Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Les évolutions humanitaires
Similaire à Les évolutions humanitaires (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Les évolutions humanitaires
- 1. Tendances (discours) Observations (discours) France (chiffres) Les évolutions humanitaires Conférence Nationale Humanitaire Paris, Novembre, 2011
- 2. Overall, humanitarian aid is rising ... International humanitarian response, 2006-2010e
- 3. ... and more donors are participating Saudi Arabia 129 Governments outside the OECD DACD contributing to the international response in 2010 Brazil 89 in 2009 Two largest donors to Haiti Emergency Response Fund (ERF), 2010 93 in 2008 8 out of 10 71 in 2007 100 in 2005 Largest government donors to the Haiti ERF were not members of the OECD DAC Some financing aspects of humanitarian ...allowing non-OECD DAC governments (as well reform are bearing fruit ... as private donors) increased visibility and opportunities to participate
- 4. At the same time, demand is also rising ... Funding requirements for UN consolidated appeals process (CAP) appeals, 2000-2010
- 5. ... and so are costs Supply Food and energy price index, 1990-2010 Demand (Humanitarian expenditure) (Humanitarian need) Escalating costs Escalating vulnerability Budgetary constraints Increased demand
- 6. We do not know if/how levels of giving will be sustained Humanitarian aid from non-OECD DAC members can be volatile and made in response to headline disasters and/or where there is a humanitarian financing mechanism in place
- 7. ... which types of emergencies will be funded ... UN CAP appeals: requirements by type of emergency, 2000-2010
- 8. ... or how donors will prioritise (declining?) aid budgets ... US$m changes in bilateral humanitarian expenditure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go up Australia 86.5 -12.2 -70.4 134.7 23.4 -42.5 Austria 23.2 -11.7 -4.1 27.7 -6.8 -12.9 2 Humanitarian aid and development aid both go down Belgium 7.1 21.7 -4.3 27.1 -6.2 52.1 Canada 39.1 51.2 22.8 66.9 -8.6 129.2 3. Humanitarian aid rises but other aid falls Denmark 176.7 -10.7 -29.9 16.0 -33.7 -50.6 Finland 48.5 -6.5 27.6 -23.0 16.3 -4.4 France 10.1 22.3 -19.2 -14.4 16.3 16.5 4. Humanitarian aid goes down but other aid rises 145.4 42.2 -123.2 6.2 72.8 -32.9 Germany Greece 8.0 1.8 -9.5 3.3 -1.6 -9.6 Ireland 30.0 21.4 90.6 -18.1 -67.5 -4.6 Italy -11.9 6.6 0.3 28.3 -3.2 -68.0 Japan -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 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 Spain 42.5 20.3 73.9 182.3 25.7 -64.5 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 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)
- 9. Donors will be looking at ‘best bang per buck’ What should the donor fund in each crisis? How? Where would the donor’s investment add the greatest value? Which countries are at the greatest risk of humanitarian crisis?
