFdifromtheregionprobablyexceedinflows.theprimarymotivationforillicitoutflowsistoavoidpayingtax,andthereisthereforeasignificantlossoftaxrevenueforthegovernmentsofcountriesfromwhichtheillicitflowsleave.

inthepursuitofeconomicgrowthandprofits,governmentsandtheprivatesectorinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountrieswillneedtoensurecoherentpolicies,includingtransparency,ethicalinvestmentstandardsandeffectivelegislativeandrevenuecollectioncapabilities,iftheyaretoharnessthepotentialoftheprivatesectortoincreaseresilienceandreducevulnerability.

risksoFprivateseCtorinvestment

source:developmentinitiativesbasedonunCtadandGlobaldevelopmentFinancedata

fiGuRe 13: pRofit RemittAnces As A pRopoRtion of foReiGn diRect inVestment floWs bY ReGion

2001–2005 AVeRAGe 2006–2010 AVeRAGe

southasia 59.3% 45.1%

sub-saharanafrica 59.9% 83.5%

europeandCentralasia 4.3% 12.9%

latinamericaandCaribbean 41.4% 67.8%

eastasiaandpacific 32.3% 38.6%

middleeastandnorthafrica 9.5% 9.9%

83

84

Credit

84

thestorythesechildrenareplayingwiththeleftoverpiecesofabombinalashu,avillagelocatedsome15kilometresnorthofshangiltobaya,northdarfur.roughlyhalfthevillage’spopulationhasfledtocampsfordisplacedpeopleastheareahasbecomethesceneofheavyfightingbetweengovernmentandrebelforces.

sudanhasreceivedus$9.7billionininternationalhumanitarianaidoverthepastdecade.in2010,forthefirsttimeinfiveyears,itwasovertakenasthelargestrecipientbyhaiti.2011sawthecreationofanewlyindependentrepublicofsouthsudan,and2009and2010markedthestartofagradualshifttowardsreconstructionanddevelopmentfundinginsudan.butthecountry'scomplexprotractedhumanitariancrisesremainlargelyunchanged.

©albertGonzalezFarran/Foodandagricultureorganizationoftheunitednations

85

dAtA & Guides

Sour

ce: O

ECD

D

AC s

tats

Dia

spor

a

Com

mun

ities

Gen

eral

pub

lic

Affe

cted

co

mm

uniti

es

Qua

ntita

tive

data

ve

ry d

iffic

ult t

o ca

ptur

e

Sour

ce: R

emitt

ance

dat

a fr

om th

e W

orld

Ban

k

Nat

iona

l and

loca

l N

GO

s

Red

Cro

ss a

nd

Red

Cre

scen

tna

tiona

l soc

ietie

s

Com

mun

ity-b

ased

or

gani

satio

ns

Faith

-bas

ed

orga

nisa

tions

Pri

vate

sec

tor

Sour

ces:

Dir

ect f

rom

orga

nisa

tions

and

annu

al r

epor

ts

Min

istr

ies

Dis

aste

r fu

nds

Loca

l gov

ernm

ent

Dom

estic

mili

tary

Sour

ces:

Ann

ual r

epor

ts

and

UN

OC

HA

FTS

Non

-OEC

D D

AC

mem

bers

Volu

ntar

y re

port

ing

FTS

capt

ures

wha

t do

nors

rep

ort a

s hu

man

itari

an a

id

Not

com

para

ble

betw

een

dono

rs

or y

ears

Sour

ces:

UN

OC

HA

FTS

and

OEC

D D

AC s

tats

23 O

ECD

DAC

go

vern

men

ts a

nd

EU in

stitu

tions

Obl

igat

ory

annu

al

repo

rtin

g to

pub

lic

data

base

Sour

ce:

OEC

D D

AC s

tats

Mili

tary

hu

man

itari

an a

id

INTE

RN

ATIO

NA

L H

UM

AN

ITA

RIA

NR

ESP

ON

SEO

THER

INTE

RN

ATIO

NA

LR

ESO

UR

CES

DO

MES

TIC

RES

PO

NSE

NO

N-O

DA

ELIG

IBLE

OTH

ER O

DA

PEO

PLE

NAT

ION

AL

INST

ITU

TIO

NS

NAT

ION

AL

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

PR

IVAT

EC

ON

TRIB

UTI

ON

S

OTH

ERS

OEC

D D

AC

MEM

BER

SGO

VER

NM

ENTS

GLO

BA

L H

UM

AN

ITA

RIA

N A

SSIS

TAN

CE

KEY

: HO

W R

OB

UST

IS T

HE

SOU

RC

E?

Very

rob

ust

Mod

erat

ely

Not

ver

yN

ot a

t all

Incl

udes

bila

tera

l flo

ws

and

unea

rmar

ked

cont

ribu

tions

to

mul

tilat

eral

or

gani

satio

ns

Com

preh

ensi

ve

and

com

para

ble

over

tim

e

Vari

able

num

ber

of d

onor

s re

port

ea

ch y

ear

Pri

vate

co

ntri

butio

ns

repo

rted

to a

nnua

l re

port

s an

d di

rect

ly

repo

rted

to G

HA

fr

om N

GO

s, U

N

and

Red

Cro

ss

Pri

vate

co

ntri

butio

ns

repo

rted

to th

e FT

S

Rep

ortin

g is

on

a vo

lunt

ary

basi

s an

d th

eref

ore

is n

ot

com

preh

ensi

ve

Sour

ces:

Gov

ernm

ent

stat

istic

s an

d U

N

OC

HA

FTS

Sect

or-a

lloca

ble

OD

A, s

uch

as

gove

rnan

ce a

nd

secu

rity

and

pub

lic

serv

ice

prov

isio

nM

ultil

ater

alpe

acek

eepi

ng

Oth

er O

DA

-lik

eco

nces

sion

al fl

ows

Sour

ces:

UN

OC

HA

FT

S, S

IPR

I, O

ECD

D

AC

and

var

ious

se

cond

ary

sour

ces

86

HumAnitARiAn Aid‘humanitarianaid’istheaidandactiondesignedtosavelives,alleviatesufferingandmaintainandprotecthumandignityduringandintheaftermathofemergencies.thecharacteristicsthatmarkitoutfromotherformsofforeignassistanceanddevelopmentaidare:

•itisintendedtobegovernedbytheprinciplesofhumanity,neutrality,impartialityandindependence

•itisintendedtobe‘short-term’innatureandprovideforactivitiesinthe‘immediateaftermath’ofadisaster.inpracticeitisoftendifficulttosaywhere‘duringandintheimmediateaftermathofemergencies’endsandothertypesofassistancebegin,especiallyinsituationsofprolongedvulnerability.

traditionalresponsestohumanitariancrises,andtheeasiesttocategoriseassuch,arethosethatfallundertheaegisof‘emergencyresponse’:

•materialreliefassistanceandservices(shelter,water,medicinesetc.)

•emergencyfoodaid(short-termdistributionandsupplementaryfeedingprogrammes)

•reliefcoordination,protectionandsupportservices(coordination,logisticsandcommunications).

humanitarianaidcanalsoincludereconstructionreliefandrehabilitation(repairingpre-existinginfrastructureasopposedtolonger-termactivitiesdesignedtoimprovethelevelofinfrastructure)anddisasterpreventionandpreparedness(disasterriskreduction,earlywarningsystems,contingencystocksandplanning).undertheorganisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment(oeCd)developmentassistanceCommittee(daC)reportingcriteria,humanitarianaidhasveryclearcut-offpoints–forexample,‘disasterpreparedness’excludeslonger-termworksuchaspreventionoffloodsorconflicts.

humanitarianaidisgivenbygovernments,individuals,nGos,multilateralorganisations,domesticorganisationsandprivatecompanies.somedifferentiatetheirhumanitarianassistancefromdevelopmentorotherforeignassistance,buttheydrawthelineindifferentplacesandaccordingtodifferentcriteria.wereportwhatothersthemselvesreportas‘humanitarian’buttrytoconsistentlylabelandsourcethis.

GlobAl HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce

theterm‘globalhumanitarianassistance’isusedwithinthecontextoftheGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)programmetomean:

•theinternationalhumanitarianresponse(i.e.humanitarianaidfromgovernmentsandprivatecontributions)

•domesticresponse(thatprovidedbygovernmentsinresponsetocrisesinsidetheirowncountries)

•othertypesofassistancethatgotopeopleinhumanitariancrisesthatfalloutsidethosecapturedinthedataon‘international’or‘domestic’humanitarianresponse(e.g.peacekeepingandotherofficialdevelopmentassistance(oda)activitiessuchasgovernanceandsecurity).

inteRnAtionAl HumAnitARiAn Aid

internationalhumanitarianaid(sometimesreferredtointhisreportas‘internationalhumanitarianresponse’)isusedtodescribethecontributionsof:

•internationalgovernments

•individuals,privatefoundations,trusts,privatecompaniesandcorporations.

keydeFinitions,ConCeptsandmethodoloGy

87

HumAnitARiAn Aid fRom GoVeRnments

ourdefinitionofgovernmentfundingforhumanitariancrisescomprises:

•thehumanitarianaidexpenditureofthe24oeCddaCmembers–australia,austria,belgium,Canada,denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,ireland,italy,Japan,korea,luxembourg,thenetherlands,newZealand,norway,portugal,spain,sweden,switzerland,theunitedkingdom,theunitedstatesandtheeuropeaninstitutions–asreportedtotheoeCddaCaspartofanannualobligationtoreportonodaflows

•expenditureby‘othergovernments’ascapturedbytheunitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs(unoCha)’sFinancialtrackingservice(Fts).

ourlabellingof‘governments’isdrivenbythewayinwhichtheyreporttheirexpenditure(see‘datasources’sectionbelow).‘othergovernments’aresometimesreferredtoas‘non-daCdonors’,‘non-traditionaldonors’,‘emergingdonors’or‘south–southdevelopmentpartners’.

