How much money is spent on emergency preparedness worldwide and what could be done to increase that funding to enable better resilience

1. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Emergency
Preparedness
Financing
Recommendations
Prepared for FAO on behalf of the IASC
Presentation to OCHA, 18th November
2011, New York

2. “Not all the solutions are within our [humanitarians] hands but
perhaps we are best placed to ensure overall aid is targeted
correctly, because we are otherwise left with the failure of not
doing so.”
Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) Donor
“In many countries development funding is declining whilst
humanitarian funding is increasing at an alarming rate. Yet a
number of these countries are not receiving any preparedness
funding. How can this be addressed?”
UN representative
“Preparedness is essential - it saves lives; and it is more cost-
effective than response.”
Emergency Relief Coordinator – Valerie Amos

3. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations

4. The big numbers
US$16.7bn
Estimated international humanitarian
Sudan United States
Largest recipient, US$1.4bn, 2009 Largest donor, US$4.4bn, 2009
response, 2010
Top 10 recipients Top 10 donors
Humanitarian aid from governments
went up to United States 4,376
Sudan 1,422
US$12.4bn...(11.7) Palestine/OPT 1,303
EU Institutions 1,613
the highest year on record Ethiopia 692 United Kingdom 1,024
Private contributions are estimated to Afghanistan 634 Germany 727
have reached Spain 632
Somalia 573
US$4.3bn... (3.9) Congo, Dem. Rep. 567 Sweden 573
Pakistan 486 Netherlands 508
Prompted by the ‘mega disasters’ in
Iraq 468 France 406
Haiti Pakistan
and
Kenya 400 Canada 396
US$3.6bn, US$2.9bn FTS
Zimbabwe 393 Norway 375
OECD DAC

5. Top 20 recipients of total official humanitarian assistance 2000-2009
Sudan: 11.2% 2000-2009
OECD DAC

6. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations

7. Overall, humanitarian aid is
rising ...
International humanitarian response, 2006-2010e
OECD DAC and OCHA FTS

8. ... and more donors are
participating
Saudi Arabia 129
Governments outside the OECD DACD
Brazil contributing to the international response in 2010
Two largest donors to Haiti Emergency
Response Fund (ERF), 2010
89 in 2009
93 in 2008
8 out of 10 71 in 2007
Largest government donors to the Haiti ERF
were not members of the OECD DAC 100 in 2005
Some financing aspects of humanitarian
reform are bearing fruit ... ...allowing non-OECD DAC governments (as well
as private donors) increased visibility and
opportunities to participate
OCHA FTS

9. But at the same time,
demand is also rising ...
Funding requirements for UN consolidated appeals process (CAP) appeals, 2000-2010
OCHA FTS

10. ... and so are costs
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1992
1999
2006
Commodity Fuel (energy) Index - Monthly Price Commodity Food Price Index - Monthly Price
Supply Demand
(Humanitarian expenditure) (Humanitarian need)
Escalating costs 2007-2011 Escalating vulnerability
Budgetary constraints Food: 40% Increased demand
Oil: 36%
Food and energy price index

11. Unmet needs in UN CAP
appeals are creeping up again
Shares of needs met and unmet in UN CAP appeals, 2000-2010
30.2%
OCHA FTS

12. ... which types of emergencies
will be funded ...
UN CAP appeals: requirements by type of emergency, 2000-2010
Winners: Flash, Haiti/Pakistan = 70% funded
Losers: Consolidated, drop from 70% to 60% funded OCHA FTS

13. US$m changes in bilateral humanitarian expenditure
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Australia
... or how Austria
Belgium
86.5
23.2
7.1
-12.2
-11.7
21.7
-70.4
-4.1
-4.3
134.7
27.7
27.1
23.4
-6.8
-6.2
-42.5
-12.9
52.1
donors will Canada
Denmark
Finland
39.1
176.7
51.2
-10.7
22.8
-29.9
66.9
16.0
-8.6
-33.7
129.2
-50.6
48.5 -6.5 27.6 -23.0 16.3 -4.4
prioritise France
Germany
10.1
145.4
22.3
42.2
-19.2
-123.2
-14.4
6.2
16.3
72.8
16.5
-32.9
Greece 8.0 1.8 -9.5 3.3 -1.6 -9.6
(declining?) aid Ireland
Italy
30.0
-11.9
21.4
6.6
90.6
0.3
-18.1
28.3
-67.5
-3.2
-4.6
-68.0
Japan
budgets ...
-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
1 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go up 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
2 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go down
Spain 42.5 20.3 73.9 182.3 25.7 -64.5
3. Humanitarian aid rises but other aid falls 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
4. Humanitarian aid goes down but other aid rises 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
Changes in bilateral humanitarian aid, 2007-2010
(does not include multilateral ODA contributions to UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP)
Haiti/Pakistan OECD DAC

