Trends and Tools in
International Humanitarian
Assistance and Cooperation
Presentation to Global Trends and
Diversity course
IUHEID
15 October 2008
Overview
• Some basic definitions
• OCHA
• Humanitarian appeals (flash appeals,
consolidated appeals, CERF)
• Responding to emergencies: the
challenges of coordination
• Questions…
Themes
• Humanitarian v development
• Preparedness and prevention v
response
• Coordination
• Advocacy
Some basic definitions 1/2
• ODA: flows to developing countries and
multilateral institutions provided by official
(government) agencies that is i) administered
with the promotion of the economic
development and welfare of developing
countries as its main objective; ii)
concessional in character
• Humanitarian assistance: assisting people in
need, providing goods and services free of
charge within a defined timeframe
• Development aid: empowering people, takes
time to pay dividends, and is adamantly
opposed to handouts
Some basic definitions 2/2
Early recovery*: a multidimensional process guided by
development principles:
• begins in a humanitarian setting, and seeks to build
on humanitarian programmes and catalyze
sustainable development opportunities.
• aims to generate and/or reinforce nationally owned
processes for post-crisis recovery that are resilient
and sustainable.
• Encompasses the restoration of basic services,
livelihoods, transitional shelter, governance, security
and rule of law, environment and other socioeconomic dimensions, including the reintegration of
displaced populations.
• Strengthens human security and aims to begin
addressing the underlying causes of the crisis.
*Source: Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery; Guidance Note on Early Recovery, April 2008
OCHA
Established in 1991, with a mandate to mobilise
and coordinate effective and principled
humanitarian action in partnership with
national and international actors
• Coordinates humanitarian relief
• Helps affected populations
• Promotes preparedness and prevention;
responds to sudden onset crises
• Raises funds for emergencies and disasters
Consolidated Appeals (CAPs)
CAPs were established in 1992 (catalyst was the
Kurdish refugee crisis), OCHA has the task of
managing CAP development
• CAPs are the principal tool for humanitarian
coordination, strategic planning and
programming. CAPs contain:
– an overview of the context, humanitarian
consequences, and life-saving needs.
– needs assessment information, a common
humanitarian action plan, and specific sectoral
response plans and budgeted projects.
– address acute needs for a year, and can be
revised/extended as needed.
CAP Section
The section leads and contributes to supporting strategic,
accountable and inclusive humanitarian planning through:
• Improving the prioritisation of funding for donors and
humanitarian country teams by advocating, providing and
contributing to the development of integrated/complimentary
tools and policy guidance as chair of the CAP Sub-Working
Group;
• Supporting OCHA’s field offices in the development, review,
editing, formatting, publishing and delivering of strategic and
inclusive humanitarian appeals/plans (CAPs and flash appeals)
• Tracking and monitoring of humanitarian funding data through
the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) in support of advocacy and
coordination; and
• Ensuring that CAP is aligned with global humanitarian financing
efforts including linkages with CERF.
What Warrants an Appeal?
• Any crisis or disaster needing a humanitarian
response that (a) exceeds the capacity of the
affected country government, and (b) exceeds the
capacity and/or mandate of any one UN agency
• For 2008, there are CAPs in CAR, Chad, Cote
d’Ivoire, DRC, Iraq, Nepal*, oPt, Somalia, Sri Lanka*,
Sudan, Timor Leste*, Uganda, West Africa, &
Zimbabwe
– *CAP or euphemised equivalent: used when the affected
government, for whatever reason, acknowledges the
assistance a CAP can bring but does not want the ‘brand’.
• Most appeals are and have been in Africa
Who Is Involved?
• Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator (leading
the process, with OCHA’s support)
• UN Agencies (e.g. UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP)
• Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement
• NGOs (international and local)
• Donors (field office reps)
Agencies will usually be organised into sectoral (or
cluster) groupings: saves time, effort, information is
shared, gaps spotted and covered.