pRiVAte contRibutions

privatecontributionsarethosefromindividuals,privatefoundations,trusts,privatecompaniesandcorporations.

inour‘wheredoesthefundingcomefrom?’sectioninChapter1,theprivatecontributionsarethoseraisedbyhumanitarianorganisations,includingnGos,unagenciesandtheinternationalredCrossandredCrescentmovement.datafortheperiod2006–2010wascollateddirectlyfromthesampleoforganisationsandcomplementedbyfiguresfromannualreports.thestudysetforthisperiodincludedfiveunagencies(unhCr,unrwa,wFp,whoanduniCeF),62nGos,theinternationalCommitteeoftheredCross(iCrC),theinternationalFederationofredCrossandredCrescentsocieties(iFrC)andsevenredCrossnationalsocieties(belgium,Canada,Colombia,denmark,France,swedenandtheunitedkingdom).datafor2011wasextrapolatedfromthe2010figure,usingacoefficientofincrease/decreasebasedonprivatecontributionsreportedtotheFts.

inthe‘wheredoesthefundinggo?’and‘howdoesthefundinggetthere?’sectionsofChapter1,thedataistakenfromunoCha’sFts(adisaggregationofnGo,foundationsandprivatesectorcorporationsinFts,pluscontributionsfromprivateindividualsandorganisations).

totAl ‘officiAl’ HumAnitARiAn Aid

total‘official’humanitarianaidisasub-setofoda.inthisreport,weuseitwhenmakingcomparisonswithotherdevelopmentassistance.ittakesaccountofhumanitarianexpenditurethroughnGos,multilateralunagenciesandfunds,public-privatepartnershipsandpublicsectoragencies–and,inordertotakeaccountofmultilateralodacontributionstounagencieswithalmostuniquelyhumanitarianmandates,wemakethefollowingcalculation:

•humanitarianaidasreportedindaC1officialandprivateFlows,item‘memo:humanitarianaid’(netdisbursements)

•totalodadisbursementstounhCr,unrwaandwFp,asrecipients,reportedindaC2aodadisbursements(wedonotincludeallodatowFpbutapplyapercentageinordertotakeintoaccountthefactthatwFpalsohasa‘developmental’mandate).

disAsteR Risk Reduction (dRR)theuseoftheterm‘disasterriskreduction’inthisreportistakenfromuninternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction(unisdr)terminology:‘systematiceffortstoanalyseandmanagethecausalfactorsofdisasters’.investmentsindrrcanbetrackedusingtheoeCddaC’sCreditorreportingsystem(Crs),thoughthisisnoteasy.eachfundingtransactionreportedtotheoeCddaCCrsisallocatedafive-digitpurposecode,whichidentifiesthespecificsectorsorareasoftherecipient’seconomicorsocialdevelopmentthatthetransferisintendedtofoster.however,thereisnospecificdrrcodewithintheCrsdatabase,soaforensicmethodhasbeenusedtopulloutrelevantinvestments.

apurposecodeforoneelementofdrrhasexistedsince2004:thisfallswithinhumanitarianaidunder‘disasterpreventionandpreparedness’(dpp),anddatareportedunderthedppcode(74010)canbeeasilyidentified.allfundingreportedtothefloodingprevention/controlpurposecode(41050)isalsoincludedinthefinalestimateofdrr.

accountingfordrrmeasuresthataresub-componentsofdevelopmentandhumanitarianprojectsthatarenotcoded74010or41050ismorechallenging.toidentifythese,wesearchthroughshortandlongprojectdescriptionsreferencing30keytermsselectedfrom

note:foroeCddaCdonors,wemakeanadjustmenttothedaC-reportedhumanitarianaidfiguresothatittakesaccountofeachdonor’smultilateral(coreandtotallyunearmarked)odacontributionstounhCr,unrwaandwFp–see‘totalofficialhumanitarianaid’below.

note:allofourhumanitarianaidcategoriesincludemoneyspentthroughhumanitarianfinancingmechanismssuchastheCentralemergencyresponseFund(CerF)andcountry-levelpooledfunds.wherenecessary,weimputeamountsspentthroughtheCerFinspecificcountriesbacktothedonor(forexample,ifnorwaycontributed10%ofCerFfundingin2010andtheCerFallocatedus$10milliontoafghanistan,us$1millionwouldbeaddedontonorway’sotherhumanitarianexpenditureonprojectsinafghanistan).

88

recentliteratureondrrandthewebsitesofkeydrr-focusedorganisations(e.g.unisdr).aftereachtermsearch,theprojectdescriptionsarescannedandthosenotrelatedtodrrremoved(forexample,resultsfor‘prevention’includeprojectswithadrrfocussuchasfloodprevention,butalsohiv/aidsprevention,whichareexcluded).

whenassessingindividualdonorcontributionstofinancingdpp,wehaveimputedtheirsharesofmultilateralodacontributedtomultilateralorganisations(wFp,theworldbankandtheeuinstitutions)whichweresubsequentlyspentbythoseorganisationsondppactivities.

otHeR inteRnAtionAl ResouRces

officiAl deVelopment AssistAnce (odA)

odaisagrantorloanfroman‘official’sourcetoadevelopingcountry(definedbytheoeCd)ormultilateralagency(definedbytheoeCd)forthepromotionofeconomicdevelopmentandwelfare.itisreportedbymembersofthedaC,alongwithseveralothergovernmentdonorsandinstitutions,accordingtostrictcriteriaeachyear.itincludessustainableandpoverty-reducingdevelopmentassistance(forsectorssuchasgovernanceandsecurity,growth,socialservices,education,health,andwaterandsanitation).inthisreportweexpressourtotalodafiguresnetofdebtreliefunlessexpresslystatedotherwise.

odA And odA-like floWs fRom otHeR GoVeRnment donoRs

somedonorsoutsideoftheoeCddaCgroupvoluntarilyreporttheirodaflowstotheoeCddaC,whicharerecordedin‘table33’.thisincludesodareportedbymembersoftheoeCdwhoarenotdaCmembers(theCzechrepublic,estonia,hungary,iceland,israel,poland,slovakrepublic,slovenia,turkey)andothergovernmentdonorsoutsideoftheoeCd(Chinesetaipei,Cyprus,kuwait,latvia,liechtenstein,lithuania,malta,romania,russia,saudiarabia,thailandandtheunitedarabemirates).

theoeCddaChasreporteddataon‘oda-likeflows’frombrazil,russia,india,Chinaandsouthafrica(briCs)whodonotreporttothedaC,basedontheirownresearchin‘table33a’.theseflowsmaynotfullyconformtotheodadefinitionandareconsideredbythedaCtobeconcessionalflowsfordevelopmentcooperation;figuresarederivedfromofficialgovernmentsources.

GoVeRnAnce And secuRitY odA

thisisasub-setofthesocialservicesandinfrastructuresectorgroupingofaidactivities–withinsector-allocableoda–thatissub-dividedintotwofurtherdiscretegroupsofactivities.

•thefirstgrouping,thegovernanceandcivilsocietysetofactivities,isprimarilyconcernedwithbuildingthecapacityofrecipientcountrygovernments–inareasincludingpublicsectorpolicy,financemanagement,legislaturesandjudiciaries–aswellasarangeofthematicactivitiesincludingsupporttoelections,democraticparticipation,mediaandfreeflowofinformation,humanrightsandwomen’sequality.in2010anti-corruptionandsupporttolegislaturesandpoliticalpartieswereaddedtothelistofactivitiesinthisgrouping.

•thesecondgroupingisconcernedwithconflictpreventionandresolution,peaceandsecurityandincludesactivitiessupportingsecuritysystemmanagementandreform,removaloflandminesandotherexplosiveremnantsofwar,demobilisationofchildsoldiers,reintegrationofdemobilisedmilitarypersonnel,smallarmsandlightweaponscontrol,civilianpeace-buildingandsomeelementsofbilateralsupportformultilateralpeacekeepingoperations(excludingthedirectcontributionstotheundepartmentofpeacekeepingoperations(dpko)budget).

otHeR officiAl floWs (oofs)

otherofficialflowsareofficialsectortransactionsreportedbygovernmentstotheoeCddaCthatdonotmeettheodacriteria,inthattheirprimarypurposeisnotdevelopment-motivated,orwhentheirgrantelementisbelowthe25%thresholdthatwouldmakethemeligibletoberecordedasoda.transactionsclassifiedasooFsincludeexport-andinvestment-relatedtransactions,reschedulingofooFloans,andotherbilateralsecuritiesandclaims.

89

otHeR definitions And clAssificAtions

domestic Response

thisincludestheactionstakeninresponsetohumanitariancrises,totransferresourcestothosemostaffectedwithinanaffectedcountry,bydomesticinstitutions(bothinformalandformal)andindividualseitherlivingthereortemporarilyresidentelsewhere.

conflict-Affected countRies

asetofconflict-affectedstateswasidentifiedforeachoftheyearsbetween1999and2010usingtheuppsalaConflictdataprogram(uCdp)’sdatabasetodeterminetheincidenceofactiveconflictinagivenyear.thisincorporatedbothcaseswherestateactorswereinvolvedandthosewherenostateactorwasinvolved,butwheremorethan25battledeathsresulted.whereamultilateralpeacekeepingmissionhasbeenpresent(excludingpurelycivilianmissions)withnorecurrenceofviolenceforuptosevenconsecutiveyears,acountryisdeemedtobepost-conflict.

fRAGile stAtes

Fragilestatesarecharacterisedbywidespreadextremepoverty,arethemostoff-trackinrelationtothemillenniumdevelopmentGoals(mdGs),andarecommonlycaughtinorareemergingfrom,violenceorconflict.

exactdefinitionsoffragilestatesvarybydonorandinstitutionbutoftenreferencealackofgovernmentcapacitytoprovidebasicpublicgoods(includingsecurityandbasicservices)andinsomecasesalackofwillingnesstoprovidethem.

debatesinthisareaincreasinglyrecognisetheheterogeneityoffragilestatesandvaryingdegreesoffragility.theyacknowledgethatconditionsoffragilitydonotneatlymapontonationstatesandmaybeconfinedtosub-nationalpocketsormaycrossnationalborders.

thelistof45fragilestatesusedinthisreportistakenfromtheoeCd’sinternationalnetworkonFragilityandConflict(inCaF)2011list.

lonG-teRm HumAnitARiAn AssistAnce countRies (ltHAcs)

long-termhumanitarianassistancecountriesaredefinedasthosereceivingagreaterthanaverage(10.4%)proportionofodaexcludingdebtreliefintheformofhumanitarianassistanceformorethaneightyearsbetween1996and2010.atotalof25countriesareclassifiedasreceivinglong-termhumanitarianassistance,andin2010theyreceivedus$4.9billionoftheus$10.4billionfromalldonorsreportingtothedaC.