- 10. Who will be most affected by their choices? Concentration of funding in top 3 and top 20 recipients, 2000-2009
- 11. Tendances (discours) Observations (discours) France (chiffres)
- 13. It goes beyond immediate life- saving ... Addressing long-term systemic issues Protecting development gains Life-saving Increasing resilience and reducing poverty Food, shelter, water, basic health, reconstruction, disaster preparedness Reducing risk
- 14. ... and responds to different types of emergency ... Conflict/post-conflict Life-saving Natural disasters 65% of humanitarian aid, 2009 food, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation Reconstruction Disaster preparedness Complex emergencies 70% to long-term affected, 2009 Basic services food, shelter, water, basic health, sanitation
- 15. ... in very different contexts Africa 46% Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC Middle East 20% Asia 24% Conflict, post-conflict and security. Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008- High concentrations of people living in poverty. 2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia Consequences of Arab Spring? Americas 5% Prone to natural disasters International humanitarian response, 2000-2009. Remaining 5%: Europe and Oceania
- 16. But the people affected share very similar profiles Africa 46% Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRC Middle East 20% Asia 24% Conflict, post-conflict and security. Prone to natural disasters and food/livelihood insecurity. Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008- High concentrations of people living in poverty. 2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia Consequences of Arab Spring? Americas 5% Vulnerable to risk, food/livelihood insecure Prone to natural disasters
- 17. We have different means and policies at our disposal ... Military Climate change Data 1. Consider the relationship between Trade Food crises and poverty Shelter Analysis 2. Consider the capacity of people – and Tax revenues their governments – to respond Basic education Basic health Economic growth Water/sanitation Poverty 3. Consider current response to crises 4. Consider the many types of resources Information Local resources Security and policies that could be used to Economic injustice both respond to and mitigate risk Remittances Social injustice 5. Consider why it’s important to be Information clear and transparent about funding Immigration flows (How much? What are they for? Emergency response Where have they come from? Where Aid Engagement Illicit flows are they going? With what impact?) Intellectual property regs 6. Consider the impact of better information to inform better decisions and assess impact; to engage; and to act as a catalyst for change
- 18. ... and potential to use info, comms and technology ... Engagement & partnerships Funds – Experience Complementarity -Coordination Information Comparative advantage Differentiation– Division of labour Funds – Partners - Strategies Communication Technology Transparency Funds – Plans – Decisions - Strategy Evidence & accountability
- 19. ... to help make progress on tackling vulnerability to risk • Investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR) • Stronger links between humanitarian and development assistance • Coherence with domestic government actions
- 20. Underpinned by better data and transparency! Timeliness: Data on aid financing and poverty, risk and crisis is largely outdated by the time of publication. Accuracy: Much of the data relating to poverty, risk and crisis is expressed at national level and obscures pockets of elevated exclusion and risk. There are often data omissions in some of the most severely affected countries. Severity and scale: It is still difficult to gauge the number of people affected by humanitarian crises. This is a significant barrier to assessing scale and proportionate response. Comparability and comprehensiveness: Not all contributions to humanitarian aid (some of them difficult to quantify) are routinely captured. Most notable omissions: domestic and military response.
- 21. Tendances (discours) Observations (discours) France (chiffres)
