Les évolutions humanitaires

of 35/35
Tendances (discours) Les évolutions humanitaires Conférence Nationale Humanitaire Paris, Novembre, 2011 Observations (discours) France (chiffres)

Embed Size (px)

description

Preparée dans le cadre de la Conférence nationale humanitaire (CNH) du MAEE, Paris le 16 novembre 2011, ces diapositves et notes présente un sommaire des tendances flux financiers en faveur des crises humanitaires: comment se situe la France par rapport aux autres états en termes de volumes financiers pour l'aide humanitaire (mis en perspective avec l'aide au développement); évolutions de ces dernières années; comparaisons avec les pays membres de l'OCDE et les "nouveaux" donateurs (pays du Golfe notamment); les principaux pays récipiendaires (et comparaison avec autres états); les principaux partenaires (ONU/ONG/CR...); les évolutions de ces dernières années en termes de financements humanitaires (financement du DRR, post-crise). Prepared for France's National Humanitarian Conference, organised and hosted by the Crisis Centre at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris 16 November 2011, these slides and notes attempt to present a summary of the main financial trends in humanitarian financing. A technical annex has been uploaded separately.

Transcript of Les évolutions humanitaires

  • 1. Tendances (discours)Observations (discours) France (chiffres) Les volutions humanitaires Confrence Nationale Humanitaire Paris, Novembre, 2011
  • 2. Overall, humanitarian aid is rising ... International humanitarian response, 2006-2010e
  • 3. ... and more donors are participating Saudi Arabia 129 Governments outside the OECD DACD contributing to the international response in 2010 Brazil 89 in 2009 Two largest donors to Haiti Emergency Response Fund (ERF), 2010 93 in 2008 8 out of 10 71 in 2007 100 in 2005Largest government donors to the Haiti ERF were not members of the OECD DAC Some financing aspects of humanitarian ...allowing non-OECD DAC governments (as well reform are bearing fruit ... as private donors) increased visibility and opportunities to participate
  • 4. At the same time, demand is also rising ...Funding requirements for UN consolidated appeals process (CAP) appeals, 2000-2010
  • 5. ... and so are costs Supply Food and energy price index, 1990-2010 Demand (Humanitarian expenditure) (Humanitarian need) Escalating costs Escalating vulnerabilityBudgetary constraints Increased demand
  • 6. We do not know if/how levels of giving will be sustained Humanitarian aid from non-OECD DAC members can be volatile and made in response to headline disasters and/or where there is a humanitarian financing mechanism in place
  • 7. ... which types of emergencies will be funded ... UN CAP appeals: requirements by type of emergency, 2000-2010
  • 8. ... or how donors will prioritise (declining?) aid budgets ... US$m changes in bilateral humanitarian expenditure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20101 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go up Australia 86.5 -12.2 -70.4 134.7 23.4 -42.5 Austria 23.2 -11.7 -4.1 27.7 -6.8 -12.92 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go down Belgium 7.1 21.7 -4.3 27.1 -6.2 52.1 Canada 39.1 51.2 22.8 66.9 -8.6 129.23. Humanitarian aid rises but other aid falls Denmark 176.7 -10.7 -29.9 16.0 -33.7 -50.6 Finland 48.5 -6.5 27.6 -23.0 16.3 -4.4 France 10.1 22.3 -19.2 -14.4 16.3 16.54. Humanitarian aid goes down but other aid rises 145.4 42.2 -123.2 6.2 72.8 -32.9 Germany Greece 8.0 1.8 -9.5 3.3 -1.6 -9.6 Ireland 30.0 21.4 90.6 -18.1 -67.5 -4.6 Italy -11.9 6.6 0.3 28.3 -3.2 -68.0 Japan -125.4 -378.1 -104.3 163.9 -20.1 275.2 Korea 10.6 -3.5 -6.6 8.2 -4.6 -2.6 Luxembourg -9.1 23.4 -12.2 0.3 5.8 9.6 Netherlands 216.9 -26.5 -106.1 36.3 -83.8 -72.7 New Zealand 34.8 -30.1 3.2 -1.8 -8.6 3.1 Norway 209.2 -102.0 38.5 -35.3 -43.5 67.7 Portugal -6.7 -7.1 -7.5 0.4 -0.0 -0.6 Spain 42.5 20.3 73.9 182.3 25.7 -64.5 Sweden 62.0 26.7 -21.2 38.4 36.5 -10.6 Switzerland 49.2 -21.6 -17.0 -28.8 -9.3 2.2 United Kingdom 94.6 163.4 -338.3 160.4 145.5 -8.8 United States 906.0 -510.4 -120.5 1,333.8 -45.0 430.5 EU Institutions 225.8 193.5 -27.7 295.9 -345.8 83.6 Total 2,273.0 -525.7 -765.0 2,408.6 -346.1 684.5 Changes in bilateral humanitarian aid, 2007-2010 (does not include multilateral ODA contributions to UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP)
  • 9. Donors will be looking at best bang per buck What should the donor fund in each crisis? How? Where would the donors investment add the greatest value? Which countries are at the greatest risk of humanitarian crisis?
