GHA-Report-2010.pdf - Global Humanitarian Assistance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 14: NON-DAC DONOR REGIONAL PRIORITIES, 2009 0.4% South & Central Asia 7% 92% RECIPIENT REGION Middle East DONOR REGION North & Central America Middle East Far East Asia Africa, South of Sahara 12% 24% 65% 66% 27% 4% 3% 23% 21% 44% 12% 13% 87% Africa, South of Sahara South & Central Asia Far East North & Central America Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS data REGIONAL TRENDS Regionally in 2009, the Middle East received the biggest share of humanitarian aid from non-DAC donors, US$107.7 million or 51% followed by South-Central Asia, US$65.7 million (31%) and sub-Saharan Africa US$24.4 million (11%). It is often assumed that humanitarian assistance from these donors is regionally prioritised, and that they are more inclined to support neighbouring recipient countries during humanitarian crises. The data supports this assumption and shows that, with the exception of South America, Africa, north of Sahara and Europe (whose humanitarian contributions are often small) that the top recipient region is the same as the donor region. Donors from South- Central Asia gave 92% of aid to the same region; the Middle East gave 66% to the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa gave 87% of humanitarian aid to sub-Saharan Africa. (See Figure 14.) In times of humanitarian crisis the role of national governments and neighbouring countries is vital in providing aid, in assisting the emergency and in housing refugees. For example, in 2008 15 of the top 20 countries housing refugees were non-DAC countries and the top three – Syria, Iran and Pakistan – housed 32% of all refugees. (See Figure 15.) Non-DAC donors often support and prioritise emergencies that are regionally located. There are a number of explanations for non-DAC donor prioritisation which include historical links from colonialism, regional proximity, the influence of the diaspora, housing and foreign policy. However, regional priorities and interests are not just limited to non-DAC donors, although the concentration of their aid is much higher. Both DAC and non- DAC donors channel humanitarian aid to certain recipients for specific reasons such as location, language or history. For example, Australia supports emergencies that are in the same geographical area such as Asia-Pacific and Spain’s humanitarian strategy outlines priority countries, many of which are Spanish speaking, such as the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. FIGURE 15: NUMBER OF REFUGES IN TOP RECIPIENT COUNTRIES, 2008 Other Countries 1,777,727 Syria 1,105, 698 Iran 980,109 Pakistan 765,720 Germany 582,735 Jordan 500,413 Tanzania 321,909 Kenya 320,605 Chad 302,687 China 300,967 United Kingdom 292,097 United States 279,548 Saudi Arabia 240,572 India 184,543 Sudan 181,605 Canada 173,651 Uganda 162,132 France 60,017 DRC 155,162 Yemen 140,169 Nepal 122,332 Source: UNHCR 36
GOVERNMENT DONOR PRIORITIES, PATTERNS AND PROCESSES COMPARED TABLE 5: TOP 10 RECIPIENTS OF DAC AND NON-DAC DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS COMPARED, 2008 REGION AND COUNTRY Decisions about where to spend humanitarian aid can be influenced by a number of (often interrelated) factors including: access and logistics; strategy, politics and diplomacy (policies on aid, national security, climate change and the environment); public and media opinion; historic/geographic/cultural ties; and experience in the area requiring intervention. While humanitarian financing is supposed to be governed by the principles of humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality, and based on need, policy and practice nonetheless varies widely by donor – whether DAC or non-DAC, government or non-government donors – and sometimes for very practical reasons. Our analysis shows that DAC donors have spent the vast majority of their aid in Africa and that non-DAC donors prioritise Arab countries, though as mentioned before this may be influenced by lack of full data. In 2008, only three countries appeared on the top 10 list of recipients of both DAC and non-DAC humanitarian aid – Sudan, Palestine/OPT and Myanmar – all of which were also subject of UN CAP appeals that year. Volumes of aid from DAC donors to these countries were higher. But prioritisation as a share of overall aid expenditure also varied. 17% of non-DAC humanitarian aid went to Palestine compared to 8% of DAC donor aid and 13% of humanitarian aid from non-DAC donors went to Myanmar compared to only 4% from DAC donors. (See Figure 16 and Table 5.) TOP 10 NON- DAC DONOR RECIPIENTS NON-DAC US$m SHARE OF NON-DAC TOTAL China 125.1 23.8% Yemen 105.3 20.0% Palestine/OPT 91.6 17.4% Myanmar 68 12.9% Sudan 24.4 4.6% Tajikistan 22.8 4.3% DPRK 15.5 3.0% Georgia 8.2 1.5% Jordan 8.1 1.5% Syria 5.1 1.0% TOP 10 DAC DONOR RECIPIENTS DAC US$m SHARE OF DAC TOTAL Sudan 1394.6 13.7% Afghanistan 868.4 8.5% Ethiopia 828.6 8.1% Palestine/OPT 792.7 7.8% Somalia 562.6 5.5% DRC 545.2 5.4% Iraq 379.2 3.7% Myanmar 359.6 3.5% Zimbabwe 332.7 3.3% Kenya 301.8 3.0% Source: UNOCHA FTS and OECD DAC FIGURE 16: COMPARISON OF SHARES OF HUMANITARIAN AID PROVIDED TO TOP RECIPIENT COUNTRIES BY DAC AND NON DAC DONORS, 2008 China Yemen Palestine/OPT Myanmar Sudan Tajikistan DPRK Georgia Jordan Syria Non-DAC DAC donors Somalia Afghanistan Iraq Zimbabwe Kenya DRC Ethopia Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC and UN OCHA FTS data 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 37
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 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: TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT DONOR FUNDING T
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?