90

oecd dAc•oeCddaCdataallowsustosayhowmuchhumanitarianaiddonorsreportingtothe

oeCddevelopmentCo-operationdirectorate(dCd)give,wheretheyspendit,whotheyspenditthroughandhowitrelatestotheirotheroda.

•aggregateinformationispublishedinoeCddaCstattables.

•detailed,project-levelreportingispublishedintheCreditorreportingsystem(Crs).

•thedatainthisreportwasdownloadedon18april2012.datafor2011ispreliminaryandpartial–fullfinaldatafortheyear(whichwillincludedataonrecipientcountriesin2011andprovideabreakdownofactivities,aswellasenablingustopublishanon-estimatedhumanitarianaidfigurefordaCdonors)willnotbepublisheduntildecember2012.

•wemakeadistinctionbetween‘daCcountries’and‘daCdonors’–wherethelatterincludestheeuropeaninstitutions.

un ocHA fts•weuseunoChaFtsdatatoreportonhumanitarianexpenditureofgovernments

thatdonotreporttotheoeCddaCandtoanalyseexpenditurerelatingtotheunconsolidatedappealsprocess(Cap).wehavealsouseditinthe‘wheredoesthefundinggo?’and‘howdoesthefundinggetthere?’sectionsofthereporttoanalyseprivatecontributionsandmoneyspentthroughnGos,theredCrossandredCrescentmovementoraunagency.

•aswellasbeingthecustodianofdatarelatingtounCapappeals,unoChaFtsreceivesdatafromdonorgovernmentsandrecipientagenciesandalsogathersinformationonspecificpledgescarriedinthemediaorondonorwebsites,orquotedinpledgingconferences.

•datafor2000–2011wasdownloadedon23march2012.

un ceRf WebsiteourdataontheCerFistakenfromtheunCerFwebsite.

cRed em-dAt disAsteR dAtAbAsetheCentreforresearchontheepidemiologyofdisasters(Cred)isaleadingrepositoryofinformationontheimpactofdisasters.oneofCred’scoredataprojectsistheem-datdisasterdatabase,whichcontainsdataontheimpactof16,000massdisastereventsdatingbackto1900.dataissourcedfromunagencies,nGos,insurancecompanies,researchinstitutesandpressagencies.weusethisdatatogenerateanalysisoftheincidenceandimpactofnaturaldisastersindevelopingcountries.

stockHolm inteRnAtionAl peAce ReseARcH inteRnAtionAl (sipRi) sipriisanindependentinternationalinstitutededicatedtoresearchintoconflict,armaments,armscontrolanddisarmament.siprimanagespubliclyaccessibledatabaseson:

•multilateralpeacekeepingoperations–unandnon-unpeaceoperationssince2000,includinglocation,datesofdeploymentandoperation,mandate,participatingcountries,numberofpersonnel,costsandfatalities

•militaryexpenditureof172countriessince1988,allowingcomparisonofcountries’militaryspending:inlocalcurrency,atcurrentprices;inusdollars,atconstantpricesandexchangerates;andasashareofgrossdomesticproduct(Gdp)

•transfersofmajorconventionalarmssince1950

•armsembargoesimplementedbyinternationalorganisationsorgroupsofnationssince1998.

weusethisdatatotrackinternationalexpenditureonmultilateralpeacekeepingoperations.

note:unoChaFtsandoeCddaCdataarenotcomparable.

datasourCes

91

tHe uppsAlA conflict dAtA pRoGRAm (ucdp) uCdphasbeenrecordingdataonongoingviolentconflictssincethe1970s.itsdefinitionofarmedconflict–‘acontestedincompatibilitythatconcernsgovernmentand/orterritorywheretheuseofarmedforcebetweentwoparties,ofwhichatleastoneisthegovernmentofastate,resultsinatleast25battle-relateddeathsinonecalendaryear’–isbecomingastandardinhowconflictsaresystematicallydefinedandstudied.ithasbeenoperatinganonlinedatabaseonarmedconflictsandorganisedviolencesince2004.

inteRnAtionAl monetARY fund (imf)wedownloadeddatafromtheinternationalmonetaryFund(imF)’sworldeconomicoutlook(weo)databaseinapril2012anduseditsgrossnationalincome(Gni)fornon-daCdonorstomeasureeconomicperformance.regionaloutlookshavebeenusedmainlytoanalysegovernmentrevenues(excludinggrants);whenthisinformationwasmissing,calculationshavebeenmade(subtractingodaflowsfromgeneralgovernmentrevenuesdatadownloadedfromtheimFweo,toavoiddouble-countinggrants).

WoRld bAnk theworldbankdatacatalogueincludesdifferentdatasetssuchasinflowsandoutflowsofremittances.theGlobaleconomicmonitor(Gem)providespricesandindicesrelatingtofood,energyandothercommodities–fundamentalinunderstandingfluctuationsandtrends.

united nAtions confeRence on tRAde And deVelopment (unctAd)unCtadistheunitednations’bodyfocusingontrade.itsonlinedatabaseprovidesstatisticsontradeflowsandforeigndirectinvestment(Fdi).

Furtherdetailsandguidestoourmethodologyandclassificationscanbefoundinthedata&Guidessectionofourwebsite:http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org

finAnciAl times fdi mARkets Fdimarketsisanonlinedatabasetackingcrossbordergreen-fieldinvestmentscoveringallsectorsandcountriesworldwide.itprovidesreal-timemonitoringofinvestmentprojects,capitalinvestmentandjobcreationandisabletotrackandprofilecompaniesinvestingoverseas.thedataiscollectedprimarilythroughdifferentpubliclyavailablesources:

•Financialtimesnewswiresandotherinformationsources

•nearly9,000mediasources

•projectdatareceivedfromover1,000industryorganisationsandinvestmentagencies

•datapurchasedfrommarketresearchandpublicationcompanies.

92

aCronymsandabbreviations

Au africanunion

cAp Consolidatedappealsprocess

cAR Centralafricanrepublic

ceRf CentralemergencyresponseFund

cHf Commonhumanitarianfund–acountry-levelpooledfundmechanism

cidA Canadianinternationaldevelopmentagency

cRs Creditorreportingsystem(daC)

cso Civilsocietyorganisation

dAc developmentassistanceCommittee

dfid departmentforinternationaldevelopment(uk)

dod departmentofdefense

dpko undepartmentofpeacekeepingoperations

dpRk democraticpeople’srepublicofkorea

dRc democraticrepublicofCongo

ec europeanCommission

ecHo directorateGeneralforhumanitarianaidandCivilprotection(formerlyeuropeanCommunityhumanitarianaiddepartment)

ecoWAs economicCommunityofwestafricanstates

eRf emergencyresponsefund–acountry-levelpooledfundingmechanism

eu europeanunion

fAo Foodandagricultureorganization

fts Financialtrackingservice(unoCha)

Gdp Grossdomesticproduct

GHA Globalhumanitarianassistance(theprogramme)

GHd Goodhumanitariandonorship

Gni Grossnationalincome

iAti internationalaidtransparencyinitiative

icRc internationalCommitteeoftheredCross

ifRc internationalFederationofredCrossandredCrescentsocieties

imf internationalmonetaryFund

inGo internationalnon-governmentalorganisation

ltHAc long-termhumanitarianassistancecountries

mdG millenniumdevelopmentGoal

msf médecinssansFrontières

nAto northatlantictreatyorganisation

nGo non-governmentalorganisation

odA officialdevelopmentassistance

oecd organisationforeconomicCo-operationanddevelopment

opt occupiedpalestinianterritories

sipRi stockholminternationalpeaceresearchinstitute

uAe unitedarabemirates

un unitednations

un desA unitednationsdepartmentofeconomicandsocialaffairs

undp unitednationsdevelopmentprogramme

unHcR unitednationshighCommissionerforrefugees

unicef unitednationsChildren’sFund

unisdR unitednationsinternationalstrategyfordisasterreduction

un ocHA unitednationsofficefortheCoordinationofhumanitarianaffairs

unRWA unitednationsreliefandworksagencyforpalestinerefugeesintheneareast

Wfp worldFoodprogramme

93

un

cA

p A

pp

eAl

sum

mA

RY

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

rev

ised

req

uire

men

ts(u

s$b

illio

n)1.

92.

64.

45.

23.

46.

05.

25.

17.

19.

811

.38.