  • 10. Who will be most affected by their choices? Concentration of funding in top 3 and top 20 recipients, 2000-2009
  • 11. Tendances (discours)Observations (discours) France (chiffres)
  • 12. It goes beyond immediate life- saving ... Addressing long-term systemic issuesProtectingdevelopment gains Life-saving Increasing resilience and reducing poverty Food, shelter, water, basic health, reconstruction, disaster preparedness Reducing risk
  • 13. ... and responds to different types of emergency ...Conflict/post-conflict Life-saving Natural disasters65% of humanitarian aid, 2009 food, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation Reconstruction Disaster preparedness Complex emergencies 70% to long-term affected, 2009 Basic services food, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation
  • 14. ... in very different contexts Africa 46% Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC Middle East 20% Asia 24% Conflict, post-conflict and security. Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008- High concentrations of people living in poverty. 2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia Consequences of Arab Spring? Americas 5% Prone to natural disasters International humanitarian response, 2000-2009. Remaining 5%: Europe and Oceania
  • 15. But the people affected share very similar profiles Africa 46% Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC Middle East 20% Asia 24% Conflict, post-conflict and security. Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008- High concentrations of people living in poverty. 2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia Consequences of Arab Spring? Americas 5% Vulnerable to risk, food/livelihood insecure Prone to natural disasters
  • 16. We have different means and policies at our disposal ... Military Climate change Data 1. Consider the relationship between Trade Food crises and poverty Shelter Analysis 2. Consider the capacity of people and Tax revenues their governments to respond Basic education Basic health Economic growth Water/sanitation Poverty 3. Consider current response to crises 4. Consider the many types of resourcesInformation Local resources Security and policies that could be used to Economic injustice both respond to and mitigate risk Remittances Social injustice 5. Consider why its important to be Information clear and transparent about funding Immigration flows (How much? What are they for? Emergency response Where have they come from? Where Aid Engagement Illicit flows are they going? With what impact?) Intellectual property regs 6. Consider the impact of better information to inform better decisions and assess impact; to engage; and to act as a catalyst for change
  • 17. ... and potential to use info, comms and technology ... Engagement & partnerships Funds ExperienceComplementarity -Coordination Information Comparative advantage Differentiation Division of labour Funds Partners - Strategies Communication Technology Transparency Funds Plans Decisions - Strategy Evidence & accountability
  • 18. ... to help make progress on tackling vulnerability to risk Investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR) Stronger links between humanitarian and development assistance Coherence with domestic government actions
  • 19. Underpinned by better data and transparency! Timeliness: Data on aid financing and poverty, risk and crisis is largely outdated by the time of publication. Accuracy: Much of the data relating to poverty, risk and crisis is expressed at national level and obscures pockets of elevated exclusion and risk. There are often data omissions in some of the most severely affected countries. Severity and scale: It is still difficult to gauge the number of people affected by humanitarian crises. This is a significant barrier to assessing scale and proportionate response. Comparability and comprehensiveness: Not all contributions to humanitarian aid (some of them difficult to quantify) are routinely captured. Most notable omissions: domestic and military response.
