Figure 1: Funding response to Horn of Africa crisis

Another food crisis has now hit the Saheldue to the failure of last year’s rains and aid agencies are calling for an early response to limit the effects. We examine the context and complicating factors that led to last year’s crisis in the Horn of Africa, and emphasise the need for increased early funding to avoid a repeat of the levels of crisis seen in 2011.

Drought

The failure of two consecutive rainy seasons (Oct-Dec 2010 and Apr-Jun 2011) resulted in low crop yields across the Horn of Africa, leading to a reduction in labour demand as well as below-average livestock prices and increased livestock mortality.

Increasing food prices

Food prices across the region subsequently started rising in late 2010. The situation was exacerbated by increases in global food prices, particularly in areas that rely on importing large proportions of their food, such asDjibouti.

The price increases spread to other markets, including fuel, pushing many moderately food-insecure households over the edge.

Security restrictions on aid delivery in Somalia

In July 2011 the UN identified a number of key operational constraints that were severely inhibiting relief efforts. Of particular note was the limited humanitarian access to affected areas of Somalia due to ongoing insecurity and restrictions imposed by armed groups. In areas of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab the group had put in place aid bans on several agencies, preventing food from entering some of the worst struck areas of famine.

In south-central Somalia armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, extremism and piracy caused further problems in terms of aid delivery and relief efforts.

The refugee crisis

A quarter of Somalia’s population was displaced due to the war, and by July 2011 humanitarian organisations in Ethiopiaand Kenyawere struggling to cope with the vast influx of refugees. An average of 1,400 Somalis sought refuge at Kenya’s Dadaab complex every day, with the camp hosting over four times its intended capacity of 90,000.

The extraordinarily high numbers of refugees arriving in camps caused an entirely new set of problems. In the Dadaab camp there was a reported increase in sexual violence against women and girls, putting them at a higher risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, due to a lack of space in the main refugee camp some 65,000 people had settled on the outskirts where access to basic services was minimal.

The Deyr rains – a blessing and a curse

Whilst the eventual onset of Somalia’s Deyr rains in October 2011 was welcomed for cattle and livestock production, the rains brought with them a host of other complicating factors, including:

• increased risk of hypothermia
• increased risk of outbreaks of water-borne and other diseases
• further displacement at camps inMogadishu, where temporary structures could not withstand the rain
• difficulties in aid distribution due to heavy rainfall
• disruptions in planting
• rising malnutrition rates in camps in and aroundMogadishu, placing further demands on already stretched relief efforts.

Funding

An inadequate early funding response from the international community meant relief efforts in the Horn of Africa were seriously restricted for the first half of 2011, with donor response only really picking up once the full extent and effects of the crisis had become all too apparent.

Crisis builds in the Sahel

As warnings mount of a crisis across theSahelthat could affect up to 15 million people, the failure of last year’s rains has already caused crop and food shortages and food prices have doubled in some areas.

Aid agencies acknowledge that the response to date has been better than was the case for previous crises and that lessons have been learnt following last year’s events in the Horn of Africa. However, there is still a long way to go before early response sufficiently meets the needs of the most vulnerable in an effective and timely way, and can prevent the levels of crisis witnessed last year. If governments and donors have really taken the lessons from 2011 on board, they need to demonstrate this by providing much greater levels of funding, and sooner rather than later.

The Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme will release its GHA Report 2012 in July. To pre-order a copy, please contact Dan Sparks: dan.sparks@devinit.org

The study used UNOCHA’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS) to examine 6,003 projects that were submitted to the consolidated appeals process (CAP) for 14 countries and four flash appeals in 2010 and 2011, quantifying the amount of funding provided that was targeted specifically to older people and people with disabilities who were living in humanitarian crises.

Key findings:

• US$10.9 billion was contributed by official donors to the CAP and flash appeals in 2010 and 2011
• US$73 million (0.7%) of that was allocated to projects that included at least one activity targeted at older people or people with disabilities
• US$27.6 million (0.3%) went to projects targeted exclusively at older people or people with disabilities
• 145 (2.4%) of the 6,003 projects submitted to the CAP and flash appeals in 2010 and 2011 included at least one activity targeting older people or people with disabilities, 61 of which were funded (1% of all projects submitted).

