GHA-Report-2010.pdf - Global Humanitarian Assistance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 1: GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMANITARIAN AID, 2000-2009 US$ BILLION DAC donors (DAC data) Non-DAC donors (FTS data) 4.6 2000 5.0 2001 4.9 2002 6.7 2003 7.4 2004 10.1 2005 9.3 2006 9.2 2007 Data for 2009 has been estimated based on preliminary partial data for DAC donors. Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC and UN OCHA FTS data DAC DONORS VOLUMES AND TRENDS Partial, preliminary data for 2009 indicates that humanitarian aid from DAC donors reached US$10.1 billion in 2009. Based on experience from previous years, we expect to see this rise to at least US$11 billion when full final data is released in December 2010. Only six DAC donors reported increases in humanitarian aid in 2009. Three of these increases amounted to under US$7 million each. Just over half of the US$693 million decline in humanitarian aid on the previous year (US$390 million) is due to lower volumes from the European Commission. Turning to the latest full set of available data, we see that humanitarian aid from DAC donors reached US$11.7 billion in 2008, some US$2.4 billion (or 26%) higher than in 2007. Several major donors increased their humanitarian expenditure in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Somalia. There was also increased funding to Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Kenya – subjects of a UN flash appeal, UN consolidated appeal and emergency plan respectively. Over half (US$1.3 billion) of the US$2.4 billion increase in 2008 came from the United States – driven by substantial increases in its disbursements to Afghanistan (up 12.8 2008 11.0 2009 (est) by US$123 million), Somalia (up by US$178 million) and, notably, Ethiopia (up by US$351 million). The next biggest increases in volume came from the European Commission (up by US$303 million, largely due to increased expenditure in Afghanistan) and Spain, which increased its humanitarian expenditure by US$226 million. The main spikes in expenditure over the last 10 years can be attributed to major crises – Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003/4 for example, or the Indian Ocean earthquake-tsunami and the South Asia earthquake in 2004/5. The ‘ratchet’ effect is also in evidence: a peak in spending, driven by a major emergency, followed by spending at higher levels than prepeak years. So although humanitarian aid fell back in 2006 and 2007 following the global response to the Indian Ocean earthquake-tsunami, it was still above its 2004 levels. Likewise, at US$10.1 billion, the preliminary and partial humanitarian aid expenditure figure for 2009 is lower than in 2008 but higher than for all years prior to that. The long-term trend in humanitarian assistance shows a clear upward path, with the increase in humanitarian aid averaging out at 6.9% a year between 2000 and 2008. HUMANITARIAN AID IN THE DAC CONTEXT In DAC reporting, humanitarian aid is a sector of ODA that aims specifically to “save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies.” It includes: disaster prevention and preparedness, reconstruction relief, relief coordination, protection and support services, emergency food aid and other emergency/distress relief. This strict definition of humanitarian aid, which is governed by the principles of neutrality and impartiality, marks it out from development aid, which can be subject to some conditionality. While humanitarian aid is traditionally seen as short-term, other ODA sectors (sometimes referred to as ‘development assistance’) such as governance, growth, social services, education, health, and water and sanitation, are seen as sustainable, long-term and poverty-reducing. Since 2000 the humanitarian share of ODA has ranged from a low of 7.5% in 2001 to a high of 10.2% in 2005. Annual fluctuations in humanitarian aid expenditure can be more extreme than for other types of ODA since they will reflect donor responses to sudden onset emergencies as well as to ongoing ones. <strong>Humanitarian</strong> ODA, exempt from the norms that govern other types of ODA, allows donors to provide assistance to people in some countries that they might not otherwise be able to support. But in some senses, the distinction is somewhat artificial. To people living in crisis, it matters little how their assistance is defined – whether to increase food security or to mitigate risk, alleviate immediate basic health needs, or to reduce poverty. We therefore try to contextualise humanitarian ODA by placing it in the context of other flows of assistance. 18