9

Fund

ing

(us$

bill

ion)

1.1

1.4

3.0

4.0

2.2

4.0

3.5

3.7

5.1

6.9

7.3

5.5

unm

etn

eed

(us$

bill

ion)

0.8

1.1

1.4

1.3

1.2

2.0

1.7

1.4

2.0

2.8

4.0

3.4

%n

eeds

met

59.2

%55

.4%

67.5

%75

.8%

64.3

%67

.2%

66.5

%72

.2%

71.7

%71

.2%

63.0

%62

.3%

num

ber

ofa

ppea

lsin

yea

r14

1824

2731

2524

3023

2319

21

aver

age

requ

irem

ents

per

app

eal(

us$

bill

ion)

0.14

0.14

0.18

0.19

0.11

0.24

0.22

0.17

0.31

0.42

0.59

0.42

aver

age

fund

ing

per

appe

al(u

s$b

illio

n)0.

080.

080.

120.

150.

070.

160.

140.

120.

220.

300.

380.

26

co

nso

lid

Ated

Ap

peA

ls

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

rev

ised

req

uire

men

t(u

s$b

illio

n)1.

92.

64.

45.

23.

03.

84.

94.

86.

39.

57.

78.

1

Fund

ing

(us$

bill

ion)

1.1

1.4

3.0

3.9

2.0

2.3

3.2

3.5

4.5

6.8

4.7

5.1

unm

etn

eed

(us$

bill

ion)

0.8

1.1

1.4

1.2

0.9

1.5

1.7

1.3

1.8

2.7

3.0

3.1

%n

eeds

met

59.2

%55

.4%

67.5

%76

.0%

68.0

%59

.3%

65.3

%73

.3%

71.9

%71

.8%

61.0

%62

.3%

num

ber

ofc

onso

lidat

eda

ppea

lsin

yea

r14

1824

2522

1517

1513

1515

15

aver

age

requ

irem

ents

per

app

eal(

us$

bill

ion)

0.14

0.14

0.18

0.21

0.13

0.25

0.29

0.32

0.48

0.63

0.51

0.54

aver

age

fund

ing

per

appe

al(u

s$b

illio

n)0.

080.

080.

120.

160.

090.

150.

190.

230.

350.

450.

310.

34

flA

sH A

pp

eAls

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

rev

ised

req

uire

men

t(u

s$b

illio

n)0

00

0.03

0.5

2.2

0.3

0.4

0.8

0.3

3.6

0.8

Fund

ing

(us$

bill

ion)

00

00.

020.

21.

80.

30.

20.

60.

12.

60.

5

unm

etn

eed

(us$

bill

ion)

00

00.

020.

30.

40.

00.

20.

20.

11.

00.

3

%n

eeds

met

00

050

.7%

39.8

%81

.0%

85.3

%57

.2%

70.8

%51

.6%

71.8

%62

.8%

num

ber

offl

ash

appe

als

iny

ear

00

02

910

715

108

46

aver

age

requ

irem

ents

per

app

eal(

us$

bill

ion)

0.02

0.05

0.22

0.05

0.02

0.08

0.03

0.89

0.13

aver

age

fund

ing

per

appe

al(u

s$b

illio

n)0.

010.

020.

180.

040.

010.

060.

020.

640.

08

fiG

uR

e 1:

un

co

nso

lid

Ated

Ap

peA

ls p

Ro

ces

s (c

Ap

) Ap

peA

ls, 2

000-

2011

sour

ce:u

no

Ch

aFt

s

reFerenCetables

94

sour

ce:o

eCd

daC

,un

oC

ha

Fts

and

un

Cer

Fda

ta.*

2011

dat

ais

bas

edo

nco

ntri

butio

nsr

epor

ted

thro

ugh

un

oC

ha

Fts

and

isp

rovi

ded

for

illus

trat

ive

purp

oses

onl

y

fiG

uR

e 2:

to

p 2

0 R

ecip

ien

ts o

f in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

, 200

1-20

10 (u

s$ m

illi

on

)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

*5

YeA

Rs

2006

-201

010

YeA

Rs

2001

-201

0p

ales

tine/

op

t1,

010

afgh

anis

tan

976

iraq

1,29

8ir

aq1,

084

suda

n1,

403

suda

n1,

387

suda

n1,

358

suda

n1,

469

suda

n1,

436

hai

ti3,

065

som

alia

1,14

0su

dan

6,56

0su

dan

9,73

5

afgh

anis

tan

560

pal

estin

e/o

pt

473

ethi

opia

810

suda

n96

5in

done

sia

896

pal

estin

e/o

pt

578

pal

estin

e/o

pt

598

ethi

opia

891

pal

estin

e/o

pt

1,10

3p

akis

tan

2,06

5su

dan

858

pak

ista

n3,

547

pal

estin

e/o

pt

6,48

8se

rbia

307

ango

la27

9af

ghan

ista

n49

7p

ales

tine/

op

t65

7p

akis

tan

748

leba

non

525

dr

C41

5af

ghan

ista

n87

8et

hiop

ia69

9su

dan

909

ethi

opia

762

Hai

ti3,

542

Afg

hani

stan

5,60

5

ethi

opia

215

suda

n26

5p

ales

tine/

op

t46

6et

hiop

ia44

9ir

aq71

2in

done

sia

524

iraq

371

pal

estin

e/o

pt

631

afgh

anis

tan

647

ethi

opia

639

afgh

anis

tan

687

pal

estin

e/o

pt

3,52

8et

hiop

ia5,

256

dr

C18

6d

rC

261

suda

n36

6af

ghan

ista

n43

8et

hiop

ia66

8p

akis

tan

464

leba

non

329

som

alia

606

som

alia

577

pal

estin

e/o

pt

618

ken

ya55

0et

hiop

ia2,

879

iraq

5,24

6su

dan

176

ethi

opia

235

ango

la31

9d

rC

285

sril

anka

555

dr

C42

0af

ghan

ista

n32

6d

rC

529

dr

C57

4af

ghan

ista

n60

5p

akis

tan

460

Afg

hani

stan

2,81

2p

akis

tan

4,56

5ir

aq17

3si

erra

leo

ne17

8d

rC

258

ango

la21

9p

ales

tine/

op

t35

3ir

aq41

6et

hiop

ia30

3m

yanm

ar48

4p

akis

tan

567

dr

C45

6h

aiti

459

dR

c2,

394

Hai

ti3,

708

indi

a15

8st

ates

ex-

yugo

slav

ia1

51er

itrea

179

libe

ria

176

afgh

anis

tan

322

afgh

anis

tan

357

ban

glad

esh

287

iraq

382

iraq

478

ken

ya29

0d

rC

431

som

alia

2,01

8d

Rc

3,69

0b

osni

a-h

erze

govi

na1

56ir

aq14

7b

urun

di15

1u

gand

a16

6d

rC

306

ethi

opia

347

som

alia

275

Zim

babw

e33

9k

enya

404

Cha

d27

8p

ales

tine/

op

t40

5ir

aq1,

831

som

alia

2,74

4an

gola

149

dp

rk

147

uga

nda

147

bur

undi

164

Zim

babw

e21

4so

mal

ia32

1p

akis

tan

251

Chi

na31

5Zi

mba

bwe

400

som

alia

239

Cha

d33

5k

enya

1,44

8in

done

sia

2,43

4si

erra

leo

ne14

2so

mal

ia13

3so

mal

ia14

0so

mal

ia15

8so

mal

ia19

5k

enya

254

indo

nesi

a23

7k

enya

307

Cha

d32

2n

iger

231

yem

en26

4le

bano

n,1

301

ken

ya1,

887

stat

ese

x-yu

gosl

avia

135

Jord

an12

4Jo

rdan

136

iran

139

eritr

ea19

1u

gand

a22

9u

gand

a22

7C

had

249

indo

nesi

a26

9sr

ilan

ka20

5Zi

mba

bwe

190

indo

nesi

a1,

280

sri l

anka

1,81

4Jo

rdan

126

serb

ia11

1si

erra

leo

ne

130

serb

ia13

6u

gand

a18

2sr

ilan

ka16

4sr

ilan

ka21

2sr

ilan

ka24

6sr

ilan

ka24

8Zi

mba

bwe

199

sril

anka

163

Zim

babw

e1,

,218

leba

non

1,74

9m

ozam

biqu

e12

4ta

nzan

ia10

9se

rbia

129

dp

rk

134

bur

undi

170

bur

undi

152

ken

ya19

4u

gand

a23

8sy

ria

176

iraq

185

nig

er16

1c

had

1148

Zim

babw

e1,

688

tanz

ania

115

bur

undi

104

tanz

ania

124

eritr

ea12

4li

beri

a14

6li

beri

a14

9C

had

188

hai

ti21

2m

yanm

ar15

4Jo

rdan

170

Cot

ed’

ivoi

re15

0sr

i lan

ka1,

075

uga

nda

1,56

5so

mal

ia10

1k

enya

95d

pr

k12

0Jo

rdan

110

indi

a13

1Zi

mba

bwe

117

Zim

babw

e16

4p

akis

tan

201

uga

nda

152

leba

non

122

libe

ria

149

uga

nda

929

cha

d1,

407

dp

rk

100

leba

non

91li

beri

a10

6C

had

105

Cha

d12

8C

had

111

Col

ombi

a11

0le

bano

n18

9h

aiti

144

syri

a12

0ir

aq10

9m

yanm

ar83

1Jo

rdan

1,26

6k

enya

90er

itrea

87Zi

mba

bwe

93b

angl

ades

h96

ango

la12

0Jo

rdan

107

Jord

an10

9Jo

rdan

140

Geo

rgia

141

indo

nesi

a11

3li

bya

94Jo

rdan

661

Ang

ola

1,18

8le

bano

n87

Zim

babw

e86

leba

non

82le

bano

n91

Jord

an10

9C

olom

bia

102

bur

undi

108

indo

nesi

a13

8le

bano

n13

6ye

men

111

Cen

tral

afr

ican

r

ep.7

8b

angl

ades

h63

0b

urun

di1,

159

els

alva

dor

85u

gand

a81

ken

ya77

ken

ya91

nig

er10

8n

iger

77li

beri

a10

7ye

men

138

Jord

an13

5m

yanm

ar10

2m

yanm

ar78

bur

undi

491

mya

nmar

995

95

fiG

uR

e 3:

to

p 3

0 d

on

oR

s o

f in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

, 200

1-20

10 (u

s$ m

illi

on

)