Findings – older people:

• neither the USA nor the UK provided any CAP or flash funding for projects that included activities targeting older people
• 47 (0.78%) of the 6,003 projects submitted included at least one activity targeting older people, 18 of which were funded (0.3% of those submitted)
• i20 countries there were no projects submitted in any sector that targeted older people, including Chad, Central African Republic and 16 countries in Western Africa
• 22 (46%) of the 47 submitted projects that targeted older people were submitted by just one organisation – HelpAge International.

Findings – people with disabilities:

• 98 (1.6%) projects submitted included at least one activity targeting people with disabilities, 43 of which were funded (0.7% of those submitted)
• in 2010, 37 projects (1.3%) included at least one activity targeting people with disabilities; this figure increased to 61 (1.9%) in 2011
• among the 98 projects submitted, 29 exclusively targeted people with disabilities, of which 18 were submitted by just one NGO – Handicap International.

The study also considered projects that did not have any activities specifically targeting older people or people with disabilities, in order to establish to what extent these groups were integrated into broader humanitarian activities. It found that only 312 of the 6,003 projects analysed (5.2%) mentioned older people and people with disabilities alongside other vulnerable groups, indicating that access to general humanitarian projects designed to support the whole population is at best limited for older people and people with disabilities.

Although the evidence shows a slight increase in the number of projects funded that include at least one activity targeting older people and/or people with disabilities from 2010 to 2011, funding for both groups remains low. When we take into account the fact that the targeted activities typically represented less than 25% of each project’s total activities, we begin to get a clearer picture of the extent to which older people and people with disabilities are currently being overlooked by the humanitarian system.

However, population demographics are changing fast, and the report warns that this situation cannot continue. By 2050:

• the number of people aged over 60 is set to triple to 2 billion
• the number of people aged over 80, who represent the world’s fastest growing population group, is expected to increase fourfold
• more than 80% of older people will live in developing countries, where disasters are more likely to occur and where people have fewer resources to deal with the effects.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study and the combined operational experience of HelpAge and Handicap International, the report recommends that:

• humanitarian agencies ensure their needs assessments provide accurate information on all vulnerable groups by collecting data on older people and people with disabilities, and disaggregating the data by age and gender
• examples of good practice in inclusion of vulnerable groups are more widely shared, and are applied to project design and implementation
• cluster lead agencies, UNOCHA and Humanitarian Coordinators provide better leadership to ensure adequate accountability to all beneficiary populations and improved consistency across sectors
• bilateral and multilateral donors encourage and enable appropriate and inclusive humanitarian response by providing flexible, timely funding, which is allocated in proportion to need and on the basis of a thorough needs assessment.

You can read the report, A study of humanitarian financing for older people and people with disabilities, 2010–2011, here.

HelpAge International – www.helpage.org

Handicap International – www.handicap-international.org.uk

Table 1: Comparative analysis of UN CAP appeals at launch. [Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS and UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal data]

However, the new Humanitarian Appeal seeks to mobilise US$93 million less than did the mid-year review (MYR) of the 2011 CAP, which represents a 1% decline. Yet, any direct comparison between global CAP requirements at the time of launch – which takes place on the last day of November each year – and at its mid-year review point – which occurs each July – can be misleading. This is due to the fact that new consolidated appeals are added after the annual CAP is issued and flash appeals are launched in response to sudden onset emergencies that could not be foreseen in the annual CAP. Therefore a detailed analysis of individual appeals is essential in order to assess the actual variations taking place.

Table 2: Comparative analysis of 2011 and 2012 UN CAP requirements. All figures are in US$ million. [Source: Development Indicatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal data]

Somalia is the country experiencing the single most dramatic escalation of requirements for 2012 with a staggering increase of over 500%, in the course of a single year, up to US$1.5bn, driven by the severe drought crisis in the Horn of Africa. Requirements by beneficiary also soared to US$380 per person, a 93% increase from 2011. Yet, even with recent improvements in the security situation and better humanitarian access, it remains doubtful that such a vast volume of funding can be successfully implemented in one of the most unstable and volatile countries in word.

