Trends and Tools in International Humanitarian

Assistance and Cooperation

Presentation to Global Trends and Diversity course

IUHEID15 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 2/2Early 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 socio-economic 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

OCHAEstablished 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 SectionThe 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.

FundingIn 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 Total CAP/FA funding2007: $7,733,232,133 $3,713,801,351 (48%)2006: $7,499,265,709 $3,375,159,303 (45%)2005: $13,155,298,366 $4,029,163,415 (30%)2004: $4,734,344,385 $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 Requirements

Funding received

% funded

Central African Republic 2008

116,339,064 87,759,515 75%

Chad 2008 314,508,864 213,355,014 68% Côte d'Ivoire 2008 58,390,105 25,314,808 43% Democratic Republic of Congo 2008 Humanitarian Action Plan

736,511,765 391,427,776

53% Iraq 2008 271,123,701 165,719,016 61% occupied Palestinian territory 2008

451,319,564 292,029,496 65%

Somalia 2008 660,229,557 432,565,787 66% Sudan 2,001,006,405 1,278,337,729 64% Uganda 2008 374,948,395 206,869,397 55% West Africa 2008 464,865,582 271,596,733 58% Zimbabwe 2008 394,493,248 263,972,485 67% Nepal* 98,673,657 63,640,484 64% Sri Lanka* 194,630,612 123,193,689 63% Timor Leste* 28,894,611 17,123,735 59% 6,165,935,130 3,832,905,664 62%

*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 % funded

Bolivia Flash Appeal 2008 [unrevised as of Oct. 2008; appeal closed and unmet requirements reduced to zero]

14,184,273 14,184,273

1 Georgia Crisis Flash Appeal 2008 109,311,307 35,064,383 32% Haiti Flash Appeal 2008 105,658,433 24,827,357 23% Kenya Emergency Humanitarian Response Plan 2008

207,548,631 115,495,737 56%

Madagascar Flash Appeal 2008 36,476,586 18,118,464 50% Myanmar Flash Appeal 2008 464,609,143 247,659,675 53% Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan 2008

55,102,503 12,375,707 22%

Southern African Region Preparedness and Response Plan 2008

89,178,415 23,789,765

27% Tajikistan Flash Appeal 2008 26,914,132 15,332,107 57% 1,108,983,423 506,847,468 46%

Source: Financial Tracking Service as of 15 October 2008

Funding by SectorFunding 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 $1,556,990,322Sectors allow us to group the response, and to aggregate

across crises

Source: Financial Tracking Service

So Who Gets WhatFor 2008 so far• WFP & partners $3,454,473,934 41.7 % • UNHCR $719,341,005 8.6 % • UNICEF $479,118,066 5.7 % • Bilateral $308,361,245 3.7 % • ICRC $305,862,593 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

requirementsCAP funding %

fundedCAP

fundingas % of

totalfunding

*Sudan 1,556,400,732 2,001,006,405 1,278,337,729 64% 82%Ethiopia 772,263,822Unspecified 664,631,804*Somalia 520,913,844 660,229,557 432,565,787 66% 83%*DRC 459,950,093 736,511,765 391,427,776 53% 85%*Zimbabwe 408,388,195 394,493,248 263,972,485 67% 65%Myanmar 400,596,070 464,609,143 247,659,675 53% 62%*oPt 397,071,191 451,319,564 292,029,496 65% 74%Afghanistan 309,451,872China 303,496,976*Iraq 271,101,588 271,123,701 165,719,016 61% 61%*Chad 245,431,881 314,508,864 213,355,014 68% 87%*Uganda 232,829,505 374,948,395 206,869,397 55% 89%Kenya 208,401,394 207,548,631 115,495,737 56% 55%Haiti 143,725,836 105,658,433 24,827,357 23% 17%*Sri Lanka 138,638,815 194,630,612 123,193,689 63 89%Liberia 111,610,674*CAR 96,177,815 116,339,064 87,759,515 75% 91%