14. ... or who will be most
affected by their choices
Concentration of funding in top 3 and top 20 recipients, 2000-2009
OECD DAC

15. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations

16. What are the needs?
500 700
Number of affected (millions)
450
600
400
Number of disasters
350 500
300 400
250
200 300
150 200
100
100
50
0 0
2003
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of disasters Total number affected (millions)

17. And in which environments?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Conflict-affected Non-conflict-affected (excluding China)

18. Donor priority growing slowly...
20… 5,414 3,286 455
20… 5,223 3,604 333
20… 4,672 2,247 99
20… 4,985 2,214 41
20… 6,731 2,612 70
20… 4,251 1,756 6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Material relief assistance and services Emergency food aid
Relief co-ordination; protection and support services Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation
Disaster prevention and preparedness
Preparedness funding US$ million
Disaster prevention and preparedness 454.6
Other humanitarian funding 73.7
Development funding 130.2
Total 658.5

19. But not uniformly...
Norway 22
EU 77
USA 59
UK 53
Japan 46
Australia 28
Germany 25
Sweden 23
Canada 6
Denmark 3
Switzerl… 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Material relief assistance and services Emergency food aid
Relief co-ordination; protection and support services Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation
Disaster prevention and preparedness
2009

20. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations

21. The Definition
• “The aim of emergency preparedness is to strengthen
local, national and global capacity to minimise loss of
life and livelihoods, to ensure effective response, to
enable rapid recovery and increase resilience to all
hazards (including conflict and epidemics).
• This entails readiness measures (risk assessment,
contingency planning, stockpiling of equipment and
supplies, training, community drills and exercises) and
institutional preparedness (coordination arrangements,
early warning systems, public education) supported by
legal and budgetary frameworks.”

22. Guiding Principles
• In the news, all the time.
• Consensus on need.
• Transformative power.
• Linking humanitarian and development.
• Including conflict.
• National actors to the fore.

23. Positives... Despite the system
• HCTs find ways of using CAP for preparedness funding in
the absence of clear guidance.
• Humanitarian donors make preparedness a priority for
development counterparts – work around funding silos.
• Some financing mechanisms do fund preparedness
activities of different types in different contexts.
• Institutions formed both informal and formal relationships
to improve preparedness, especially for disasters.
• The Nepal Consortium is an example of how a well
argued and articulated plan can garner both attention and
funding.

24. Overall
• Data reporting structures and practices are weak.
• Slowly growing funding in increasingly uncertain financing
environment
• Donor structures and policies are very variable and almost
always inadequate.
• Financing mechanisms currently inadequate and do not fund
enough.
• Little prioritisation and little analysis of all risks.
• CAP has potential but is not at all a comprehensive solution.
• Examples of best practice at country level are not used.
• Considerable structural issues in the system, globally and at
country level.

25. [
Detailed look at donors
Donor Preparedness Funding mechanism Emergency preparedness policy
definition
Own Adopted Hum. Dev. Other Integrated Nat. Conflict Pandemic
Aid Aid All Risk Policy Disaster
HFA ISDR
Canada X Y Y Y Y X X Y Y Y
USA** Y Y Y Y Y Y X Y Y Y
Japan X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* X
United Kingdom X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* Y
Germany X Y Y Y Y Y X Y X* Y
European Union X Y Y Y X X X Y X* X
Switzerland X Y Y Y X X X Y X* X
Sweden X Y Y Y X X X Y X* X
Australia X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* Y
Denmark X Y Y Y Y X X Y X* X
Norway X Y Y Y X X X Y X* Y
Bifurcated donor structures dominate preparedness
articulation and funding.

26. The Three Tensions and the
one major issues
• 1) conflict and natural disaster
• 2) local/national and institutional
• 3) short-term preparedness and long-term
risk reduction.
• Joining all these together into a single
question and answer.

27. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings
Recommendations

28. The Evidence Base
– Forensic analysis of spending.
– Support ongoing initiatives to improve coding and reporting.
– Promote introduction of a marker in databases.
– Track preparedness within all CAP appeals.
– Advocate for much better preparedness reporting by all
actors (visibility) and all methods.
– This work will help detail what is meant by conflict
preparedness, working towards a clear consensus.

29. Enabling environment
• Establish programme of engagement with donors.
• Work with the GHD to develop policies/practices;
examples: large-scale multi-country crisis, developing
principles, combating bifurcation, encourage multi-year
funding.
• Widen partnerships, especially beyond humanitarians.
• Communicate relevance, evidence, benefits of improved
financing to all, including beyond IASC.
• Donors undertake policy work on conflict preparedness

30. Need, Prioritisation and Risk
• Conflict preparedness, both short- and long-term.
• Comprehensive risk analysis that addresses multi-
hazards
• Use prioritisation to bridge the aid divide.
• Analyse first those countries most in need, not those
easiest to fund.
• Include likely scenarios/trends: food prices,
urbanisation, scarcity, climate change.

31. Leadership, Champions, Role
Clarification
– IASC and UNDG should resolve issues of mandate
and leadership, duplications and gaps.
– National ownership and conflict scenarios.
– Clearer leadership on preparedness amongst the
donor community and constituencies such as G20
and GHD.
– Single institution responsible for articulating,
presenting, and developing policy within the CAP.

32. Financing Mechanisms
Existing pooled fund mechanisms
• Increase financing using existing funds: GFDRR
• CHFs for national leadership.
• Expand ERFs to include preparedness & country
number.
• Consider expansion of CERF.
Vertical fund
• Consider added value in context of challenge
presented by combining disaster/conflict, and divide
between humanitarian and development assistance.

33. Financing Mechanisms II
Role of the CAP
• Work to make CAP more strategic includes emergency
preparedness.
• Take the steps to make emergency preparedness a
specific element within the CAP.
• Assess the possibility of a marker for tracking levels of
preparedness funding within individual projects.
Quality of Activities:
• Investigate how good current activities are and what
can be improved.

34. Phase II
• Country-level work essential
• All actors examined and partnerships developed
• Forensic data examination
• Data and reporting advocacy
• Risk analysis and prioritisation
• Financing mechanisms investigated
• Advocacy and engagement with those can make
decisions
• Improvement of the preparedness system
• Bifurcated donor structures undermine attempts to
move forward.

35. The Big Picture
Humanitarian trends
Preparedness Trends
Findings Why is this
important?
Recommendations

36. Preparedness expenditures
where it matters... are minimal
Indonesia (9) 30.0
Afghanistan (8) 11.9 1,454
Pakistan (8) 15.6
DRC (7) 11.4 1,996
Sudan (6) 3.6
Uganda (6) 8.8
Ethiopia (6) 16.5 2,585
Average (5.5) 9.3
Serbia (5) 0.3
Chad (5) 0.5
Lebanon (5) 0.6
Liberia (5) 0.7
Somalia (5) 3.5
Zimbabwe (5) 4.2
Burundi (5) 5.5
Kenya (5) 11.1
Sri Lanka (5) 11.6
Iraq (5) 47.4 1,602
Angola (4) 0.5
Jordan (3) 0.2
Palestine/OPT (2) 1.9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
US$ million
Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation Disaster prevention and preparedness Total remaining humanitarian
OECD DAC 2005-2009

37. ... And investments on tackling
vulnerability to risk are poor
OECD DAC

38. ... of all kinds...
2000 16%
1800 13% 14%
13%
US$ million (constant 2009 prices)
1600
12%
1400 10%
1200 10%
8%
1000 8%
6% 7%
800 6%
4% 4% 4% 4%
600 4%
4%
400 2% 2%
2% 1%
200 1% 1% 1% 2%
0% 0%
0 0%
Child soldiers (prevention and demobilisation) Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution
Land mine clearance Post-conflict peace building (un)
Reintegration and salw control Security system management and reform
% of ODA

39. Humanitarian financing.
Clarity Counts.
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
Name: Lisa Walmsley
Email: lisa@devinit.org
Tel: +44 (0)1749 671343
Web: globalhumanitarianassistance.org
Global Humanitarian Assistance, Development Initiatives, Keward Court, Jocelyn
Drive, Wells, Somerset, BA5 1DB, UK