Figure 1: Somalia consolidated appeals’ total requirements and requirements per beneficiary for 2011 and 2012. [Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal data]

Requirements for Kenya and Djibouti – the other two CAP countries most severely affected by the Horn of Africa crisis – also feature predominantly in the Humanitarian Appeal for 2012. Kenya’s is the third largest consolidated appeal for 2012 with a 26% increase in needs compared to six months ago and a 45% rise from the 2011 CAP levels. Funding sought for drought-affected Djibouti more than doubled, with requirements per beneficiary also rising by some 18%. 

In its first year, The Republic of South Sudan has taken place in the UN CAP for the second time. The country’s first consolidated appeal was launched at the time of the 2011 CAP MYR last July and represented the separation of humanitarian plans and the associated financial requirements for South Sudan from those of Sudan. In 2012, both Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan see their requirements per beneficiaries grow well beyond 100% when compared the previous year, despite a more moderate increase in net appeal requirements: collectively needs increased from US$1.7bn in 2011 to US$1.8bn for 2012. Looking at each country, the Republic of South Sudan sees the funding sought increase by a quarter while Sudan’s requirements decline marginally by 4%.

Figure 2: Sudan 2011 CAP and consecutive separated South Sudan and Sudan consolidated appeal requirements. [Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal data]

Many traditional consolidated appeals begin 2012 with declining funding requirements: Afghanistan, Central African Republic (CAR), Chad and the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) all see their funding diminished. In the case of Afghanistan and CAR, this is happening despite an increase in the number of beneficiaries (32% and 18% respectively), while Chad sees those considerably reduced. Such apparent contradiction reinforces the perception that there is little connection between the identification of humanitarian needs and the level of funding requirements in the Humanitarian Appeal.

Figure 3: CAP requirements for Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad and occupied Palestinian territory (2011-2012). [Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal data]

The CAP 2012 document states that “coordinated needs assessments are more systemically practised, and this is likely to be fine-tuning the identification of people in need and of the scope of their needs. Also, information management innovations are likely playing a part in reducing funding requests (…)”. Nevertheless, this is at best a tenuous explanation of the widely varying scenarios presented by the 2012 Humanitarian Appeal: while Afghanistan is experiencing drought and intensified conflict, leading to an increase in the number of vulnerable people, its funding requirements are being slashed by a quarter; on the other hand, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has lost 31% of its beneficiaries and yet funding requirements remain unchanged from those of the previous year.

With regards to the countries included in the 2012 Humanitarian Appeal, they are few highlights, apart from the disappearance of the West Africa regional appeal which has been part of the CAP for the past 11 years. The West Africa appeal used to encompass some 15 countries, many of which experience small-scale but persistent humanitarian crisis and high vulnerability. Traditionally it has been a rather small appeal, with average requirements comprising only 4.4% of the CAP. However, if the level of funding requested has usually been low, so has been the response too: the West Africa appeal received on average just 4.1% of all CAP funding and was the worst funded consolidated appeal in 2011.

Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Niger frequently participate in the CAP process with individual appeals as these countries face larger-scale emergencies that demand targeted response. Indeed, Niger and Côte d’Ivoire are part of the 2012 Humanitarian Appeal and Liberia is expected to come on board by the beginning of 2012. However, at least another five countries in the region – Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Guinea and Burkina Faso – are currently experiencing cholera outbreaks. Leaving them outside of the CAP is not likely to raise donor awareness of their needs, nor help to provide adequate assistance to affected populations.

In the Philippines, the population of Mindanao continues to face the triple effects of insecurity, natural hazards and poverty. During 2011 heavy rains and severe weather caused repeated flooding in central and southern Mindanao, the last flash floods happening only a few days ago.

Finally, the 2012 UN Humanitarian Appeal suggests that a more strategic identification of objectives exists now than it did previously, with clearer boundaries being set between humanitarian needs and secondary aims. This could account for the marked decline in funding requirements for some humanitarian contexts, as demonstrated below.