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

*5

YeA

Rs

2006

-201

010

YeA

Rs

2001

-201

0

uni

ted

stat

es2,

002

uni

ted

stat

es2,

025

uni

ted

stat

es3,

350

uni

ted

stat

es2,

847

uni

ted

stat

es3,

765

uni

ted

stat

es3,

249

uni

ted

stat

es3,

128

uni

ted

stat

es4,

478

uni

ted

stat

es4,

426

uni

ted

stat

es4,

871

uni

ted

stat

es4,

642

uni

ted

stat

es20

,152

uni

ted

stat

es34

,140

eu in

stitu

tions

1,12

9eu

inst

itutio

ns1,

018

eu in

stitu

tions

1,05

8eu

inst

itutio

ns1,

362

eu in

stitu

tions

1,62

7eu

inst

itutio

ns1,

766

eu in

stitu

tions

1,58

7eu

inst

itutio

ns1,

875

eu in

stitu

tions

1,54

4eu

inst

itutio

ns1,

658

eu in

stitu

tions

1,73

2eu

inst

itutio

ns8,

430

eu in

stitu

tions

14,6

24

saud

i Ara

bia

657

uni

ted

kin

gdom

725

uni

ted

kin

gdom

863

Japa

n95

5Ja

pan

924

uni

ted

kin

gdom

1,0

58u

nite

d k

ingd

om 7

57u

nite

d k

ingd

om 8

98u

nite

d k

ingd

om 1

,028

uni

ted

kin

gdom

943

uni

ted

kin

gdom

1,1

00u

nite

d k

ingd

om 4

,684

uni

ted

kin

gdom

8,4

74

uni

ted

kin

gdom

571

Ger

man

y55

1G

erm

any

478

uni

ted

kin

gdom

781

uni

ted

kin

gdom

850

Ger

man

y77

4G

erm

any

612

Ger

man

y68

8G

erm

any

678

Ger

man

y74

4Ja

pan

812

Ger

man

y3,

497

Ger

man

y6,

334

Ger

man

y54

8n

ethe

rlan

ds37

4n

orw

ay39

6G

erm

any

525

Ger

man

y73

5n

ethe

rlan

ds61

9n

ethe

rlan

ds51

6n

ethe

rlan

ds58

1sw

eden

614

swed

en69

0sw

eden

715

swed

en2,

930

swed

en49

51

swed

en44

9Ja

pan

371

swed

en38

9n

ethe

rlan

ds41

7n

ethe

rlan

ds61

4sw

eden

537

swed

en51

2sw

eden

576

spai

n59

6Ja

pan

642

Ger

man

y68

5n

ethe

rlan

ds2,

661

net

herl

ands

4,77

3

net

herl

ands

403

nor

way

362

net

herl

ands

305

fran

ce33

8n

orw

ay54

1fr

ance

430

nor

way

463

spai

n57

5n

ethe

rlan

ds48

6c

anad

a55

0n

orw

ay47

2sp

ain

2,38

2Ja

pan

4,44

2

nor

way

347

swed

en35

9Ja

pan

288

swed

en32

8sw

eden

496

nor

way

421

spai

n36

8sa

udi A

rabi

a56

6n

orw

ay41

5sp

ain

496

can

ada

464

nor

way

2,19

8n

orw

ay4,

156

ital

y29

3it

aly

340

fran

ce26

5n

orw

ay31

2fr

ance

366

spai

n34

7fr

ance

361

nor

way

429

Aus

tral

ia40

1n

orw

ay47

0A

ustr

alia

439

can

ada

2,04

9fr

ance

3,53

4

fran

ce28

7fr

ance

279

ital

y26

3it

aly

312

ital

y34

0it

aly

333

can

ada

349

can

ada

422

can

ada

398

net

herl

ands

459

spai

n40

8fr

ance

1,99

8sp

ain

3,35

7

Japa

n23

4A

ustr

alia

274

can

ada

240

can

ada

225

Aus

tral

ia31

0c

anad

a32

9it

aly

345

fran

ce40

1fr

ance

371

fran

ce43

5n

ethe

rlan

ds33

8it

aly

1,67

9it

aly

3,22

6

switz

erla

nd23

1sw

itzer

land

233

Aus

tral

ia22

2sw

itzer

land

221

den

mar

k29

7d

enm

ark

287

den

mar

k24

9it

aly

383

uA

e 35

3A

ustr

alia

390

fran

ce33

7Ja

pan

1,67

0c

anad

a3,

215

can

ada

220

can

ada

214

switz

erla

nd21

6sp

ain

206

spai

n28

6A

ustr

alia

278

switz

erla

nd23

0A

ustr

alia

356

ital

y33

4it

aly

283

ital

y31

8A

ustr

alia

1,62

2A

ustr

alia

2,79

4

Aus

tral

ia17

8d

enm

ark

142

spai

n19

6A

ustr

alia

187

switz

erla

nd26

8Ja

pan

251

saud

i Ara

bia

212

Japa

n31

6Ja

pan

310

den

mar

k25

9d

enm

ark

272

den

mar

k1,

290

switz

erla

nd2,

252

den

mar

k16

9sp

ain

128

den

mar

k16

0d

enm

ark

144

can

ada

268

switz

erla

nd24

7ir

elan

d20

8d

enm

ark

269

den

mar

k22

6sa

udi A

rabi

a25

6b

elgi

um26

8sa

udi A

rabi

a1,

247

den

mar

k2,

202

96

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

*5

YeA

Rs

2006

-201

010

YeA

Rs

2001

-201

0

spai

n15

8b

elgi

um92

bel

gium

92b

elgi

um12

5b

elgi

um14

5b

elgi

um17

1au

stra

lia19

8b

elgi

um20

6sw

itzer

land

192

bel

gium

227

switz

erla

nd24

2sw

itzer

land

1,08

3sa

udi A

rabi

a2,

138

bel

gium

96Fi

nlan

d85

Finl

and

84u

ae10

1Fi

nlan

d13

2sa

udia

rabi

a13

1b

elgi

um15

9ir

elan

d20

3b

elgi

um19

1sw

itzer

land

211

finl

and

159

bel

gium

954

bel

gium

1,50

5

Finl

and

81ir

elan

d48

saud

iara

bia

58Fi

nlan

d78

saud

iara

bia

112

Finl

and

131

Japa

n15

0sw

itzer

land

202

Finl

and

143

Finl

and

167

irel

and

129

irel

and

791

finl

and

1,17

8

irel

and

55G

reec

e35

irel

and

53ir

elan

d63

uae

100

irel

and

120

Finl

and

144

Finl

and

133

irel

and

131

irel

and

128

uA

e89

finl

and

718

irel

and

1,10

7

luxe

mbo

urg

33lu

xem

bour

g30

aust

ria

32au

stri

a41

irel

and

98au

stri

a64

aust

ria

54u

ae11

0sa

udia

rabi

a82

uae

114

chi

na87

uA

e66

5u

Ae

869

Gre

ece

33sa

udia

rabi

a29

Gre

ece

32p

ortu

gal

39tu

rkey

79G

reec

e56

Gre

ece

46k

uwai

t96

aust

ria

72au

stri

a65

saud

i Ara

bia

83A

ustr

ia34

4A

ustr

ia54

5

aust

ria

32au

stri

a25

luxe

mbo

urg

30G

reec

e39

aust

ria

71lu

xem

bour

g53

uae

45au

stri

a89

luxe

mbo

urg

52tu

rkey

61lu

xem

bour

g70

luxe

mbo

urg

247

Gre

ece

431

por

tuga

l22

sout

haf

rica

20k

uwai

t28

luxe

mbo

urg

38C

hina

66u

ae44

new

Zea

land

42G

reec

e51

Gre

ece

47lu

xem

bour

g54

turk

ey64

Gre

ece

239

luxe

mbo

urg

414

kor

ea

18r

ussi

a18

new

Zea

land

17sa

udia

rabi

a35

new

Zea

land

65n

ewZ

eala

nd32

luxe

mbo

urg

42lu

xem

bour

g46

kuw

ait

40r

ussi

a40

Aus

tria

53k

uwai

t18

2n

ew Z

eala

nd29

8

new

Zea

land

8p

ortu

gal

18r

ussi

a17

new

Zea

land

24G

reec

e53

por

tuga

l30

por

tuga

l21

rus

sia

44r

ussi

a32

Gre

ece

39n

ew Z

eala

nd33

new

Zea

land

170

por

tuga

l25

7

Qat

ar1

new

Zea

land

13p

ortu

gal

16r

ussi

a17

Qat

ar46

kuw

ait

24k

orea

17

new

Zea

land

34n

ewZ

eala

nd32

Chi

na38

Gre

ece

32R

ussi

a14

0k

uwai

t23

7

Chi

na1

indi

a7

Qat

ar15

kor

ea

16p

ortu

gal

38k

orea

24

turk

ey11

thai

land

29p

ortu

gal

23in

dia

37k

orea

29

por

tuga

l12

4R

ussi

a21

3

rus

sia

1k

orea

6

indi

a13

kuw

ait

11lu

xem

bour

g36

rus

sia

20k

uwai

t11

kor

ea

27k

orea

22

new

Zea

land

31b

razi

l29

kor

ea

114

turk

ey19

2

sout

haf

rica

0al

geri

a5

sout

haf

rica

9tu

rkey

10k

orea

28

sout

haf

rica

16C

hina

7p

ortu

gal

25in

dia

14b

razi

l29

Rus

sia

26tu

rkey

98k

orea

18

7

hun

gary

0tu

rkey

4k

orea

5

sout

haf

rica

5k

yrgy

zsta

n27

turk

ey11

Cze

ch

rep

ublic

3k

azak

hsta

n10

Qat

ar13

kaz

akhs

tan

25p

ortu

gal

23in

dia

58c

hina

126

not

e:d

ata

for

mem

bers

oft

heo

eCd

daC

,200

1-20

10,i

nclu

des

core

od

ato

un

hC

r,u

nr

wa

and

wFp

(and

toe

uin

stitu

tions

whe

rea

pplic

able

).it

ise

xpre

ssed

inc

onst

ant2

010

pric

es.d

ata

for

othe

rdo

nors

ista

ken

from

un

oC

ha

Fts

and

isin

cur

rent

pri

ces.

all

figur

esin

clud

eco

ntri

butio

nsth

roug

hth

eu

n’s

Cen

tral

em

erge

ncy

res

pons

eFu

nd(C

erF)

and

poo

led

fund

ing

mec

hani

sms.