FIGURE 2: DAC DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMANITARIAN AID, 2000-2009 US$ BILLION CONSTANT 2008 PRICES 6.9 6.6 6.9 8.3 8.4 11.0 10.2 9.3 11.7 11.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (est) Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC data CHANGES IN TYPES OF HUMANITARIAN AID Around half the humanitarian aid from DAC donors is spent on emergency/ distress relief. In 2008 its share declined very slightly in favour of emergency food aid, which went up in response to the food price crisis: • the largest recipients of food aid in 2008 were Sudan and Ethiopia, each of which received over US$600 million – the next largest recipient was Somalia with just over US$300 million • the largest single donor is the United States (US$2.2 billion in 2008), followed by the EC (US$570 million). Relief coordination, protection and support services more than doubled to reach US$445 million: • the top recipients of this type of aid were Afghanistan and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), US$41 million each; Sudan, Chad, Palestine/ OPT, each of which received around US$40 million • the largest single donor was Japan (US$84 million). Contributions to disaster prevention and preparedness increased threefold in 2008 to reach US$325 million: • one-third of this amount (US$111 million) cannot be attributed to a particular region • US$25 million is attributable to the Americas; US$17 million was for programmes in Bangladesh; and around US$10 million to each of Indonesia, Dominican Republic and Kenya • the largest single donor was the EC. (See Figure 3.) FIGURE 3: TYPES OF DAC-DEFINED HUMANITARIAN AID, 2006-2008 2006 2007 2008 US$5.4bn US$4.8bn US$5bn US$3.6bn US$2.3bn US$198m US$445m US$2.3bn US$244m US$1.3bn US$1.1bn US$1.5bn US$28m US$83m US$325m Emergency/distress relief Emergency food aid Relief co-ordination; protection and support services Reconstruction relief Disaster prev ention and preparedness Source: OECD DAC 19
Page 3: GHA REPORT 2010
Page 7 and 8: GLOBAL TRENDS Humanitarian interven
Page 9 and 10: DONORS AND RECIPIENTS: AN INCREASIN
Page 11 and 12: FIGURE 4: GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Page 13 and 14: PRIORITIES COUNTRIES IN CONFLICT Hu
Page 15 and 16: that are rather difficult to attrib
Page 17 and 18: DOMESTIC RESPONSE It is absolutely
Page 19: GOVERNMENTS Government donors and t
Page 25 and 26: FIGURE 5: SHARES OF HUMANITARIAN AI
Page 27 and 28: FIGURE 7: CHANNELS OF HUMANITARIAN
Page 29 and 30: TABLE 1: COUNTRIES FEATURING AS TOP
Page 31 and 32: Together, the top 10 recipients of
Page 33 and 34: FIGURE 1: A BREAKDOWN OF DAC DONORS
Page 35 and 36: TABLE 3: TOP NON-DAC DONORS IN EACH
Page 37 and 38: FIGURE 13: TOP 10 RECIPIENTS OF NON
Page 39 and 40: TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT DONOR FUNDING T
Page 41 and 42: GOVERNMENT DONOR PRIORITIES, PATTER
Page 43 and 44: FIGURE 18: SECTORAL EXPENDITURE AS
Page 45: TABLE 6: DAC AND NON-DAC DONOR SUPP
Page 49 and 50: FINANCING MECHANISMS Until 2005 the
Page 51 and 52: FIGURE 2: TOP 10 DONORS TO HUMANITA
Page 53 and 54: On the one hand it could be said th
Page 55 and 56: two former funds were established i
Page 57 and 58: Sudan Sudan witnessed ongoing confl
Page 59 and 60: TABLE 6: MATRIX OF IN-COUNTRY FINAN
Page 61: WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF HUMANITARIAN
Page 64 and 65: DELIVERING HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
Page 66 and 67: 2006-2008, the remainder funded lar
Page 68 and 69: FIGURE 9: INCREASE IN UN INCOME FRO
Page 70 and 71:
DELIVERY AGENCY RECIPIENTS If we ex
Page 72 and 73:
TABLE 2: TOP TEN RECIPIENTS OF HUMA
Page 74 and 75:
DOMESTIC RESPONSE: TIMELINE FOLLOWI
Page 76 and 77:
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘DOMESTIC RESP
Page 78 and 79:
Government leadership in natural di
Page 80 and 81:
THE GENERAL PUBLIC The act of givin
Page 82 and 83:
Bangladesh Bangladesh is a country
Page 85 and 86:
Uganda Plagued by conflict between
Page 87:
efore external support started reac
Page 90 and 91:
CONFLICT AND AID States affected by
Page 92 and 93:
Unsurprisingly the countries with h
Page 94 and 95:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Page 96 and 97:
internally displaced people (IDPs),
Page 98 and 99:
FIGURE 6: ODA FROM OECD DAC DONORS
Page 100 and 101:
The OECD DAC’s eligibility criter
Page 102 and 103:
THE MILITARY AS A HUMANITARIAN ACTO
Page 104 and 105:
FIGURE 9: US AID CHANNELLED THROUGH
Page 106 and 107:
102
Page 108 and 109:
WHAT DO WE KNOW NOW ABOUT FUNDING A
Page 110 and 111:
as being people in need of immediat
Page 112 and 113:
million more for DRC in 2009 compar
Page 114 and 115:
THE UN CONSOLIDATED APPEALS PROCESS
Page 116 and 117:
FIGURE 6: APPEAL FUNDING AS SHARE O
Page 118 and 119:
The appeal in DRC has undergone fur
Page 120 and 121:
Whilst giving is commendable in res
Page 122 and 123:
appeals in 2005 saw a 76.5% increas
Page 124 and 125:
120
Page 126 and 127:
THE FUTURE OF HUMANITARIAN AID? HUM
Page 128 and 129:
FIGURE 3: HUMANITARIAN AID FROM GOV
Page 130 and 131:
Somalia and DPRK). Another 10 recei
Page 132 and 133:
128
Page 134 and 135:
WHY IS COUNTING HUMANITARIAN AID SO
Page 136 and 137:
the capacity of certain sets of act
Page 138 and 139:
While providing coverage of contrib
Page 140 and 141:
US$ DATA SOURCE INTERNATIONAL NGOS
Page 142 and 143:
SPECIFIC NOTES ON FTS USE IN GHA RE
Page 144 and 145:
DAC-reported humanitarian aid inclu
Page 146 and 147:
BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS Cent
Page 148 and 149:
Multilateral ODA Organisation for E
Page 150 and 151:
IATI ICRC IFRC IfS IMC IMF INGO IRC
Page 152 and 153:
REFERENCE TABLES TABLE 1: TOP 30 RE
Page 154 and 155:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THANK YOU The Glob
Page 156:
GHA Report 2010 presents the very l
show all

GHA-Report-2010.pdf - Global Humanitarian Assistance

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?