- 22. Total official humanitarian aid from France 500 464.2 423.8 438.8 450 US$ million (constant 2009) 390.7 405.8 373.8 400 360.3 350 303.1 Spent from multilateral 294.1 279.7 300 ODA to EU (imputed) 236.7 250 200 Multilateral ODA to 150 UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP 100 (OECD DAC) 50 Bilateral official 0 humanitarian aid (OECD DAC) France 5yr 10yr 5yr rank 10yr rank 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010prelim 2005-2009 2000-2009 2005-2009 2000-2009 Bilateral official humanitarian aid (OECD DAC) 21.4 15.6 18.1 43.2 23.7 33.9 56.2 37.0 22.7 39.0 55.4 188.7 310.7 20th 20th Multilateral ODA to UNHCR, UNRWA, WFP (OECD DAC) 20.3 24.9 23.4 19.1 27.6 15.9 34.8 36.4 34.2 29.9 151.4 266.6 11th 13th Spent from multilateral ODA to EU (imputed) 195.1 262.6 252.6 217.4 308.9 374.0 373.1 317.3 381.9 336.9 318.4 1783.1 3019.8 2nd 2nd GHA (total official) 236.7 303.1 294.1 279.7 360.3 423.8 464.2 390.7 438.8 405.8 373.8 2123.2 3597.2 8th 9th
- 23. 14 Top 5 government donors of humanitarian aid US$ billion (constant 2009 prices) 12 Netherlands (5) 10 Germany (4) 8 United Kingdom (3) 6 EU institutions (2) 4 United States (1) Total from OECD DAC 2 governments Total from all governments 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 France (9)
- 25. 2008 2008 2009 2009 Bilateral from France Total from france Bilateral from France Total from France Myanmar 3.2Palestinian Adm. Areas 66.4Palestinian Adm. Areas 5.6Palestinian Adm. Areas 70.9 China 1.7Sudan 46.8Pakistan 2.8Sudan 36.9 Chad 1.6Afghanistan 44.4Afghanistan 2.1Lebanon 16.9 Djibouti 1.5Somalia 22.7Chad 1.9Indonesia 16.5 Afghanistan 1.4Lebanon 19.1Mexico 1.8Afghanistan 16.2 Georgia 1.2Sri Lanka 16.7Djibouti 1.6Pakistan 15.5 Haiti 1.0Haiti 15.1Guinea 1.5Georgia 15.3 Sudan 1.0Congo, Dem. Rep. 14.8Sri Lanka 1.5Somalia 15.1 Niger 0.8Jordan 14.5Indonesia 1.3Congo, Dem. Rep. 14.7 Palestinian Adm. Areas Cote d'Ivoire Sudan Jordan 0.8 14.3 1.0 12.3 Cote d'Ivoire 0.7Ethiopia 12.8Yemen 0.8Chad 12.2 Central African Rep. 0.6Uganda 11.0Niger 0.8Kenya 10.6 Madagascar 0.6Chad 10.4Syria 0.7Ethiopia 8.5 Kenya 0.5Kenya 10.0Iraq 0.6Uganda 7.8 Iraq 0.5Myanmar 9.9Senegal 0.5Zimbabwe 7.8 Lebanon 0.4Bangladesh 9.6Burkina Faso 0.5Syria 7.7 Serbia 0.4Georgia 8.8Zimbabwe 0.5Haiti 7.7 Burkina Faso 0.3Syria 8.4Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.5Myanmar 7.6 Zimbabwe 0.3Liberia 5.5Central African Rep. 0.4Bangladesh 7.4 Timor-Leste 0.3Pakistan 5.2Comoros 0.4Sri Lanka 6.5
- 26. Bilateral official humanitarian aid 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France Total official humanitarian aid 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France
- 27. Bilateral official humanitarian aid 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions France Bilateral official humanitarian aid 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% OECD DAC governments plus EU Institutions UK
- 28. France United Kingdom Disaster prevention a preparedness Emergency food aid Emergency/distress re Reconstruction relief Relief co-ordination; protection and suppor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% services United States European Institutions Disaster prevention and preparedness Emergency food aid Emergency/distress relie Reconstruction relief Relief co-ordination; protection and support 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% services 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
- 29. Total official humanitarian aid EU EU Multilateral organisations UK NGOs and CSOs Spain Other France Public sector Public-Private 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Partnerships (PPP) Bilateral official humanitarian aid Un 2008 plaidoyer... 2006 Better 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% coding et 2006 2007 2008 2009 reporting Public sector 36.2 83.6 17.8 24.5 SVP! NGOs & Civil Society 0.4 1.1 3.0 Multilateral Organisations 1.8 2.2 Other/not coded 0.0 15.1 3.8 11.0
- 30. ERF CHF 2009 2010 2009 2010 UN 29.8% 45.7% 63.6% 58.3% International NGOs 53.4% 42.7% 34.0% 36.7% Local NGOs 16.1% 7.6% 1.8% 3.8% Other 0.7% 4.0% 0.6% 1.2%