*d

ata

for

2011

isp

relim

inar

y.s

ourc

e:d

evel

opm

enti

nitia

tives

bas

edo

no

eCd

daC

an

du

no

Ch

aFt

sda

ta

97

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5 Ye

AR

s 20

06-2

010

10 Y

eAR

s 20

01-2

010

indi

a2,

526

pak

ista

n2,

705

iraq

2,82

8ir

aq5,

245

iraq

9,04

9ir

aq5,

964

afgh

anis

tan

5,06

7af

ghan

ista

n4,

850

afgh

anis

tan

6,33

0af

ghan

ista

n6,

369

Afg

hani

stan

25,8

68

Afg

hani

stan

36,4

11

pak

ista

n2,

513

indi

a2,

442

viet

nam

2,28

4af

ghan

ista

n2,

694

afgh

anis

tan

3,20

5af

ghan

ista

n3,

252

iraq

4,56

3ir

aq3,

299

ethi

opia

3,84

1et

hiop

ia3,

518

iraq

18,8

27

iraq

36,3

33

Chi

na2,

241

Chi

na2,

110

tanz

ania

2,11

0vi

etna

m2,

174

indo

nesi

a2,

433

pak

ista

n2,

425

viet

nam

2,72

9et

hiop

ia3,

231

viet

nam

3,80

3p

akis

tan

2,99

9et

hiop

ia15

,164

Vi

etna

m24

,893

se

rbia

2,15

9af

ghan

ista

n1,

902

afgh

anis

tan

2,03

8C

hina

2,00

0vi

etna

m2,

227

suda

n2,

246

ethi

opia

2,55

5vi

etna

m2,

580

tanz

ania

2,95

7ta

nzan

ia2,

957

Viet

nam

14,1

77

ethi

opia

24,7

67

viet

nam

2,14

9vi

etna

m1,

884

ethi

opia

1,99

8et

hiop

ia1,

969

ethi

opia

2,12

8vi

etna

m2,

132

pak

ista

n2,

311

suda

n2,

523

iraq

2,83

8vi

etna

m2,

932

tanz

ania

12,3

26

pak

ista

n21

,292

in

done

sia

1,97

9et

hiop

ia1,

834

Chi

na1,

719

tanz

ania

1,91

9C

hina

2,12

7et

hiop

ia2,

020

tanz

ania

2,21

1p

ales

tine/

op

t2,

390

pal

estin

e/o

pt

2,82

9h

aiti

2,91

6p

akis

tan

12,0

49

tanz

ania

20,8

53

ethi

opia

1,67

3m

ozam

biqu

e1,

763

ban

glad

esh

1,65

7p

akis

tan

1,61

0in

dia

2,06

5ta

nzan

ia1,

951

suda

n2,

163

tanz

ania

2,25

1p

akis

tan

2,80

4in

dia

2,80

6su

dan

11,3

62

indi

a18

,949

p

ales

tine/

op

t1,

559

indo

nesi

a1,

640

Jord

an1,

566

ban

glad

esh

1,60

6su

dan

2,06

0m

ozam

biqu

e1,

628

moz

ambi

que

1,79

8in

dia

2,11

2in

dia

2,53

0p

ales

tine/

op

t2,

517

pal

estin

e/o

pt

11,0

34

pal

estin

e/o

pt

17,9

51

egyp

t1,

482

dr

C1,

549

indo

nesi

a1,

491

egyp

t1,

573

pak

ista

n1,

878

uga

nda

1,62

7p

ales

tine/

op

t1,

767

ban

glad

esh

2,00

7su

dan

2,38

4ir

aq2,

164

indi

a10

,288

m

ozam

biqu

e16

,682

b

angl

ades

h1,

404

egyp

t1,

510

serb

ia1,

437

moz

ambi

que

1,46

1ta

nzan

ia1,

686

pal

estin

e/o

pt

1,53

1u

gand

a1,

753

moz

ambi

que

1,91

6d

rC

2,21

9su

dan

2,04

6m

ozam

biqu

e9,

311

chi

na16

,496

ta

nzan

ia1,

348

tanz

ania

1,46

3m

ozam

biqu

e1,

352

uga

nda

1,40

7m

ozam

biqu

e1,

487

indi

a1,

483

Chi

na1,

605

uga

nda

1,59

1m

ozam

biqu

e2,

018

nig

eria

2,04

4u

gand

a8,

488

suda

n16

,124

m

ozam

biqu

e1,

308

pal

estin

e/o

pt

1,45

8p

ales

tine/

op

t1,

347

pal

estin

e/o

pt

1,

376

ban

glad

esh

1,48

2C

hina

1,47

8b

angl

ades

h1,

503

dr

C1,

575

uga

nda

1,79

4d

rC

2,02

7d

Rc

8,26

7 u

gand

a14

,777

u

gand

a1,

252

stat

ese

x-yu

gosl

avia

1,1

34

uga

nda

1,26

1se

rbia

1,33

5d

rC

1,43

9in

done

sia

1,37

6in

dia

1,35

6eg

ypt

1,53

2k

enya

1,78

8m

ozam

biqu

e1,

951

ban

glad

esh

7,48

4 b

angl

ades

h14

,741

b

osni

a-h

erze

govi

na1

,015

b

angl

ades

h1,

108

Gha

na1,

160

Gha

na1,

222

sril

anka

1,35

6d

rC

1,31

6k

enya

1,32

1p

akis

tan

1,51

0n

iger

ia1,

671

uga

nda

1,72

3k

enya

7,04

8 in

done

sia

13,7

18

Gha

na97

4Za

mbi

a1,

105

bol

ivia

1,15

8d

rC

1,21

2u

gand

a1,

351

ban

glad

esh

1,31

5m

oroc

co1,

250

Chi

na1,

456

Gha

na1,

582

Gha

na1,

690

Gha

na6,

942

dR

c13

,609

b

oliv

ia96

7u

gand

a1,

018

egyp

t1,

036

suda

n1,

162

Gha

na1,

215

Gha

na1,

244

nig

eria

1,18

1m

oroc

co1,

401

turk

ey1,

328

ken

ya1,

627

nig

eria

6,62

9 G

hana

12,3

94

hon

dura

s93

9se

rbia

996

Col

ombi

a96

7m

oroc

co96

1p

ales

tine/

op

t1,

177

mor

occo

1,24

3G

hana

1,17

0k

enya

1,33

1Za

mbi

a1,

261

ban

glad

esh

1,41

3c

hina

6,30

1 eg

ypt

11,2

17

nic

arag

ua84

0b

oliv

ia88

7p

hilip

pine

s92

1b

oliv

ia91

1se

rbia

1,00

3C

olom

bia

1,09

5d

rC

1,12

9G

hana

1,25

6b

angl

ades

h1,

247

indo

nesi

a1,

390

Hai

ti6,

222

serb

ia10

,971

p

hilip

pine

s81

4G

hana

881

sril

anka

865

Zam

bia

903

egyp

t96

0se

rbia

994

leba

non

993

indo

nesi

a1,

206

Chi

na1,

117

mal

i1,

086

indo

nesi

a5,

977

ken

ya10

,498

Za

mbi

a7

99

bos

nia-

her

zego

vina

846

so

uth

afri

ca83

2m

adag

asca

r87

7Za

mbi

a93

8k

enya

980

egyp

t98

3n

iger

ia1,

194

hai

ti1,

111

bur

kina

Fas

o1,

058

mor

occo

5,78

6 m

oroc

co 9

,632

fiG

uR

e 4:

to

p 2

0 R

ecip

ien

ts o

f to

tAl

od

A, (

us$

mil

lio

n, c

on

stA

nt

2010

pR

ices

)

