GHA-Report-2010.pdf - Global Humanitarian Assistance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 1: CHANGES IN DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO POOLED FUNDS, 2008-2009 2008-2009 CHANGE IN HUMANITARIAN AID (US$m) CHANGE IN HUMANITARIAN AID (%) CHANGE IN POOLED FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS (US$m) CHANGE IN POOLED FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS (%) United Kingdom US$43m 4.2% -US$73m -28.5% The Netherlands -US$291m -46.0% -US$27m -18.2% Denmark -US$131m -44.3% US$9m 72.5% Sweden -US$106m -17.6% -US$3m -2.6% Norway -US$142m -31.5% -US$18m -19.9% say that the funds allow them to reach target groups that they may not be able to reach through bilateral channels. In addition, pooled funding mechanisms allow for a transfer of the bulk of the decision-making process, thus reducing the need for donor infrastructure and costs whilst also transferring decisions to the field where there should be much more substantial expertise and local knowledge. The United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands channelled the highest shares of humanitarian aid through pooled funding mechanisms in 2008 (25.1%, 24.6% and 23.5% respectively). All three donors contributed to the CERF, CHFs and ERFs. Germany, the second largest overall provider of humanitarian aid within the top 10 contributors to pooled funds, channelled just 2% through pooled funding mechanisms, in this case just the CERF. This is below the average of 7.2% for all DAC donors. (See Figure 3.) The largest donor of humanitarian aid, the United States, is notably absent from the list of top 10 contributors to pooled funds. It has only contributed twice to the CERF – US$10 million in 2006 (0.3% of its humanitarian aid expenditure) and US$5 million in 2008 (0.1% of its humanitarian aid expenditure). Its rationale for this is that it has a very large field presence and in-country knowledge and consequently prefers to fund through bilateral channels. NON-DAC GOVERNMENTS Over the last few years, the humanitarian aid of governments such as India, China, Korea and Saudi Arabia has become increasingly visible alongside that of the DAC governments. Financing mechanisms have played a key role in providing small and new donors with ways of channelling funding in response to humanitarian crises and post-conflict situations. These donors often do not have the necessary humanitarian infrastructure, field presence or incountry experience to participate and contribute in the same way as some DAC donors. The response to the ERF following the Haiti earthquake demonstrates this phenomenon – of the 27 contributing governments only three of them were DAC donors and of the remaining 24 countries all but four received humanitarian aid in 2008. These 24 donors contributed US$15 million to the ERF – in 2008 they received combined humanitarian aid of US$1.2 billion. FIGURE 3: SHARES OF HUMANITARIAN AID PROVIDED BY TOP 10 DONORS THROUGH POOLED FUNDING MECHANISMS, 2008 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 25.1% 23.5% 18.8% 8.8% 19.6% 9.6% United Kingdom Netherlands Sweden Spain Norway Canada 24.6% Ireland 2.0% 4.4% 3.1% 7.2% Germany Denmark Australia Total DAC donors 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 US$ MILLION Share of total channelled through financing mechanisms Total channelled through CERF, CHFs, ERFs Total humanitarian aid Source: Development Initiatives analysis based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS and UN CERF data 48
On the one hand it could be said that these contributions demonstrate solidarity towards humanitarian assistance by contributing what may be a considerable amount of available funds. On the other it could be argued that these countries are recycling aid which has been given to them for developmental purposes by other donors. For example, in giving US$1.5 million to the ERF, Nigeria could be seen as transferring part of the US$378 million that it received in official development assistance (ODA) from the United Kingdom in 2008. The Haiti ERF is rather unique: never before have so many non-DAC donors pooled their emergency assistance through this type of in-country mechanism and certainly the appearance of so many countries that are actually recipients of aid is almost more unusual. (See Figure 4.) But it is the CERF that has received the largest share of non-DAC donor contributions to pooled funds. In 2009 Korea, China and India contributed more money than several DAC donors, ranking 15th, 19th and 21st out of 91 donors respectively. The largest non- DAC contributor to the CERF, Korea, has given money to the fund every year. In 2009 it further increased its contributions to US$3 million. Between 2008 and 2009, the number of non-DAC donor governments contributing to the CERF increased from 54 to 61, with 14 brand new contributors, whilst in 2010, four new non-DAC donors have pledged money: the Russian Federation, Singapore, Madagascar and Mauritania. In 2009 15 non-DAC donors to the fund were also recipients of humanitarian assistance and all of them except one, China, were recipients of CERF funding. China along with Afghanistan, which also contributed to the CERF in 2009, receive a large amount of ODA. For China this amounted to US$1.5 billion in 2008, US$105 million of which was for humanitarian purposes, whilst Afghanistan received US$4.3 billion, of which US$871 million was humanitarian. (See Figure 5.) PRIVATE DONORS The CERF also provides a diverse group of private donors with a way of channelling funds to humanitarian crises on a global level without having to necessarily develop their own detailed policies for aid. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), the Western Union Foundation (WUF), the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC (TAQA), Alexander Bodini Foundation and Baha`i International Community have all been consistent corporate donors. PWC has been the most significant by volume, though Jefferies, a major global securities and investment banking firm, became the largest corporate donor to date following the Haiti earthquake with a contribution of US$1 million. Notable new private donors for 2010 are Skanska USA Building Inc., Latin American Development Foundation, Bilken Holding AS and Daystar Christian Centre. Contributions have also been received from a Korean fan club of Kim Hyun Joong, customers of HSBC bank and employees of Endesa Group. In addition, the CERF received numerous donations from individuals, totalling more than US$39,000 in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. Similarly, private donors have contributed to ERFs (Indonesia in 2006 and 2008, and to Haiti in 2010). FIGURE 4: DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ERF IN HAITI, 2010 9% 9% 7% 2% 3% 63% 1% Saudi Arabia $50.0m Brazil $7.5m France $6.7m Denmark $5.3m Equatorial Guinea $2.0m Nigeria $1.5m Gabon $1.0m Tunisia $1.0m Sweden $0.8m Algeria $0.5m Azerbaijan $0.5m Other: $0.8m Including: Afghanistan $0.2m Botswana $0.1m Sierra Leone $0.1m Armenia $0.1m Kazakstan $0.1m Source: UN OCHA FTS FIGURE 5: TOP NON-DAC DONORS TO THE CERF, 2006-2009 Turkey Poland China 2006 2007 2008 2009 Iceland Qatar India Korea 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 US$ MILLION Source: UN CERF 49
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 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: FIGURE 2: TOP 10 DONORS TO HUMANITA
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?