- 31. France 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CERF 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% ERF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% Total official humanitarian aid 464.2 390.7 438.8 405.8 373.8 Spain 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CERF 2.7% 5.3% 7.4% 7.0% 7.9% CHF 0.0% 3.8% 1.3% 2.4% 5.9% ERF 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 1.0% Total official humanitarian aid 372.4 393.9 613.8 632.2 500.9 Norway 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CERF 7.8% 12.9% 14.1% 11.4% 19.3% CHF 4.4% 4.8% 5.9% 5.1% 7.1% ERF 0.4% 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.6% Total official humanitarian aid 386.9 425.2 393.1 374.7 339.0 Sweden 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CERF 8.2% 10.7% 10.4% 8.6% 16.4% CHF 6.0% 7.2% 8.1% 6.6% 9.0% ERF 0.2% 1.9% 2.6% 3.6% 2.5% Total official humanitarian aid 502.1 479.3 539.0 573.1 393.4 UK 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CERF 6.6% 11.1% 9.0% 6.3% 6.3% CHF 13.5% 18.3% 15.4% 10.2% 11.2% ERF 1.2% 1.4% 4.1% 1.4% 1.8% Total official humanitarian aid 1053.5 752.6 895.4 1023.6 950.8
- 32. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Number of appeals in year 14 18 24 27 31 25 24 30 23 23 19 258 Number of consolidated appeals in year 14 18 24 25 22 15 17 15 13 15 15 193 Number of flash appeals in year 0 0 0 2 9 10 7 15 10 8 4 65 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total France's funding for UN CAP appeals 11.2 10.7 15.0 14.2 29.6 46.1 26.6 31.8 32.0 34.1 48.0 299.3 % France's total official humanitarian aid 4.7% 3.5% 5.1% 5.1% 8.2% 10.9% 5.7% 8.1% 7.3% 8.4% 12.8% 7.5% % total CAP funding 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% Number of appeals supported by France 5 6 6 9 11 16 15 20 12 15 15 130 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total UK's funding for UN CAP appeals 21.9 20.9 142.0 196.0 212.2 237.5 274.3 262.4 370.3 305.8 322.3 2365.7 % UK's total official humanitarian aid 3.2% 3.7% 19.8% 23.0% 27.5% 27.7% 26.0% 34.9% 41.4% 29.9% 33.9% 25.9% % total CAP funding 1.9% 1.5% 4.8% 5.0% 9.7% 5.9% 7.9% 5.1% 7.2% 4.4% 4.5% Number of appeals supported by UK 4 11 17 25 24 18 17 22 17 16 16 187
- 33. France’s contributions to UN appeals (inside and outside) by channel 100% UN agencies 90% Red Cross 80% Private sector 70% Other/not defined 60% NGOs 50% Foundations 40% 30% ERF 20% CERF 10% Public sector (governments) 0% Academia/think thanks/research 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 organisations
- 34. 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
- 35. Data&Guides Country profiles Reports Helpdesk
Notes de l'éditeur
- P19 of report1. HA is volatile – but overall, the trend is upwards.2. Public and non-DACs contributions mainly captured following ‘big’ emergencies; 2008 food price crisis, 2010 Haiti and PakistanAll figures for 2010 are preliminary estimates. Private contribution figures for 2006-08 are based on our own researchof a study set of NGOs and UN delivery agencies. The figure for 2009 is an estimate. The figure for 2010 is a preliminary estimate.Une augmentation deUS$625 million en 2010 en termes de l’aidehumanitairebilat. MAIS .. une augmentation soutenue en grandepartie par troisdonateurs: les Etats-Unis, le Japon et le Canada – conséquence des urgences au Pakistan et a Haiti.
- P12 of reportNot a greater vol of money.. Greater mix, lowering entry criteria for non-trad donors, encouraging incrased participation P45... Pooled funds facilitate increase in number of donors without coordination challenges1. In 2010, 127 non-DAC donors reported to the FTS 2010 saw humanitarian aid from non-DAC donors (as reported to the FTS) increase by US$67.2 million to US$622.5 – mainly in response to Haiti and Pakistan.2. The top two donor governments contributing to the Haiti emergency response fund were non-DAC donors – Saudi Arabia, with US$50 million, and Brazil, with US$8 million. 3. eight of the ten governments making the largest contributions to this fund were non-DAC donors. Thirdly, India made the largest contribution to the Pakistan ERF, with US$20 million. This represents a move away from traditional bilateral government funding towards support for multilateral mechanisms that contribute towards improved coordinationBut in recent years, engagement in fundingmechanisms and UN processes (seeSection 1.3: ‘How does the funding getthere?”) has made the contributions fromother governments and private donorsmore visible.4. Different types of donor have differentpriorities. Countries which have seenincreased flows from both privatecontributions and other governmentsinclude Indonesia and Sri Lanka (inresponse to the Indian Ocean-earthquake/tsunami), Pakistan (South Asiaearthquake), Myanmar (Cyclone Nargis),Somalia, Palestine/OPT and Lebanon.
