Tendances(discours)
Les évolutions humanitairesConférence Nationale Humanitaire Paris, Novembre, 2011
Observations(discours)
France(chiffres)
Overall, humanitarian aid is rising ...
International humanitarian response, 2006-2010e
... and more donors are participating
Saudi ArabiaBrazil
Two largest donors to Haiti Emergency Response Fund (ERF), 2010
8 out of 10Largest government donors to the Haiti
ERF were not members of the OECD DAC
Some financing aspects of humanitarian reform are bearing fruit ...
129Governments outside the OECD DACD
contributing to the international response in 2010
89 in 2009
93 in 2008
71 in 2007
100 in 2005
...allowing non-OECD DAC governments (as well as private donors) increased visibility and
opportunities to participate
At the same time, demand is also rising ...
Funding requirements for UN consolidated appeals process (CAP) appeals, 2000-2010
... and so are costs
Supply(Humanitarian expenditure)
Escalating costsBudgetary constraints
Demand(Humanitarian need)
Escalating vulnerabilityIncreased demand
Food and energy price index, 1990-2010
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
... which types of emergencies will be funded ...
UN CAP appeals: requirements by type of emergency, 2000-2010
... or how donors will prioritise (declining?) aid budgets ...
Changes in bilateral humanitarian aid, 2007-2010 (does not include multilateral ODA contributions to UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP)
US$m changes in bilateral humanitarian expenditure
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Australia 86.5 -12.2 -70.4 134.7 23.4 -42.5 Austria 23.2 -11.7 -4.1 27.7 -6.8 -12.9 Belgium 7.1 21.7 -4.3 27.1 -6.2 52.1 Canada 39.1 51.2 22.8 66.9 -8.6 129.2 Denmark 176.7 -10.7 -29.9 16.0 -33.7 -50.6 Finland 48.5 -6.5 27.6 -23.0 16.3 -4.4 France 10.1 22.3 -19.2 -14.4 16.3 16.5 Germany 145.4 42.2 -123.2 6.2 72.8 -32.9 Greece 8.0 1.8 -9.5 3.3 -1.6 -9.6 Ireland 30.0 21.4 90.6 -18.1 -67.5 -4.6 Italy -11.9 6.6 0.3 28.3 -3.2 -68.0 Japan -125.4 -378.1 -104.3 163.9 -20.1 275.2 Korea 10.6 -3.5 -6.6 8.2 -4.6 -2.6 Luxembourg -9.1 23.4 -12.2 0.3 5.8 9.6 Netherlands 216.9 -26.5 -106.1 36.3 -83.8 -72.7 New Zealand 34.8 -30.1 3.2 -1.8 -8.6 3.1 Norway 209.2 -102.0 38.5 -35.3 -43.5 67.7 Portugal -6.7 -7.1 -7.5 0.4 -0.0 -0.6 Spain 42.5 20.3 73.9 182.3 25.7 -64.5 Sweden 62.0 26.7 -21.2 38.4 36.5 -10.6 Switzerland 49.2 -21.6 -17.0 -28.8 -9.3 2.2 United Kingdom 94.6 163.4 -338.3 160.4 145.5 -8.8 United States 906.0 -510.4 -120.5 1,333.8 -45.0 430.5 EU Institutions 225.8 193.5 -27.7 295.9 -345.8 83.6 Total 2,273.0 -525.7 -765.0 2,408.6 -346.1 684.5
1 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go up
2 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go down
3. Humanitarian aid rises but other aid falls
4. Humanitarian aid goes down but other aid rises
Donors will be looking at ‘best bang per buck’
What should the donor fund in each crisis?
How?Where would the donor’s
investment add the greatest value?
Which countries are at the greatest risk of humanitarian crisis?
Who will be most affected by their choices?
Concentration of funding in top 3 and top 20 recipients, 2000-2009
Tendances(discours)
Observations(discours)
France(chiffres)
It goes beyond immediate life-saving ...
Addressing long-term systemic issues
Increasing resilience and reducing poverty
Life-saving
Reducing risk
Protecting development gains Food, shelter, water, basic
health, reconstruction, disaster preparedness
... and responds to different types of emergency ...
Conflict/post-conflict65% of humanitarian aid, 2009
Natural disastersLife-savingfood, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation
ReconstructionDisaster
preparedness
Complex emergencies70% to long-term affected, 2009
Basic services food, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation
... in very different contexts
Africa 46%
Asia 24%
Conflict, post-conflict and security.Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008-2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Consequences of Arab Spring?
Americas 5%
Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC
Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. High concentrations of people living in poverty. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia
Middle East 20%
Prone to natural disasters
International humanitarian response, 2000-2009. Remaining 5%: Europe and Oceania
Vulnerable to risk, food/livelihood insecure
But the people affected share very similar profiles
Africa 46%
Asia 24%
Conflict, post-conflict and security.Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008-2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Consequences of Arab Spring?
Americas 5%
Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC
Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. High concentrations of people living in poverty. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia
Middle East 20%
Prone to natural disasters
We have different means and policies at our disposal ...