  • 20. Tendances (discours)Observations (discours) France (chiffres)
  • 21. Total official humanitarian aid from France 500 464.2 423.8 438.8 450 US$ million (constant 2009) 390.7 405.8 373.8 400 360.3 350 303.1 Spent from multilateral 294.1 279.7 300 ODA to EU (imputed) 236.7 250 200 Multilateral ODA to 150 UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP 100 (OECD DAC) 50 Bilateral official 0 humanitarian aid (OECD DAC)France 5yr 10yr 5yr rank 10yr rank 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010prelim 2005-2009 2000-2009 2005-2009 2000-2009Bilateral official humanitarianaid (OECD DAC) 21.4 15.6 18.1 43.2 23.7 33.9 56.2 37.0 22.7 39.0 55.4 188.7 310.7 20th 20thMultilateral ODA to UNHCR,UNRWA, WFP (OECD DAC) 20.3 24.9 23.4 19.1 27.6 15.9 34.8 36.4 34.2 29.9 151.4 266.6 11th 13thSpent from multilateral ODA toEU (imputed) 195.1 262.6 252.6 217.4 308.9 374.0 373.1 317.3 381.9 336.9 318.4 1783.1 3019.8 2nd 2ndGHA (total official) 236.7 303.1 294.1 279.7 360.3 423.8 464.2 390.7 438.8 405.8 373.8 2123.2 3597.2 8th 9th
  • 22. 14 Top 5 government donors of humanitarian aidUS$ billion (constant 2009 prices) 12 Netherlands (5) 10 Germany (4) 8 United Kingdom (3) 6 EU institutions (2) 4 United States (1) Total from OECD DAC 2 governments Total from all governments 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 France (9)
  • 23. 2008 2008 2009 2009 Bilateral from France Total from france Bilateral from France Total from FranceMyanmar 3.2Palestinian Adm. Areas 66.4Palestinian Adm. Areas 5.6Palestinian Adm. Areas 70.9China 1.7Sudan 46.8Pakistan 2.8Sudan 36.9Chad 1.6Afghanistan 44.4Afghanistan 2.1Lebanon 16.9Djibouti 1.5Somalia 22.7Chad 1.9Indonesia 16.5Afghanistan 1.4Lebanon 19.1Mexico 1.8Afghanistan 16.2Georgia 1.2Sri Lanka 16.7Djibouti 1.6Pakistan 15.5Haiti 1.0Haiti 15.1Guinea 1.5Georgia 15.3Sudan 1.0Congo, Dem. Rep. 14.8Sri Lanka 1.5Somalia 15.1Niger 0.8Jordan 14.5Indonesia 1.3Congo, Dem. Rep. 14.7Palestinian Adm. Areas Cote dIvoire Sudan Jordan 0.8 14.3 1.0 12.3Cote dIvoire 0.7Ethiopia 12.8Yemen 0.8Chad 12.2Central African Rep. 0.6Uganda 11.0Niger 0.8Kenya 10.6Madagascar 0.6Chad 10.4Syria 0.7Ethiopia 8.5Kenya 0.5Kenya 10.0Iraq 0.6Uganda 7.8Iraq 0.5Myanmar 9.9Senegal 0.5Zimbabwe 7.8Lebanon 0.4Bangladesh 9.6Burkina Faso 0.5Syria 7.7Serbia 0.4Georgia 8.8Zimbabwe 0.5Haiti 7.7Burkina Faso 0.3Syria 8.4Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.5Myanmar 7.6Zimbabwe 0.3Liberia 5.5Central African Rep. 0.4Bangladesh 7.4Timor-Leste 0.3Pakistan 5.2Comoros 0.4Sri Lanka 6.5
  • 24. Bilateral official humanitarian aid30%25%20%15%10%5%0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France Total official humanitarian aid18%16%14%12%10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France
  • 25. Bilateral official humanitarian aid30%25%20%15%10%5%0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France Bilateral official humanitarian aid 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions UK
  • 26. France United Kingdom Disaster prevention a preparedness Emergency food aid Emergency/distress re Reconstruction relief Relief co-ordination; protection and suppor0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% services United States European Institutions Disaster prevention and preparedness Emergency food aid Emergency/distress relie Reconstruction relief Relief co-ordination; protection and support 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% services 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