- Funding requirements in UN appeals continues to grow and the gap in unmet needs has widened
- L’offre et la demande
- Non-dac and private giving tends to peak around natural disasters..not all donor contributions are captured each year
- ... For first time since 2003. and within that trend there are some big losers.. The biggest losers in 2010 were: CHAD CAR PALESTINE UGANDA
- Augmentation deUS$625 million en 2010 en termes de l’aidehumanitairebilat. MAIS .. une augmentation soutenue en grandepartie par troisdonateurs: les Etats-Unis, le Japon et le Canada – conséquence des urgences au Pakistan et a Haiti.Dans le cas de 10 sur 24 donateurs, l’APD a augmenté.. Tandisquel’aidepubliquehumanitaires’estdiminuéDans le cas de 9 donateurs, l’APD et l’aidehumanitaires’estaugmenté(Engagement pour atteindre la cible de longue date de 0,7 pour cent du revenu national brut. (RNB) consacré à l'APD?)Dans le cas de 4 sur 24 donateurs CAD, ’aide humanitairepublique ET l’APD se sontdimunuésDans un cas, l’aidehumanitaire a augmentétandisquel’aide en faveur de developmments’estdiminué.Some donors’ overall aid budgets have declined, while others have increased (in attempts to meet their 0.7% commitments). They might be chosing to prioritise development programmes over aid, or certain countries over others. It really is a mixed bag in terms of how financial crisis may have affected donors’ humanitarian aid budgets. Ones to watch of course are the BIG donors in terms of overall volume (US, UK, EU, Germany, NL, Spain etc) ... Though in terms of recipients, the smaller donors may chose to target the recipients that the big 5 don’t .. So this is something to watch.In fact, Spain has doubled its humanitarianaid contributions since 2000, rising fromfifteenth largest donor that year to becomethe fifth largest in 2009 (the latest year forwhich we have full final data for OECD DACmembers). Its share of total governmentcontributions has risen from 2.8% to 5.4%.Preliminary partial data (which does notinclude donors’ totally unearmarked funds– i.e. core contributions to UN agenciesor EU institutions), suggests that Spain’sexpenditure may have dipped in 2010, alongwith that of 12 other OECD DAC members.The Netherlands’ humanitarian expenditurecontracted for the second year in a row,as did that of Austria, Denmark, Greece,Korea and Portugal. Ireland’s humanitarianaid declined for the third consecutive year.However, overall, the dip in volumes fromthese donors is offset by large increasesin expenditure by the United States (up bysome US$400 million), Canada (by US$129million) and Japan (by US$275 million). Thisis likely to be attributable to expenditure inHaiti and Pakistan.
- L’ Afrique (46% de l’aidehumanitaireinternationalesurdixans): Conflict, post-conflict, drought, IDPs, food/livelihood insecurity Top recipients: Sudan, Ethiopia, DRCL’Asie (24%) sujet aux désastresnaturels and insecuritéalimentaire/subsistence. High concentrations of people living in poverty. Top recipients: Afghanistan, Pakistan, IndonesiaMoyen Orient (20%): Conflict, post-conflict and security.Humanitarian aid to Palestine doubled 2008-2009. Other top recipients: Iraq, Lebanon. Consequences of Arab Spring?LesAmeriques (5%): desastresnaturelsConcentrationDepuis 2003, l’aidehumanitaire, on voitl’aidehumanitaire se concentrersur les trois pays recipients les plus grands. L’aidehumanitaireest de plus en plus concentréeparmi les “top 20” – en 2008 et 2009, ilsrepresentaient plus de 80% des dépenses.Prioritisationetatsfragiles?