Poverty
FoodShelter
Aid Illicit flows
Climate change
Tax revenues
Military
Data
Analysis
Engagement
Local resources
Emergency response
Information
Remittances
Immigration
Economic growth
Trade
Basic healthWater/sanitation
Security Economic injustice
Social injusticeInformation
Basic education
Intellectual property regs
1. Consider the relationship between crises and poverty
2. Consider the capacity of people – and their governments – to respond
3. Consider current response to crises4. Consider the many types of resources
and policies that could be used to both respond to and mitigate risk
5. Consider why it’s important to be clear and transparent about funding flows (How much? What are they for? Where have they come from? Where are they going? With what impact?)
6. Consider the impact of better information to inform better decisions and assess impact; to engage; and to act as a catalyst for change
Evidence & accountability
TransparencyFunds – Plans – Decisions - Strategy
Complementarity -CoordinationDifferentiation– Division of labour
Engagement & partnershipsFunds – Experience
Comparative advantageFunds – Partners - Strategies
Information
Communication
Technology
... and potential to use info, comms and technology ...
... 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
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.
Tendances(discours)
Observations(discours)
France(chiffres)
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20082009
2010prelim
050
100150200250300350400450500
236.7
303.1294.1279.7
360.3
423.8464.2
390.7438.8
405.8373.8
Total official humanitarian aid from France
Spent from multilateral ODA to EU (imputed)Multilateral ODA to UN-HCR, UNRWA, WFP (OECD DAC)Bilateral official humanitar-ian aid (OECD DAC)
US$ million (constant 2
009)
France 5yr 10yr 5yr rank 10yr rank2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010prelim 2005-2009 2000-2009 2005-2009 2000-2009
Bilateral official humanitarian aid (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 to EU (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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Top 5 government donors of humanitarian aid
Netherlands (5)
Germany (4)
United Kingdom (3)
EU institutions (2)
United States (1)
Total from OECD DAC governments
Total from all governments
France (9)
US$
billi
on (c
onst
ant 2
009
pric
es)
Bilateral from France2008
Total from france2008
Bilateral from France2009
Total from France2009
Myanmar 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
0.8Cote d'Ivoire
14.3Sudan
1.0Jordan
12.3Cote d'Ivoire 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
Sudan
Palesti
ne/OPT
Ethiopia
Afghan
istan Ira
q
Congo, D
em. R
ep.
Somali
a
Indonesia
Pakist
an
Leban
on0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%
Total official humanitarian aid
OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France
Sudan
Ethiopia
Afghan
istan Ira
q
Congo, D
em. R
ep.
Palesti
nian Adm. A
reas
Indonesia
Somali
a
Pakist
an
Sri La
nka0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Bilateral official humanitarian aid
OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France
Sudan
Ethiopia
Afghan
istan Ira
q
Congo, D
em. R
ep.
Palesti
nian Adm. A
reas
Indonesia
Somali
a
Pakist
an
Sri La
nka0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Bilateral official humanitarian aid
OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France
Sudan
Ethiopia
Afghan
istan Ira
q
Congo, D
em. R
ep.
Palesti
nian Adm. A
reas
Indonesia
Somali
a
Pakist
an
Sri La
nka0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Bilateral official humanitarian aid
OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions UK
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
France
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
European Institutions
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
United Kingdom Disaster prevention and preparedness
Emergency food aid
Emergency/distress relief
Reconstruction relief
Relief co-ordination; protec-tion and support services
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
United States Disaster prevention and preparedness
Emergency food aid
Emergency/distress relief
Reconstruction relief
Relief co-ordination; protec-tion and support services
France
Spain
UK
EU
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
Total official humanitarian aid
EUMultilateral organisations NGOs and CSOsOther Public sectorPublic-Private Partnerships (PPP)Red Cross Movement
Un plaidoyer...
Better coding et reporting SVP!
2006200720082009
5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95%2006 2007 2008 2009
Public sec-tor
36.21370602 83.59976755 17.80988704 24.52477761
NGOs & Civil Soci-ety
NaN 0.362817730000001
1.07827384 3.01501566
Multilat-eral Or-ganisa-tions
1.78807256 NaN NaN 2.2164044
Other/not coded
0 15.10830522 3.76419899 10.99037859
Bilateral official humanitarian aid
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%
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 464.2 390.7 438.8 405.8 373.8
Spain 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 372.4 393.9 613.8 632.2 500.9
Norway 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 386.9 425.2 393.1 374.7 339.0
Sweden 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 502.1 479.3 539.0 573.1 393.4
UK 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
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Number of appeals in year 14 18 24 27 31 25 24 30 23 23 19 258
Number of consolidated appeals in year 14 18 24 25 22 15 17 15 13 15 15 193
Number 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 Total
France's 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
% France's 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 Total
UK's 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
% UK's 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
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
France’s contributions to UN appeals (inside and outside) by channel
UN agencies
Red Cross
Private sector
Other/not defined
NGOs
Foundations
ERF
CERF
Public sector (governments)
Academia/think thanks/research organisations
Our aim is to provide access to reliable, transparent and understandable information so that we can all work to ensure better outcomes for people affected by humanitarian crises.
Global Humanitarian Assistance is a Development Initiatives programme, funded by the governments of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom
Humanitarian financing. Clarity Counts.
Name: Lisa Walmsley
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +44 (0)1749 671343
Web: globalhumanitarianassistance.org
Global Humanitarian Assistance, Development Initiatives, Keward Court, Jocelyn Drive, Wells, Somerset, BA5 1DB, UK
Helpdesk
ReportsCountry profilesData&Guides
Top Related