sour

ce:d

evel

opm

enti

nitia

tives

bas

edo

no

eCd

daC

dat

a

98

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

*5

YeA

Rs

2006

-201

010

YeA

Rs

2001

-201

0

uni

ted

stat

es13

,853

u

nite

dst

ates

15,3

83

uni

ted

stat

es17

,502

u

nite

dst

ates

22,3

96

uni

ted

stat

es26

,454

u

nite

dst

ates

23,4

88

uni

ted

stat

es22

,656

u

nite

dst

ates

26,8

01

uni

ted

stat

es28

,984

u

nite

dst

ates

30,3

26

uni

ted

stat

es29

,082

u

nite

dst

ates

132,

255

uni

ted

stat

es22

7,84

3Ja

pan

11,6

87

Japa

n11

,432

Ja

pan

9,87

6eu

inst

itutio

ns10

,197

eu

inst

itutio

ns10

,793

eu

inst

itutio

ns11

,453

eu

inst

itutio

ns11

,654

eu

inst

itutio

ns12

,189

eu

inst

itutio

ns12

,724

u

nite

dk

ingd

om1

2,88

9G

erm

any

13,3

17

euin

stitu

tions

60,6

76

euin

stitu

tions

110,

190

euin

stitu

tions

10,3

45

euin

stitu

tions

8,76

3eu

inst

itutio

ns9,

416

Japa

n10

,020

Ja

pan

10,3

03

Japa

n10

,123

G

erm

any

9,39

0G

erm

any

10,6

70

Ger

man

y11

,476

G

erm

any

12,8

52

uni

ted

kin

gdom

12

,780

G

erm

any

52,9

37

Japa

n10

2,01

8G

erm

any

7,84

4G

erm

any

7,00

5u

nite

dk

ingd

om6

,940

Fr

ance

7,94

5Fr

ance

7,72

8G

erm

any

8,54

9Fr

ance

8,42

8u

nite

dk

ingd

om9

,770

uni

ted

kin

gdom

11

,427

eu

inst

itutio

ns12

,657

eu

inst

itutio

ns

11,8

54

uni

ted

kin

gdom

50

,508

G

erm

any

89,9

52

Fran

ce6,

496

Fran

ce6,

678

Ger

man

y6,

915

Ger

man

y7,

898

Ger

man

y7,

354

uni

ted

kin

gdom

8,2

86

uni

ted

kin

gdom

8,1

35

Fran

ce9,

241

Japa

n10

,746

Fr

ance

11,4

38

Fran

ce11

,065

Ja

pan

48,6

99

Fran

ce82

,668

u

nite

dk

ingd

om5

,640

u

nite

dk

ingd

om5

,433

Fr

ance

5,99

4u

nite

dk

ingd

om6

,951

u

nite

dk

ingd

om7

,002

Fr

ance

7,98

3Ja

pan

7,92

0Ja

pan

9,06

9Fr

ance

10,7

36

Japa

n10

,842

Ja

pan

9,80

2Fr

ance

47,8

26

uni

ted

kin

gdom

82,4

74

net

herl

ands

5,39

0n

ethe

rlan

ds4,

812

net

herl

ands

4,80

0n

ethe

rlan

ds4,

651

net

herl

ands

5,42

8n

ethe

rlan

ds5,

692

net

herl

ands

5,81

3

net

herl

ands

6,36

4sp

ain

6,19

6n

ethe

rlan

ds5,

858

net

herl

ands

5,83

6n

ethe

rlan

ds29

,877

n

ethe

rlan

ds54

,958

d

enm

ark

2,94

6sa

udia

rabi

a3,

630

nor

way

3,32

9C

anad

a3,

669

Can

ada

4,32

5sw

eden

4,10

7sp

ain

4,87

4sp

ain

6,02

1n

ethe

rlan

ds6,

150

spai

n5,

610

Can

ada

4,92

6sp

ain

26,3

98

Can

ada

40,3

03

italy

2,89

5C

anad

a3,

251

Can

ada

3,12

2n

orw

ay3,

254

italy

3,97

6C

anad

a4,

088

Can

ada

4,45

5C

anad

a4,

902

swed

en4,

870

Can

ada

5,15

1sw

eden

4,84

8C

anad

a23

,102

sp

ain

39,9

68

Can

ada

2,83

5n

orw

ay3,

218

saud

iara

bia

3,06

4sw

eden

3,09

0sw

eden

3,82

3sp

ain

3,69

8sw

eden

4,27

0sa

udia

rabi

a4,

880

nor

way

4,50

6n

orw

ay4,

563

nor

way

4,17

8sw

eden

22,3

12

swed

en37

,912

n

orw

ay2,

803

swed

en3,

126

swed

en2,

840

italy

2,78

3n

orw

ay3,

656

nor

way

3,51

3n

orw

ay3,

938

swed

en4,

533

Can

ada

4,50

6sw

eden

4,53

3au

stra

lia4,

034

nor

way

20,2

92

nor

way

36,5

52

swed

en2,

721

spai

n2,

803

spai

n2,

612

spai

n2,

731

spai

n2,

822

aust

ralia

2,60

2ita

ly3,

457

nor

way

3,77

2au

stra

lia3,

411

aust

ralia

3,81

9sp

ain

3,97

0au

stra

lia15

,858

ita

ly30

,138

sp

ain

2,60

2ita

ly2,

778

italy

2,45

3d

enm

ark

2,48

9d

enm

ark

2,49

7d

enm

ark

2,47

4au

stra

lia2,

894

italy

3,73

6sa

udia

rabi

a3,

163

saud

iara

bia

3,48

0ita

ly3,

445

saud

iara

bia

15,3

76

aust

ralia

27,2

58

aust

ralia

2,14

3d

enm

ark

2,69

4d

enm

ark

2,41

9au

stra

lia2,

296

aust

ralia

2,43

6ita

ly2,

312

den

mar

k2,

545

aust

ralia

3,13

2ita

ly2,

982

den

mar

k2,

824

den

mar

k2,

802

italy

15,2

54

den

mar

k26

,199

sw

itzer

land

1,61

1au

stra

lia2,

253

aust

ralia

2,27

0sa

udia

rabi

a2,

033

switz

erla

nd1,

986

saud

iara

bia

2,25

6u

ae2,

499

den

mar

k2,

583

den

mar

k2,

729

italy

2,76

7sw

itzer

land

2,53

9d

enm

ark

13,1

55

saud

iara

bia

25,5

87

bel

gium

1,44

9sw

itzer

land

1,53

0sw

itzer

land

1,76

1sw

itzer

land

1,97

0b

elgi

um1,

751

switz

erla

nd1,

959

switz

erla

nd1,

915

bel

gium

2,1

61

bel

gium

2,42

6b

elgi

um2,

452

bel

gium

2,48

1b

elgi

um10

,629

sw

itzer

land

19,2

79

uae

742

bel

gium

1,50

0b

elgi

um1,

487

bel

gium

1,50

9sa

udia

rabi

a1,

172

bel

gium

1,79

3b

elgi

um1,

797

switz

erla

nd2,

044

switz

erla

nd2,

234

switz

erla

nd2,

270

turk

ey1,

337

switz

erla

nd10

,420

b

elgi

um18

,325

au

stri

a66

5u

ae81

8u

ae1,

187

Finl

and

760

Finl

and

868

irel

and

998

saud

iara

bia

1,59

8u

ae1,

241

Finl

and

1,23

2Fi

nlan

d1,

333

Finl

and

1,27

5u

ae5,

865

uae

9,76

2Fi

nlan

d63

1Fi

nlan

d70

6Fi

nlan

d71

6au

stri

a69

0tu

rkey

782

Finl

and

946

irel

and

1,05

5ir

elan

d1,

141

aust

ria

1,04

7k

orea

1,17

1k

orea

1,24

2Fi

nlan

d5,

593

Finl

and

9,27

4p

ortu

gal

452

irel

and

582

aust

ria

616

irel

and

640

aust

ria

775

uae

872

Finl

and

991

Finl

and

1,09

1ir

elan

d93

3au

stri

a1,

053

aust

ria

995

irel

and

5,02

3au

stri

a8,

066

fiG

uR

e 5:

to

p 2

0 d

on

oR

s o

f o

ffic

iAl

deV

elo

pm

ent

Ass

istA

nc

e (o

dA

), (u

s$ m

illi

on

, co

nst

An

t 20

10 p

Ric

es)

sour

ce:d

evel

opm

enti

nitia

tives

bas

edo

no

eCd

daC

.*d

ata

for

2011

isp

relim

inar

y

99

biG

Ges

t d

on

oR

s in

201

0 (u

s$m

)m

ost

Gen

eRo

us

co

un

tRie

s in

201

0 (%

Gn

i)m

ost

Gen

eRo

us

co

un

tRie

s in

201

0 (u

s$ p

eR c

itiZ

en)

mo

st p

Rio

Rit

Y to

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

Wit

Hin

o

VeR

All

Aid

pR

oG

RA

mm

es in

201

0 (%

od

A)

1u

nite

dst

ates

4,8

71

swed

en0.

15%

luxe

mbo

urg

109

uae

27.6

%

2eu

inst

itutio

ns1

,658

lu

xem

bour

g0.

14%

nor

way

97u

nite

dst

ates

16.1

%

3u

nite

dk

ingd

om9

43

Gam

bia

0.13

%sw

eden

74sw

eden

15.2

%

4G

erm

any

744

n

orw

ay0.

11%

den

mar

k47

irel

and

14.3

%

5sw

eden

690

d

enm

ark

0.08

%Fi

nlan

d31

luxe

mbo

urg

13.3

%

6Ja

pan

642

ir

elan

d0.

07%

irel

and

28eu

inst

itutio

ns13

.1%

7C

anad

a5

50

Finl

and

0.07

%sw

itzer

land

28Fi

nlan

d12

.5%

8sp

ain

496

sa

udia

rabi

a0.

06%

net

herl

ands

28C

anad

a10

.7%

9n

orw

ay4

70

net

herl

ands

0.06

%u

ae24

nor

way

10.3

%

10n

ethe

rlan

ds4

59

bel

gium

0.05

%m

onac

o23

italy

10.2

%

11Fr

ance

435

G

uyan

a0.

05%

bel

gium

21au

stra

lia10

.2%

12au

stra

lia3

90

uni

ted

kin

gdom

0.04

%li

echt

enst

ein

19sw

itzer

land

9.3%

13ita

ly2

83

uae

0.04

%au

stra

lia18

bel

gium

9.3%

14d

enm

ark

259

sw

itzer

land

0.04

%C

anad

a16

den

mar

k9.

2%

15sa

udia

rabi

a2

56

spai

n0.

04%

uni

ted

stat

es15

new

Zea

land

9.0%

16b

elgi

um2

27

Can

ada

0.04

%u

nite

dk

ingd

om15

spai

n8.

8%

17sw

itzer

land

211

u

nite

dst

ates

0.03

%sp

ain

11b

razi

l8.