Funding
In 2008 so far, donors have given $8,350,397,802 in
humanitarian aid to all emergencies (including CAPs, flash
appeals, bilateral aid, etc)
– $4,339,753,132* has gone to CAPs/FAs (49%), which
have requested a total of $7,274,918,553
For previous years
Total humanitarian funding
2007: $7,733,232,133
2006: $7,499,265,709
2005: $13,155,298,366
2004: $4,734,344,385
Total CAP/FA funding
$3,713,801,351 (48%)
$3,375,159,303 (45%)
$4,029,163,415 (30%)
$2,191,290,639 (46%)
Global humanitarian funding is holding fairly steady; the share
of that captured by CAPs is also holding steady. CAPs seem
able to reach a certain threshold but not beyond.
Whether there is the capacity in the aid system to handle the
total amount of humanitarian funding is an interesting
question.
*Includes CAPs and euphemised equivalents (see slide 9)
CAPS in 2008
Funding
Requirements received
Central African Republic
2008
Chad 2008
Côte d'Ivoire 2008
Democratic Republic of
Congo 2008 Humanitarian
Action Plan
Iraq 2008
occupied Palestinian territory
2008
Somalia 2008
Sudan
Uganda 2008
West Africa 2008
Zimbabwe 2008
Nepal*
Sri Lanka*
Timor Leste*
116,339,064
314,508,864
58,390,105
736,511,765
271,123,701
451,319,564
%
funded
87,759,515
213,355,014
25,314,808
391,427,776
165,719,016
292,029,496
75%
68%
43%
53%
61%
432,565,787
1,278,337,729
206,869,397
271,596,733
263,972,485
63,640,484
123,193,689
17,123,735
65%
66%
64%
55%
58%
67%
64%
63%
59%
6,165,935,130 3,832,905,664
62%
660,229,557
2,001,006,405
374,948,395
464,865,582
394,493,248
98,673,657
194,630,612
28,894,611
*Euphemised CAPs
Which countries could, or should, be on this list, and why are they missing…?
Source: Financial Tracking Service as of 15 October 2008
Flash appeals in 2008
Requirements Funding received
Bolivia Flash Appeal 2008 [unrevised as of
Oct. 2008; appeal closed and unmet
requirements reduced to zero]
Georgia Crisis Flash Appeal 2008
Haiti Flash Appeal 2008
Kenya Emergency Humanitarian Response
Plan 2008
Madagascar Flash Appeal 2008
Myanmar Flash Appeal 2008
Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan
2008
Southern African Region Preparedness
and Response Plan 2008
Tajikistan Flash Appeal 2008
14,184,273
109,311,307
105,658,433
207,548,631
36,476,586
464,609,143
55,102,503
%
funded
14,184,273
35,064,383
24,827,357
115,495,737
18,118,464
247,659,675
12,375,707
1
32%
23%
56%
50%
53%
22%
89,178,415
23,789,765
26,914,132
15,332,107
1,108,983,423
506,847,468
Source: Financial Tracking Service as of 15 October 2008
27%
57%
46%
Funding by Sector
Funding is tracked by sector (e.g. food, health,
shelter, water & sanitation). For 2008:
• Food
$3,586,122,134 42.9 %
• Multi-sector
$505,648,824
18.0 %
• Sector not specified $655,512,117
7.8 %
• Health
$663,127
6.8 %
• Coordination
$483,773,938
5.8 %
• All other sectors share $1,556,990,322
Sectors allow us to group the response, and to
aggregate across crises
Source: Financial Tracking Service
So Who Gets What
For 2008 so far
• WFP & partners
• UNHCR
• UNICEF
• Bilateral
• ICRC
$3,454,473,934
$719,341,005
$479,118,066
$308,361,245
$305,862,593
41.7 %
8.6 %
5.7 %
3.7 %
3.7%
Highest ranked NGO is CARE with $132,741,416 (1.6%)
For 2007, and other years, the same pattern is visible
The sectoral results (from the previous slide) map very closely onto
the organisational ones
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Where is it going in 2008?