- Humanitarian aid is morphing: plusieursdonateursontannoncé des coupes budgétaires en termes de l’aide; des autresont protégé l’aidehumanitaire; des autresontaugmentéleurs contributions.. de l’autrecoté, on en demande plus des activités ‘humanitaires’ qui s’addressent aux problemes long-termes
- Il faut en profiter de tous lesmoyensdisponiblespour relever les défis... Orange: Lack of access to a combination of these things keeps people in poverty. Emergencies destroy /damage the ability to meet basic needs in the short-term and destroy economic, social and communications infrastructures at both local and sometimes national levels.Emergencies can push individuals into poverty (short, mid and longer term), and prevent people from moving out of it. Yellow:A range of policies and financial flows could help build resilience to risk of crises and poverty. Humanitarian aid (emergency response) is mobilised where national governments are non-existent or unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens. In some instances, this incapacity is short-term. In others, the incapacity is long-term. Emergency response funding is programmed in the short term and can be unpredictable. Lack of predictability in funding can be a concern in countries that rely on this support as a main component of their income from aid. It also bypasses state structures and risks undermining local capacity-building efforts. Inability to see what money is available, where it is coming from, where it is going or who it is spent through, makes resource allocation and accountability difficult. Our work aims to give visibility to the people in/at risk of crisis and poverty; to highlight the significance of building resilience to risk; the extent of – and disconnects between – the resources available to assist; to promote ownership of information that helps resource allocation and encourages debate and accountability.
- Engagement and experienceDAC and non-DAC donors .. Non-DAC donors have domestic response experience.. Strengthen local capacityLocal partnershipsPrivate sector (not just philanthropic givingIndividuals (humanitarian is the lens through which many people see development aid too – use social media to harness involvement and support)2.ComplementarityDivision of labour, built on experienceBetter planning and coordinationCoherence with domestic government actions- Investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR)Stronger links between humanitarian and development assistance3. Comparative advantage of fundsValeur des investissements – DRRTout ce qui restentsur la transparence:4. TransparenceVisibiliity et previsibilitéA precondition for a more effective application of the funding mix is transparency. Unless people are aware of the resources available they cannot take the first steps towards using them more coherently. The environment for transparency is very positive both amongst individual donors and collectively through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), and there is more real-time data available on humanitarian assistance than on development spending. “Data on aid financing and poverty, risk and crisis are largely outdated by the time of publication and the past is not always a reliable predictor of the future, therefore anticipating the likelihood of crisis must continue to be firmly rooted in ongoing analysis of political, economic, social and environmental crisis drivers. “Lydia, DFID decision-making frameworkFinancing data from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is around 18 months out of date. The latest available year for this data is currently 2009 - yet the nature of humanitarian crises and global funding allocations have altered dramatically in the intervening period. Although UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS) data is ‘real time’ and therefore we have data for 2010 and 2011, it is not directly comparable with the DAC data and cannot be used for trend analysis. 5. Much of the data relating to measures of poverty, risk and crisis express national level aggregates and may therefore obscure pockets of elevated exclusion and risk. There are often omissions in data on poverty, humanitarian crisis and risk for some of the most severely affected countries (notably Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe). There is still no reliable source of numbers affected by humanitarian crisis. This is a significant barrier to assessing the scale of humanitarian crises.