Missing from the top rankings are Uganda, West Africa, Timor, and Nepal

Source: Financial Tracking Service

Who Gives WhatLike other trends, the major humanitarian donors

remain more or less the same

Donor Humanitarian funding % total

• United States $1,875,473,575 24.3 % • ECHO $1,058,650,492 13.7 % • United Kingdom $459,543,946 5.9 % • Norway $438,011,513 5.7 % • Netherlands $406,231,651 5.3 %

Source: Financial Tracking Service

Inside vs Outside CAPsCrises 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 appealJapan $105 million $15 million $120 million 88%Netherlands $106 million $29 million $135 million 79%Canada $57 million $17 million $74 million 77%United Kingdom $238 million $74 million $313 million 76%Australia $27 million $9 million $36 million 75%EC $338 million $117 million $454 million 74%United States $829 million $376 million $1,204 million 69%Sweden $104 million $79 million $183 million 57%Ireland $29 million $23 million $52 million 56%Norway $79 million $63 million $142 million 56%France $20 million $21 million $41 million 48%Switzerland $19 million $30 million $49 million 39%Germany $30 million $55 million $85 million 35%Denmark $22 million $50 million $72 million 31%Saudi Arabia $9 million $62 million $71 million 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):

0.000%

0.005%

0.010%

0.015%

0.020%

0.025%

0.030%

0.035%

0.040%

Sweden

Norway

Luxe

mbo

urg

Nethe

rland

s

Irelan

d

Denm

ark

United

King

dom

Finlan

d

Libya

Belgium

Bahre

in

United

Sta

tes

Saudi

Arabia

Switzer

land

Canad

a

Major donor countries

Country GNI (2007)* in USD

Counties committing highest funding to CAPs as % of GNI (as per slide 19)

1 United States 13,886,472 Sweden 2 Japan 4,813,341 Norway 3 Germany 3,197,029 Luxembourg 4 China 3,120,891 Netherlands 5 United Kingdom 2,608,513 Ireland 6 France 2,447,090 Denmark 7 Italy 1,991,284 United Kingdom 8 Spain 1,321,756 Finland 9 Canada 1,300,025 Libya 10 Brazil 1,133,030 Belgium 11 Russian Federation 1,070,999 Bahrein 12 India 1,069,427 United States 13 Korea, Rep. 955,802 Saudia Arabia 14 Mexico 878,020 Switzerland 15 Australia 755,795 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 crisesThe 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 patternsSource: Financial Tracking Service

CAPs and Flash Appeals 2006: % Covered

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Zimbabw e West Africa

Uganda Timor-Leste

Sudan Work PlanSomalia

Republic of Congo occupied Palestinian

Nepal Liberia

Lebanon Crisis Horn of Africa Guinea-Bissau

Guinea Great Lakes Region

DR Congo Action Plan Cote d'Ivoire

Chad Central African Republic

Burundi

The Impact of CERF 2/2(Flash appeals in 2007)

CERF provided essential start-up funds for operationsSource: Financial Tracking Service

$0 million $5 million $10 million $15 million $20 million $25 million $30 million

Mozambique Floods and Cyclone

Peru Earthquake

Pakistan Cyclone and Floods

Uganda Floods

Sudan Floods

Nicaragua Hurricane

Lesotho Drought

Madagascar Cyclone

Swaziland Drought

Korea DPR Floods

Bolivia Floods

Dominican Republic Tropical Storm

Ghana Floods

Burkina Faso Floods

Zambia Floods

CERF funding committed to appeal within 1 month

Other Funding (excl. CERF) committed to appeal within 1 month

Funding committed to appeal later than 1 month

Funding for Natural DisastersFunding has been increasing, as have Flash Appeals to

deal with themTotal 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 2008Map 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 2008Map 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 2004-08Map 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 2008Map 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 McCallinHumanitarian Affairs Office/Flash Appeal Coordinator

CAP Section, OCHA Genevamccallin@un.org