Emergency
Total funding
CAP
requirements
CAP funding
%
funded
CAP
funding
as % of
total
funding
*Sudan
Ethiopia
Unspecified
*Somalia
*DRC
*Zimbabwe
Myanmar
*oPt
Afghanistan
China
*Iraq
*Chad
*Uganda
Kenya
Haiti
*Sri Lanka
Liberia
*CAR
1,556,400,732
772,263,822
664,631,804
520,913,844
459,950,093
408,388,195
400,596,070
397,071,191
309,451,872
303,496,976
271,101,588
245,431,881
232,829,505
208,401,394
143,725,836
138,638,815
111,610,674
96,177,815
2,001,006,405
1,278,337,729
64%
82%
660,229,557
736,511,765
394,493,248
464,609,143
451,319,564
432,565,787
391,427,776
263,972,485
247,659,675
292,029,496
66%
53%
67%
53%
65%
83%
85%
65%
62%
74%
271,123,701
314,508,864
374,948,395
207,548,631
105,658,433
194,630,612
165,719,016
213,355,014
206,869,397
115,495,737
24,827,357
123,193,689
61%
68%
55%
56%
23%
63
61%
87%
89%
55%
17%
89%
116,339,064
87,759,515
75%
91%
Missing from the t op rankings are Uganda, West Africa, Timor, and Nepal
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Who Gives What
Like other trends, the major humanitarian
donors remain more or less the same
•
•
•
•
•
Donor
Humanitarian funding
% total
United States
ECHO
United Kingdom
Norway
Netherlands
$1,875,473,575
$1,058,650,492
$459,543,946
$438,011,513
$406,231,651
24.3 %
13.7 %
5.9 %
5.7 %
5.3 %
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Inside vs Outside CAPs
Crises with consolidated or flash appeals in 2006: Proportion of overall humanitarian funding
going to projects included in appeals, per donor (among top 15 humanitarian donors to these
crises):
Donor
Appeal funding
non-Appeal funding
Total
% to appeal
Japan
Netherlands
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
EC
United States
Sweden
Ireland
Norway
France
Switzerland
Germany
Denmark
Saudi Arabia
$105 million
$106 million
$57 million
$238 million
$27 million
$338 million
$829 million
$104 million
$29 million
$79 million
$20 million
$19 million
$30 million
$22 million
$9 million
$15 million
$29 million
$17 million
$74 million
$9 million
$117 million
$376 million
$79 million
$23 million
$63 million
$21 million
$30 million
$55 million
$50 million
$62 million
$120 million
$135 million
$74 million
$313 million
$36 million
$454 million
$1,204 million
$183 million
$52 million
$142 million
$41 million
$49 million
$85 million
$72 million
$71 million
88%
79%
77%
76%
75%
74%
69%
57%
56%
56%
48%
39%
35%
31%
12%
This table shows the degree of variation among the funding patterns of major
donors: CAPs are managing to ‘capture’ most funding (signs of both good
advocacy on the part of OCHA and wider humanitarian community, and a sign of
faith by the donor community in the coordinated concept of a CAP). Analysis of
funding helps to provide good measurements of donor performance to
humanitarian crises.