0%

18Fi

nlan

d1

67

aust

ralia

0.03

%sa

udia

rabi

a10

net

herl

ands

7.8%

19ir

elan

d1

28

new

Zea

land

0.02

%G

erm

any

9G

reec

e7.

8%

20u

ae1

14

Ger

man

y0.

02%

aust

ria

8es

toni

a7.

5%

21au

stri

a6

5d

rC

0.02

%n

ewZ

eala

nd7

uni

ted

kin

gdom

7.3%

22tu

rkey

61

tim

or-l

este

0.02

%Fr

ance

7au

stri

a6.

2%

23lu

xem

bour

g5

4k

azak

hsta

n0.

02%

bah

rain

6Ja

pan

5.9%

24r

ussi

anF

eder

atio

n4

0eq

uato

rial

Gui

nea

0.02

%Ja

pan

5G

erm

any

5.8%

25G

reec

e3

9au

stri

a0.

02%

italy

5k

uwai

t5.

0%

26C

hina

38

Fran

ce0.

02%

Gre

ece

4r

ussi

anF

eder

atio

n4.

1%

27in

dia

37

sain

tluc

ia0.

02%

bri

tish

virg

inis

land

s(u

nite

dk

ingd

om)

3Fr

ance

3.8%

28n

ewZ

eala

nd3

1sa

intv

ince

nta

ndth

eG

rena

dine

s0.

01%

kuw

ait

3p

ortu

gal

3.8%

29b

razi

l2

9ita

ly0.

01%

ando

rra

3sa

udia

rabi

a2.

6%

30k

azak

hsta

n2

5G

rena

da0.

01%

san

mar

ino

3li

echt

enst

ein

2.5%

fiG

uR

e 6:

tH

e 30

lA

RG

est

Go

VeR

nm

ent

co

ntR

ibu

toR

s o

f H

um

An

itA

RiA

n A

id in

201

0

not

es:G

nid

ata

for

oeC

dd

aCm

embe

rsis

bas

edo

nda

tac

olle

cted

by

the

oeC

dd

aC(i

nco

nsta

nt2

010

pric

es);

Gn

idat

afo

rdo

nors

who

are

not

mem

bers

oft

heo

eCd

daC

isb

ased

on

wor

ldb

ank

data

(cur

rent

pri

ces)

.od

afo

rdo

nors

w

hoa

ren

otm

embe

rso

fthe

oeC

dis

incl

usiv

eof

deb

trel

ief,

and

for

Chi

naa

ndb

razi

lis

base

don

dat

afo

ro

da-

like

conc

essi

onal

flow

sco

llect

edb

yth

eo

eCd

daC

;dat

afo

rb

razi

lis

base

don

the

late

sta

vaila

ble

year

,200

9.

sour

ce:d

evel

opm

enti

nitia

tives

bas

edo

no

eCd

daC

,un

oC

ha

Fts,

wor

ldb

ank

and

uni

ted

nat

ions

dep

artm

ento

feco

nom

ica

nds

ocia

laffa

irs

(un

des

a)

100

do

mes

tic

flo

Ws

off

iciA

l in

teR

nAt

ion

Al

flo

Ws

pR

iVAt

e fl

oW

s

Rec

ipie

nt

Go

VeR

nm

ent

ReV

enu

es

(eXc

lud

inG

GR

An

ts)

mu

ltil

AteR

Al

peA

cek

eep

inG

otH

eR o

ffic

iAl

flo

Ws

no

n-H

um

An

itA

RiA

n

od

Ain

teR

nAt

ion

Al

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

A

ssis

tAn

ce

Rem

ittA

nc

esfo

Rei

Gn

diR

ect

inVe

stm

ent

suda

n1

2,40

62,

746

86

1,1

35

909

3,

178

1600

pal

estin

e/o

pt

no

data

1

41

91

,899

6

18

1,3

07

115

afgh

anis

tan

3,3

56

770

8

85

,779

6

05

no

data

76

ethi

opia

5,5

30

-

174

2

,882

6

39

387

1

84

iraq

68,

729

193

-

1

,965

1

85

no

data

1

,426

pak

ista

n3

5,83

0-

7

32

1,5

39

2,0

65

9,4

07

2,0

16

hai

ti1

,811

6

12

-

1,3

15

3,0

65

1,4

99

150

dr

C4

,180

1

,390

1

31

,568

4

56

no

data

2

,939

som

alia

no

data

1

60

-

258

2

39

no

data

1

12

indo

nesi

a1

29,1

17

-

5,3

89

1,2

76

113

7

,139

1

3,30

4

ken

ya1

0,39

7-

1

09

1,3

40

290

1

,758

1

33

sril

anka

11,

319

-

231

3

77

205

3

,612

4

78

leba

non

11,

279

519

1

01

325

1

22

8,1

77

4,9

55

Zim

babw

e2

,224

-

2

5

32

199

n

oda

ta

105

uga

nda

3,3

86

-

105

1

,641

8

27

73

848

Cha

d2

,607

2

15

44

214

2

78

no

data

7

81

Jord

an7

,989

-

4

78

784

1

70

3,7

89

1,7

04

ango

la2

9,03

3-

6

82

28

1

82

9,9

42

bur

undi

814

-

-

5

65

61

3

14

mya

nmar

5,0

68

-

2

251

1

02

154

7

56

not

e:a

sm

allp

ropo

rtio

nof

inte

rnat

iona

lhum

anita

rian

aid

isfr

omp

riva

tes

ourc

es.r

emitt

ance

dat

afo

ran

gola

isb

ased

on

2008

val

ues.

sou

rce:

dev

elop

men

tini

tiativ

esb

ased

on

oeC

dd

aC,u

no

Ch

aFt

s,w

orld

ban

k,im

F,

sip

ria

ndu

nC

tad

dat

a

fiG

uR

e 7:

Hu

mA

nit

AR

iAn

Aid

to

cR

isis

-Aff

ecte

d c

ou

ntR

ies

in c

on

teXt

Wit

H o

tHeR

off

iciA

l A

nd

pR

iVAt

e fl

oW

s in

201

0 (u

s$ m

illi

on

)

101

aCknowledGements

thankyou

theGlobalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)teamwouldliketothankthemanypeoplewhohavebeeninvolvedinhelpingusputGhareport2012together:ourcolleaguesatdevelopmentinitiatives;dianebroadleyofbroadleydesignanddavidrobinsonofhype&slippersfortheircreativityandcommitment;davidwilsonforproofreadingthereport;Jonlewisatessentialprintmanagementforhisroleinproduction;andtonkoene,dFid,thepressassociation,iCrCandFaoforprovidingthephotographs;kristenknutsonandJeffreyvillavecesatunoCha,matthobsonattheworldbank,ricardorubioatmsFinternationalandoliviervanbunnenattheiFrCfortheirpatientexplanationsandforprovidinguswithdataandinformation.

wewouldliketothanktheprogramme’sfundersfortheirsupport:theinternationalhumanitarianassistancedirectorate(iha)oftheCanadianinternationaldevelopmentagency(Cida);thedepartmentforhumanitarianassistanceandnGoCooperation,ministryofForeignaffairs,denmark;thehumanitarianaiddivisionoftheministryofForeignaffairs,thenetherlands;theswedishinternationaldevelopmentCooperationagency(sida),sweden;andthedepartmentforinternationaldevelopment(dFid),theunitedkingdom.

theGhareport2012wasauthoredbylydiapoole(Ghaprogrammeleader).lisawalmsley(headofinformationservices)ledoninformationdesignandeditorialproduction.Ghateammembersprovidedsubstantialdataanalysisandresearch:danielemalerba,dansparks,hannahsweeney,kerrysmithandvelinastoianova.andreadelgadoandChloestirkcontributedadditionalresearchassistance.Georginabreretoncoordinatedproduction.editorialguidancewasprovidedbyexecutivedirector,Judithrandelanddirectorofresearch,analysisandevidence,danCoppard.

102

developmentinitiativesisanindependentorganisationthatseesimprovingaideffectivenessaspartofitscommitmenttotheeliminationofabsolutepovertyby2025.Globalhumanitarianassistance(Gha)isadataaccessandtransparencyprogrammeofdevelopmentinitiativeswhichanalysesresourceflowstopeoplelivinginhumanitariancrises,andresearchesandpublishesannualGhareports.theprogrammeisfundedbythegovernmentsofCanada,denmark,netherlands,swedenandtheunitedkingdom.thereportisproducedentirelyindependently.thedataanalysis,contentandpresentationaresolelytheworkofdevelopmentinitiativesandarearepresentationofitsopinionsalone.

Forfurtherdetailsonthecontentofthisreportincludingcommunicationwithitsauthors,ortoaskquestionsorprovidecomments,pleasecontactusbyemail(gha@devinit.org)orvisitourwebsiteatwww.globalhumanitarianassistance.org

developmentinitiatives,kewardCourtJocelyndrive,wells,somerset,ba51db,uk

t:+44(0)1749671343F:+44(0)1749676721

Ghareport2012usesthelatestdatatopresentthemostcomprehensiveassessmentoftheinternationalhumanitarianfinancingresponse.thereportconsidershowthisresponsehasmeasureduptothescaleofglobalhumanitariancrisesandreflectsonthetimeliness,proportionality,andphasingofinvestments.Chaptersonhumanitarianfunding(thedonors,recipientsandchannelsofdelivery),theforceswhichshapehumanitarianneed,andtheinvestmentsneededtotacklevulnerability,revealthecomplexityofhumanitarianresponse.inaworldwherecrisisseemsincreasinglylikelytobethenorm,buildingresiliencetoshockanddisasterriskiskey.transparentandreliableinformation,asprovidedbyGhareport2012,isessentialforallthoseworkingtoaddresshumanitariancrisisandvulnerability.

www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org