• The oPt CAP for 2012 seeks 22% less money than it did in 2011 placing requirements at their lowest level for the last five years. Although the appeal acknowledges that “the humanitarian needs in the oPt have not fundamentally changed”, this CAP opts for a narrower scope than was seen in previous years.
• Nearly two years after the devastating 2010 earthquake, Haiti is in a transitional phase and CAP requirements have gone down by 40% compared to those from the CAP MYR., However, when compared to funding requirements from 12 months ago, this decrease reaches 75%. According to the appeal document this is not a transition appeal but one which focuses on critical humanitarian needs only, leaving reconstruction and development work to other funding mechanisms.
• In Zimbabwe, the humanitarian community has revised funding requirements for 2012 downwards by 45%, as only priority humanitarian needs will be covered under the 2012 CAP, while recovery work will be addressed by other initiatives such as the Zimbabwe UN Development Assistance Framework.

This new, more targeted approach of the UN CAP is a welcome development as it helps to keep the appeal process more firmly grounded in key humanitarian objectives. It should also help to bridge the gap between humanitarian requirements and humanitarian funding. On average, a third of humanitarian needs have gone unmet in the last five years with provisional levels for 2011 being the highest ever, at 41%. However, meeting needs can only be achieved if humanitarian donors maintain current levels of funding despite the squeeze on their budgets and do not reduce the size of their country envelopes in line with decreased appeal requirements. 

Three multi-country epidemics are ongoing, according to UNICEF, each with separate strains: the Lake Chad Basin, affecting Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria and Niger; the West Congo Basin, with impacts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR); and Lake Tanganyika – which encompasses DRC and Burundi. In Chad and Nigeria, the epidemic had already started in 2010 and is the worst in Chad’s history, with 16,000 cases and 433 deaths largely driven by the country’s vast territory and large-scale population movements. The table below summarises existing reports on numbers of cholera cases and related deaths as reported by the leading humanitarian organisations and affected countries:

Figure 1: Cholera incidence statistics per affected country for 2011. [Source: Development Initiatives based on UNICEF, WHO, OCHA and IRIN sources]

In DRC, the outbreak was reported in March 2011 and in only three months a total of 3,896 cases, including 265 deaths have been reported, with an overall CFR of 7%; these numbers have continued to grow over the past months. In north-eastern Nigeria containing the disease has been hampered by high population density and sporadic conflict, while in CAR health authorities declared an outbreak just two weeks ago. Smaller cholera epidemics in Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, and Togo are being contained. 

Following its late 2010 cross-border epidemiological study of the Lake Chad Basin, which looked to identify the key cholera hotspots and how the infection was spreading across borders, UNICEF now calls for cross-border coordination to be enhanced at all levels. The study is currently in its second phase, analysing how better to act on the findings from last year’s work.

A review of the current funding status of cholera-related projects in existing United Nations (UN) consolidated appeals integrated in the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) presents a rather bleak panorama due to considerable underfunding. This seems to indicate the likelihood of a launch of a dedicated UN common appeal for the regional cholera outbreak. Currently, 12 countries are covered by a consolidated appeal and all appeals but one include cholera prevention and response projects. However, with the exception of Chad, levels of funding are worryingly low, just two and a half months before the end of the year and the appeal period.

Figure 2: Funding status for cholera-related projects in existing UN CAP appeals for countries affected by the 2011 epidemic as of end of October 2011. [Source: Development Initiatives based on OCHA FTS data]

Note: The DRC consolidated appeal doesn’t present requirements for each specific project but only on a cluster level.

With discussions underway around the need for a dedicated regional plan to combat the epidemic, we may look at other major cholera crises for reference regarding donor response to needs. At the end of 2005, West and Central Africa faced another cholera epidemic which spread to ten countries where a total of 51,976 cases and 814 deaths were registered over a period of three months leading up to the launch of the UN flash appeal. The West and Central Africa Region 2005 Flash Appeal requested US$3.2 million to support UNICEF, WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) activities in response to the outbreak, and to support the preparation of affected countries ahead of the forthcoming cholera season. Of the 47 projects listed under the appeal, only one was funded, together with a contribution of US$1.2 million of overall funding for UNICEF, pending allocation to specific projects. On the whole, only 44% of the needs identified within the 2005 regional appeal were met.