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Appeal funding as % of GNI (2006)
The global standard is to reach 0.7% of GNI by 2015;
total ODA as a % of GNI for all OECD countries has
never passed 0.33% (2005, Tsunami)
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Funding of 2006 Appeals as % of donor country GNI (top 15):
C
Sw an
Sa itz ada
u e
U di rlan
ni A d
te ra
d bi
St a
Ba ate
hr s
Be ein
lg
iu
U
Li m
ni
b
te Fi ya
n
d
Ki lan
n d
D gdo
en m
m
N Ire ark
et l
Lu her and
xe lan
m ds
bo
N urg
or
Sw wa
ed y
en
0.040%
0.035%
0.030%
0.025%
0.020%
0.015%
0.010%
0.005%
0.000%
Major donor countries
Country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
United States
Japan
Germany
China
United Kingdom
France
Italy
Spain
Canada
Brazil
Russian Federation
India
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Australia
GNI (2007)* in
USD
13,886,472
4,813,341
3,197,029
3,120,891
2,608,513
2,447,090
1,991,284
1,321,756
1,300,025
1,133,030
1,070,999
1,069,427
955,802
878,020
755,795
Counties committing highest funding
to CAPs as % of GNI (as per slide 19)
Sweden
Norway
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Ireland
Denmark
United Kingdom
Finland
Libya
Belgium
Bahrein
United States
Saudia Arabia
Switzerland
Canada
Source: World Bank Key Development Data and Statistics
When we plot the previous results for 2006 and compare to GNI, there is striking
variation – some are six times more generous, in relation to GNI, than others.
Some very large economies are not even in the top 15 of funding to CAPs as % of
GNI, and hence do not appear on this table. Further advocacy is required…
Source: Financial Tracking Service
A Widening Gap
(Source: OECD, extracted from www.globalissues.org)
Although rich countries have given an enormous $2.6 trillion dollars
in aid since 1960, the accumulated total shortfall in their aid since
1970 (when the target of 0.7% was set) amounts to $3.3 trillion (at
2006 prices).
Central Emergency Response
Fund
A UN stand-by fund to enable more timely and reliable
humanitarian assistance to those affected by natural
disasters and armed conflicts. Approved by
consensus by the UNGA on 15 December 2005 to
achieve the following objectives:
• promote early action and response to reduce loss of life;
• enhance response to time-critical requirements;
• strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in
underfunded crises
The fund should be $500 million, under the control of the ERC. On
average, it stands at $450 million.
Giving the UN control of such a flexible funding source has greatly
helped improve coordination, advocacy, and the use of common
principles.
The Impact of CERF 1/2
(CAPs as of September 2006 [before CERF allotments])
CERF was able to even out funding patterns
Source: Financial Tracking Service
CAPs and Flash Appeals 2006: % Covered
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Cote d'Ivoire
DR Congo Action Plan
Great Lakes Region
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Horn of Africa
Lebanon Crisis
Liberia
Nepal
occupied Palestinian
Republic of Congo
Somalia
Sudan Work Plan
Timor-Leste
Uganda
West Africa
Zimbabw e
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
The Impact of CERF 2/2
(Flash appeals in 2007)
CERF provided essential start-up funds for operations
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Zam bia Floods
Burkina Fas o Floods
Ghana Floods
Dom inican Republic Tropical Storm
Bolivia Floods
Korea DPR Floods
Swaziland Drought
Madagas car Cyclone
Les otho Drought
Nicaragua Hurricane
Sudan Floods
Uganda Floods
Pakis tan Cyclone and Floods
Peru Earthquake
Mozam bique Floods and Cyclone
$0 million
$5 million
$10 million
$15 million
$20 million
CERF funding com m itted to appeal within 1 m onth
Other Funding (excl. CERF) com m itted to appeal within 1 m onth
Funding com m itted to appeal later than 1 m onth
$25 million
$30 million
Funding for Natural Disasters
Funding has been increasing, as have Flash Appeals to
deal with them
Total aid for disasters
• 2008: $920,728,357
• 2007: $807,210,842
• 2006: $257,294,600
• 2005: $7,623,463,008
• 2004: $597,082,735
• 2003: $57,968,337
The number of disasters is increasing, possibly as a result of a
combination of better reporting and increasing climate change. With the
increase in disasters comes increased awareness of and demand for
an international humanitarian response. Disaster response is one of the
areas where CERF is playing a critical role.