- A precondition for a more effective application of the funding mix is transparency. Unless people are aware of the resources available they cannot take the first steps towards using them more coherently. The environment for transparency is very positive both amongst individual donors and collectively through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), and there is more real-time data available on humanitarian assistance than on development spending. Financing data from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is around 18 months out of date. The latest available year for this data is currently 2009 - yet the nature of humanitarian crises and global funding allocations have altered dramatically in the intervening period. Although UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS) data is ‘real time’ and therefore we have data for 2010 and 2011, it is not directly comparable with the DAC data and cannot be used for trend analysis.
- How much? COMBIEN?1. Selon les chiffresofficielles du Comitéd’aide au développement (APD)Developmment (CAD) de l’OCDE ...Depuis 2000, la France a contribué entre US$15,6 million et 55,4 million. Elle ne suit pas la tendenceglobale de niveaux plus élévés en 2005 (tsunamie, kashmir earthquake, cyclone Sidr Bangladesh), 2008 (insecuritealimentaire, cyloneNargismyanmar, tremblement de terre en Chine). On constate un niveau plus eleve en 2010 – les innondations au Pakistan, tremblement de terre a Haiti?2. ... Cessommes ‘bilat’ (c’est a dire les fonds ‘spécifiés’ ..pour des projets/programmes ‘spécifiés par le donateur), sontmodestes par rapport aux autresgouvernementspeut-etre – sur le niveaubilat, la France est en 20eme position surdix ans... Apresl’Arabiesauodite (11eme), les Emirats (17eme)... Et etantdonné la position de la France au 4eme rang en termes de son aide publique au développement (APD). [BLEU]3.Maisparmi les ‘beneficiaires’ de l’APD MULTILAT (c’est a dire les fonds APD ‘non-spécifiés), il y a troisagences ONU avec des mandatspresqu’aussiuniquement ‘humanitaires’: HCR, UNRWA, PAM. Ellesdevraientetreaussi prises en compte. [ORANGE]4. Et la France contribue c20% de l’APD MULTILAT recu par les institutions europeennes .... (2eme rang,apresl’Allemagne)5. ...en tantque 2eme donateurhumanitaire, les institutions européennesontcontribués entre US$1,0 et US$1,6 milliards en dépenseshumanitairesofficiellesdepuis 2000 [on en reviendradessus... En profitez des ‘partenariats’ dejaformés?]6. DONC avec ces contributions multilat... La France se propulse au rang du 8eme/9eme donateurhumanitaire, avec des contributions d’entre US$236m et US464m chaqueannéedepuis 2000, soit US3,6 milliards surdix ans.
- ... COMBIEN PAR RAPPORT AUX AUTRES?Elle a contribué 3,9% du total fourni par les gouvernements aux cours des dixdernieresannéesL’espace entre les deuxlignes ‘OECD DAC governments’ and ‘total from all governments’ représente les contributions des donateurs ‘non-traditionels’ ..US$625m en 2005; US$939m en 2008; et US$623m en 2010
- La France:4eme puissance en termes de revenu national brut/RNB/GNI)5eme en ce qui concerne les contributions de l’APD- 8eme/9eme (5yrs/10yrs) en ce qui concernel’APHL’aidehumanitaireconstitue c8% de l’APD global. Elle fait 4.6% de l’APDfrancaise.
