GHA-Report-2010.pdf - Global Humanitarian Assistance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MAIN CHANNELS Unlike other government donors, and unlike the pattern that characterises other types of ODA expenditure, DAC donors rarely channel their humanitarian aid directly to recipient governments – in fact this accounted for just about 3% of the total in 2008 (most of which was a contribution made by Japan to the government of Bangladesh for an emergency disaster rehabilitation project following Cyclone Sidr). Instead, the aid flows through many different agencies and organisations – other public sector agencies in both donor and recipient countries, UN agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the EC, NGOs and civil society organisations. Some of these agencies and organisations will use the funding directly for humanitarian operations, others in turn become donors and each choice about who to spend humanitarian aid through is important as it influences who has power within the system and who does not. Currently it is not possible to track the aid from the point where it flows out from the donor to the point where it arrives with a recipient, so here we look at disbursements of donors to the first recipient. Over the last three years, around 60% of humanitarian aid from DAC donors has been channelled through multilateral organisations, chiefly UN agencies. The top three recipients of the US$6.9 billion channelled through multilateral organisations in 2008, were the World Food Programme (WFP), which received US$2.9 billion or 24.4% of the total, the UN Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which received US$1.3 billion or 10.6% of the total and the United Nationals Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), US$622 million (5.2% of the total). (See Figure 6.) US$2.8 billion, just under 25% of total DAC donor humanitarian aid, was channelled directly through NGOs and civil society organisations in 2008: • just under US$800 million (6.7% of the total) in contributions to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement • US$611 million or 5.1% of the total to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) • US$158 million (1.3% of the total) to national societies in donor countries • US$1.4 million to national societies in partner countries • just under US$30 million (0.2% of the total) directly to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies • US$402 million (3.4% of the total) to international NGO bodies and research institutes • US$1.6 billion (13% of the total) to national NGOs registered in the donor country • US$47 million (0.4%) to NGOs in developing countries. FIGURE 6: CHANNELS OF HUMANITARIAN AID TO FIRST POINT OF DELIVERY, 2006-2008 2008 15.1% 24.7% 60.3% Public sector NGOs and civil society Multilateral organisations 2007 15.2% 27.6% 57.2% 2006 21.4% 18.8% 59.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: OECD DAC 22
FIGURE 7: CHANNELS OF HUMANITARIAN AID BY DAC DONOR TO FIRST POINT OF DELIVERY, 2008 EU Institutions United States United Kingdom Switzerland Sweden Public sector NGOs and civil society Multilateral organisations Public private partnerships Other No channel code Spain Portugal Norway New Zealand The Netherlands Luxembourg Japan Italy Ireland Greece Germany France Finland Denmark Canada Belgium Austria Australia 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: OECD DAC In 2008, DAC donors spent US$1.7 billion (15.1%) through the public sector – a channel that comprises donor government agencies, such as embassies and ministries, universities, and recipient governments. The above graph (Figure 7) shows just how much the choice of channel can vary widely by donor: • the amount of humanitarian aid spent directly through NGOs and CSOs varies from 1.9% in the case of Portugal to 46.6% in the case of Switzerland • Luxembourg does not spend any money through the public sector, whereas Austria spends three-fifths of its humanitarian aid in this way • 14 donors spend over 60% of their aid through multilateral agencies and the UN. 23
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 23 and 24: FIGURE 2: DAC DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS T
Page 25: FIGURE 5: SHARES OF HUMANITARIAN AI
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?