It is also a point of friction between humanitarian and development actors,
as most disasters taken place in development-orientated countries with
little/no experience of humanitarian response mechanisms and
procedures.
Source: Financial Tracking Service
Case study: Myanmar 2008
Map from 2008 Myanmar Flash Appeal
Myanmar Flash Appeal Requested $464 million / Funding is $247 million /
Coverage is 53.2%
Development-orientated country
• Cyclone hit in the most remote, but the most productive, region
of the country.
• Myanmar run by a repressive, secretive regime that was deeply
suspicious of international humanitarian aid.
• Enormous logistical difficulties in accessing the affected area,
compounded by the position of the government.
• Presence of non-traditional donors (China, India, ASEAN) that
had little experience of international humanitarian operations
and response mechanisms (but could/did influence the
Myanmar Government in the relief effort’s favour).
• Discussion of forcing aid in was a total distraction from the real
issue, which was to negotiate access with the regime.
Case study: Georgia 2008
Map from 2008 Georgia Crisis Flash Appeal
Requested $109 million / Funding $35 million / Coverage $32.1%
Long-term humanitarian operation in place (that was in fact winding
down) taking care of IDP caseload of 220,000 from wars in the
1990s
• Lightening war: started and finished in about four-five days.
Humanitarian agencies did not have to deliver aid under fire.
• How to get in to South Ossetia from the south (through
Georgia)? Do we ignore needs in South Ossetia in favour of
recognising Georgian territorial integrity, or acknowledge
‘realities’ on the ground and go in from the north (through
Russia)?
• Limits to humanitarian action when one of the permanent
members of the Security Council is involved.
• Buffer zone: scene of continued ethnically-motivated incidents
by South Ossetian militia that were not curtailed by Russian
troops, requiring continuous advocacy.
• How to deal with the new caseload of 128,000 IDPs on top of
the old? Posed a serious ethical question.
Case study: Zimbabwe 2004-08
Map from 2008 CAP
Requested $394 million / Funding $263 million / Coverage $66.7%
Ongoing deconstruction of Zimbabwean infrastructure, economy and
society.
• Political and election-related violence severely curtail aid operations
(humanitarian and development)
• Some shocking indicators: of a population of apx. 11,900,000:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
population with HIVAIDS: about 1,300,000;
Orphans: about 1,600,000;
people who will need food aid until March/April 2009: up to 5,100,000;
Internal migrants (IDPs): unknown number, but thought to be very high;
population abroad: about 3,000,000 [targeted by violence in South Africa]).
Official exchange rate of 355,000% in July;
Worsening climatic context (flooding and droughts) with much previously
productive farmland now arid/desertic or increasingly underused or
deserted.
Food insecurity map overlays very well the presence of these
vulnerable groups.
Main issue concerns the land reforms. Donors are unwilling to, as they
see it, underwrite Mugabe’s land reform through subsidising agricultural
assistance.
Sources for figures: 2008 Zimbabwe CAP and Mid-Year Review
Case study: Pakistan 2008
Map from 2008 Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan
Requested $55 million / Funding $12 million / Coverage 22.9%
Combination of floods and conflict
• Situation where the Government did not really want
the UN/international agencies involved, especially not
in the FATA whilst counter-insurgency operations
were ongoing.
• Again, significant contextual limitations to
humanitarian operations:
–
–
–
–
volatile Pakistani internal politics;
American strategic interests;
instability in neighbouring Afghanistan;
Unsafe environment in which to conduct aid operations.
• This is an interesting one because donors indicated
that funding would be forthcoming, but it has not
been; donors will have to be asked to perhaps state
their preferences, or their problems with the appeal,
more clearly.
Thanks for listening!
Any questions?
Ask someone who knows what I’m
doing…!!
Luke McCallin
Humanitarian Affairs Office/Flash Appeal Coordinator
CAP Section, OCHA Geneva
mccallin@un.org