- Orange = Bilat (i.e. Earmarked (spécifié) ... Can be spent through various funds/channels .. UN agencies, national/local government agencies (‘public sector’), NGOs etcBleu = Total (i.e. Earmarked and totally unearmarked (non-spécifié)) ... Again, can be spent through various channels.. And pass through more than one ‘type’ of channel before delivery
- Les top 10 pays bénéficiairessur 5 ans (2005-2009). Comparison of the proportion of bilateral official humanitarian aid from France to the top 10 compared with that of OECD DAC donors combined for the periodComparison of the proportion of total official humanitarian aid from France to the top 10 compared with that of OECD DAC donors combined for the period.Les tendences en termes de pays prioritairessontfortementinfluencées par lesEtatsUnis (US$4 milliards, soit 33% du total fourni par les gouvernements)EtatsUnisvers...Soudan: US$716.9 en 2009; 3,3 milliards 2005-2009; 4,0 milliards 2000-2009 (materiels)Ethiopie: US$394 en 2009; 1,9 milliards 2005-2009 (nourriture/alimentaire); 3,0 milliards 2000-2009...et les Institutions européennes (2eme rang, US$1,9 milliards, soit 16% du total)Mais.. .vive la différence?! .. on en reviendra ..complimentarité.. Roles.. expérience
- Comparison.. Bilateral patterns.. France and UK ... Les top 10 pays bénéficiairessur 5 ans (2005-2009). Comparison of the proportion of bilateral official humanitarian aid from France to top ten recipients for the period 2005-2009, compared with that of the UK
- What on?On depensetrespeu en termesd’actionspréventives ... 2,4% du total en 2009 ! (Interesting point: if you look at emergency food aid plus development food aid together, most donors spend more on emergency food aid. France does the opposite; it provides more of its food assistance as development aid (Food safety net programmes etc)
- HOW? COMMENT?!Entre 2006 et 2009, 81% du montant ‘APH’ (aide publique aux actions humanitaires – soitbilat plus multilat) via les institutionseuropéennes (proportions elévéesaussi pour l’allemagne; l’autriche)... Dans le contexte du montant ‘APH’ (voir ‘Total humanitarian aid’), les subventions du gouvernementfrancais aux ONGs ne se voient pas sur le graphe!... MAIS ..A savoir... Le dollar humanitaire se déploieplusieursfois en route entre le donneur et le beneficiaire ... Mais on ne peut pas tracer qu’au premier destinataire.. La categorie “agencesmultilat” comprend:les fondsdirigésvers les agences ONUs comme *gérents* des fondshumanitairescommuns (ERF, CHF) ; les fondsd’interventionsd’urgence (CERF – UN OCHA/)The total volume of funds channelled through pooled humanitarian funds, including common humanitarian funds (CHFs), emergency response funds (ERFs) and the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) increased from US$583 million in 2006 to US$853 million in 2010. A notericiaussique les contributions des gouvernements qui ne sont pas membres du CAD se sontaugmentés de US$4 million en 2009 a US$98 million in 2010 (ERFs a Haiti et au Pakistan)On verasespropresbeneficiairessur la prochainediapositiveLes fondsdirigésvers OCHA ONU (BCAH – bureau de la coordination des affaires et le CAP) en tantque ‘coordinateur’ de la procedure d’appel globalles fondscompletement non-specifiés (totally unearmarked – HCR, UNRWA, PAM) .. Dans le cas de “TOTAL HA”3. La categorie ONG comprendici Croix/croissant rouge, CICR4. ‘Public sector’ = agencesgouvernmentales, soitdans le pays donneur, soitdans le pays
- ... Deuxiemeniveau...The total volume of funds channelled through pooled humanitarian funds, including common humanitarian funds (CHFs), emergency response funds (ERFs) and the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) increased from US$583 million in 2006 to US$853 million in 2010. (Les ONGsn’ont pas d’acces direct aux fonds CERF. Mais les agences ONU beneficiaires des fonds CERF travaillentsouvent avec les partenaireslocaux ONGs)
- Proportionsd’APH (‘total’ humanitarian aid) depensées par voie des fondsd’urgencecommuns et le CERF (Les ONGs n’ont pas acces au fonds CERF)
- Support for UN reform and UN processes ..la procedure d’appel global ONU (CAP en anglais)... Depuis 2005, entre 27,7% et 41,4% de l’aidepubliquehumanitairebritanniques’estdirigé par le CAP(L’appel ‘global’ ne comprend pas la croix/le croissant rouge/CICR/MSF)
- APPELS ONU (la procedure d’appel global, géré par le BCAH (OCHA)(Ne comprend pas la croix/le croissant rouge/CICR/MSF)