EMERGENCY FUNDING IN 2006
Donor funding to UNICEF humanitarian programmes reached US$ 513 million as of
1 November 2006, reflecting a decrease of 55 per cent from 2005 level of US$ 1,129 million.
The relatively high level of emergency funding in 2005 was attributed to the extraordinary donor
response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. If we exclude tsunami funding, we will find that 2006
emergency funding for all other emergencies is only 3 per cent lower than 2005 level.
Emergency funding for 2006 may reach higher levels by the end of December 2006 as there are
positive indications that donors will continue their support to fulfil the humanitarian needs of
children and women globally.
Emergency Funding Trend
1,129
1200
(A+B) All Emergency Funds
1000
(A) Thematic (unearmarked) Funds
800
(B) Non-Thematic (earmarked) Funds
600
443
400
200
112
116
1997
1998
197
199
235
240
1999
2000
2001
2002
513
391
0
2003
2004
2005
2006*
* As of 1 November 2006
UNICEF’s response in 2006 covered 53 emergencies1, including 17 Consolidated Appeal
Processes (CAPs), 13 flash appeals and 23 forgotten countries and regions. Overall, UNICEF
required a total of US$ 1.2 billion in 2006 (as of 1 November) for humanitarian interventions to
ensure the protection of vulnerable children and women. As the trend has been in previous
years, flash appeals attracted more donor attention and were better funded than CAPs with 79
per cent funded vs. 41 per cent for CAPs. The forgotten crises were the least funded with only
37 per cent of financial needs being met.
Target vs. Funding by Appeal Type*
% funded
% unfunded
100%
79%
80%
63%
59%
60%
49%
41%
51%
37%
40%
21%
20%
0%
CAP
Flash Appeals
Forgotten Crises
All Appeals
* As of 1 November 2006
Apart from the traditional channels of funding, UNICEF received substantial emergency
contributions in 2006 from new funding modalities, such as funding through multi-donor trust
funds (MDTFs) as well as multi-donor funding through OCHA’s Central Emergency Response
Fund (CERF). In fact, CERF funding is the second largest source of emergency funding in 2006
1
Originally, the 2006 Humanitarian Action Report (HAR) included 29 emergencies at the time of launch in January
2006. However, UNICEF continued to respond to emergencies continuing from 2005 that were not included in the
HAR report, such as the South Asia Earthquake, as well as new crises that emerged during 2006.
after the German National Committee for UNICEF. As you can see in the chart below, our top
ten donors for emergency funding as of 1 November 2006 are: German National Committee for
UNICEF, CERF, United States of America, Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, the Sudan Common
Humanitarian Fund (CHF), European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), Canada
and United Kingdom.
2006 Top Ten Donors - All Emergency Funds*
40
30
20
10
0
48
27
21
German NatCom
60
50
44
CERF
37
USA Govt
Netherlands Govt
34
Japan Govt
33
32
3
29
Sw eden Govt
31
Common Humanitarian Fund
26
ECHO
22
12
10
Canada Govt
22
UK Govt
Thematic (unearmarked)
Non-thematic (earmarked)
* As of 1 November 2006
In terms of thematic (unearmaked) humanitarian funds, our top donor in 2006 is Sweden with a
total of US$ 29 million. The chart below shows the top ten donors who generously contributed
flexible thematic humanitarian funds. Since its inception in 2003, thematic humanitarian funds
have increased exponentially from about only US$ 4 million in 2003 to a cumulative total of US$
671 million as of 1 November 2006.
UNICEF continues to welcome thematic humanitarian funds as it underscores donors’
commitment to the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) principles and allows UNICEF to
programme more responsively, based on country and global priorities. Out of the total 2006
emergency funds of US$ 513 million, US$ 129 million (25 per cent) was donated thematically as
of 1 November 2006. We are grateful for donors’ support and particularly for those channelling
unearmarked funding to support our humanitarian interventions.
2006 Top Ten Donors - Thematic (Unearmarked) Humanitarian Funds*
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sweden Govt
21
14
US Fund
14
Norway Govt
10
Canada Govt
9
Japan NatCom
6
UK NatCom
Italian NatCom
Finland Govt
35
29
German NatCom
Canadian NatCom
30
5
4
4
* As of 1 November 2006
During 2007, UNICEF hopes that donors will respond favourably to the humanitarian appeals
included in this report in order to enable UNICEF to address the needs and rights of the most
vulnerable children and women in the world. We also hope that donors will continue to consider
reducing earmarking of contributions whenever possible or consider channelling contributions
as thematic (unearmarked) humanitarian funds to increase adaptability and flexibility to
UNICEF’s humanitarian action in the ever-changing context of humanitarian aid.