  • 27. Total official humanitarian aid EU EU Multilateral organisations UK NGOs and CSOs Spain Other France Public sector Public-Private 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Partnerships (PPP) Bilateral official humanitarian aid Un 2008 plaidoyer... 2006 Better 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% coding et 2006 2007 2008 2009 reportingPublic sector 36.2 83.6 17.8 24.5 SVP!NGOs & Civil Society 0.4 1.1 3.0Multilateral Organisations 1.8 2.2Other/not coded 0.0 15.1 3.8 11.0
  • 28. ERF CHF 2009 2010 2009 2010UN 29.8% 45.7% 63.6% 58.3%International NGOs 53.4% 42.7% 34.0% 36.7%Local NGOs 16.1% 7.6% 1.8% 3.8%Other 0.7% 4.0% 0.6% 1.2%
  • 29. France 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CERF 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2%ERF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%Total official humanitarian aid 464.2 390.7 438.8 405.8 373.8Spain 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CERF 2.7% 5.3% 7.4% 7.0% 7.9%CHF 0.0% 3.8% 1.3% 2.4% 5.9%ERF 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 1.0%Total official humanitarian aid 372.4 393.9 613.8 632.2 500.9Norway 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CERF 7.8% 12.9% 14.1% 11.4% 19.3%CHF 4.4% 4.8% 5.9% 5.1% 7.1%ERF 0.4% 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.6%Total official humanitarian aid 386.9 425.2 393.1 374.7 339.0Sweden 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CERF 8.2% 10.7% 10.4% 8.6% 16.4%CHF 6.0% 7.2% 8.1% 6.6% 9.0%ERF 0.2% 1.9% 2.6% 3.6% 2.5%Total official humanitarian aid 502.1 479.3 539.0 573.1 393.4UK 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010CERF 6.6% 11.1% 9.0% 6.3% 6.3%CHF 13.5% 18.3% 15.4% 10.2% 11.2%ERF 1.2% 1.4% 4.1% 1.4% 1.8%Total official humanitarian aid 1053.5 752.6 895.4 1023.6 950.8
  • 30. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalNumber of appeals in year 14 18 24 27 31 25 24 30 23 23 19 258Number of consolidated appeals in year 14 18 24 25 22 15 17 15 13 15 15 193Number of flash appeals in year 0 0 0 2 9 10 7 15 10 8 4 65 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalFrances funding for UN CAP appeals 11.2 10.7 15.0 14.2 29.6 46.1 26.6 31.8 32.0 34.1 48.0 299.3% Frances total official humanitarian aid 4.7% 3.5% 5.1% 5.1% 8.2% 10.9% 5.7% 8.1% 7.3% 8.4% 12.8% 7.5%% total CAP funding 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7%Number of appeals supported by France 5 6 6 9 11 16 15 20 12 15 15 130 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalUKs funding for UN CAP appeals 21.9 20.9 142.0 196.0 212.2 237.5 274.3 262.4 370.3 305.8 322.3 2365.7% UKs total official humanitarian aid 3.2% 3.7% 19.8% 23.0% 27.5% 27.7% 26.0% 34.9% 41.4% 29.9% 33.9% 25.9%% total CAP funding 1.9% 1.5% 4.8% 5.0% 9.7% 5.9% 7.9% 5.1% 7.2% 4.4% 4.5%Number of appeals supported by UK 4 11 17 25 24 18 17 22 17 16 16 187
  • 31. Frances contributions to UN appeals (inside and outside) by channel100% UN agencies90% Red Cross80% Private sector70% Other/not defined60% NGOs50% Foundations40%30% ERF20% CERF10% Public sector (governments) 0% Academia/think thanks/research 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 organisations
  • 32. Humanitarian financing. Clarity Counts. Our aim is to provide access to reliable, transparent and understandable information so that we can all work to ensure better outcomes for people affected by humanitarian crises. Global Humanitarian Assistance is a Development Initiatives programme, funded by the governments of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom Name: Lisa Walmsley Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)1749 671343 Web: globalhumanitarianassistance.org Global Humanitarian Assistance, Development Initiatives, Keward Court, Jocelyn Drive, Wells, Somerset, BA5 1DB, UK
  • 33. Data&Guides Country profiles ReportsHelpdesk