Figure 3: Unmet requirements and funding received for the 2005 West and Central Africa regional cholera appeal. [Source: Development Initiatives based on OCHA FTS data]

More recently, in October of 2010 and only ten months after the earthquake that devastated the country, Haiti experienced its first case of cholera since records of the disease exist (WHO keeps a registry on existing cholera cases since 1949). 507,398 cases were recorded in just three months with case fatalities reaching 2.2% and causing 5,286 deaths, as reported by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).  In terms of financial support for the emergency, an analysis of the funding status of cholera-related projects within the 2011 Haiti consolidated appeal indicates that 80% of the needs are currently met. By comparison, only 59% of the overall appeal needs were met in the same period.  Moreover, data gathered by the Office of the UN special envoy for Haiti tells us that 97.3% of pledges made by donors for the cholera emergency were met, as of September of this year.

Figure 4: Pledges and contributions – both disbursement and confirmed commitments – for the Haiti cholera and earthquake crisis. [Source: Development Initiatives based on data published by the Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti]

Such inequity between funding for past and present cholera epidemics in West and Central Africa and the cholera outbreak in Haiti makes you wonder whether the geographical location of the crisis may carry more weight than the nature of the emergency.

The stark contrast with funding to the 2010 Pakistan floods appeal continues.

Just seven government donors have so far reported funding contributions to the OCHA Financial Tracking service, and almost a third of the funds received so far within the appeal have been provided via the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund.

Afghanistan has been a major humanitarian aid recipient for the last decade, but its relationship with humanitarian aid has been complex, controversial and often unpredictable.

Humanitarian aid to Afghanistan increased dramatically in the year following the US-led invasion before falling sharply again the next year. Development aid continued to grow steadily throughout the decade, while humanitarian aid remained at relatively low levels until a major escalation in humanitarian needs in 2008 put humanitarian needs in Afghanistan back on the international agenda.

oda-ha.png”>oda-ha” src=”http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/afghanistan-oda-ha.png” alt=”" width=”480″ height=”297″ />

Afghanistan has participated very sporadically in the UN Consolidated Appeals process. Afghanistan has only participated in the UN consolidated appeal process (CAP) just three times between 2000 and 2010 and only began to prepare a humanitarian work-plan from 2009, with the establishment of a UN OCHA office in Kabul.

There have however been five ‘non-CAP appeals’ in this period. Non-CAP appeals are by definition lower priority and typically receive a poorer donor response. The use of non-CAP appeals is illustrative of the low priority given to humanitarian needs in the post invasion period when many of the major donors prioritised state-building and stabilisation agendas.

The donor financing response to these various UN funding appeals has been extremely variable.

While the analysis and articulation of the scale and severity of humanitarian needs and humanitarian financing in Afghanistan has improved latterly with reinforced humanitarian leadership in Kabul, this latest statement of increased financing requirements happens at a time of unpredictability in donor financing responses. We commented elsewhere on the disappointing donor response to the UN CAP appeal up to the mid-year point, and noted recently the very disappointing response to the Pakistan flash appeal to date. In this climate of uncertainty, it is apposite that the revised Afghanistan appeal calls for an increased emphasis in responses on ‘more sustainable, longer term, disaster risk reduction interventions, by government and development partners over the next years.’

We will monitor donor responses to the Afghanistan appeal through this blog. You can access the data referred to in this blog here and we plan to update our report on resource flows to Afghanistan early next year.

Pakistan was severely affected by flooding in 2010 and a UN Flash appeal was launched on 11^th August last year requesting an initial US$460 million to meet the needs of 14 million affected people. The scale of the flooding in 2010 was immense and unprecedented and an estimated 18 million people were ultimately affected.

While the scale of the disaster is smaller this year, it is still of a large scale disaster and the effects no less serious for the individuals affected. It may be that funding commitments are not yet captured within UN OCHA’s financial tracking service (FTS), but on the basis of the funding data we have so far, the donor response has been very limited, particularly in comparison with last year’s appeal.

Cumulative funding to UN Flash appeals for Pakistan in 2010 and 2011 (new commitments/contributions received in the weeks following the appeal launch date)

Source: UN OCHA FTS

For more information on the crisis, the ReliefWeb crisis page is regularly updated and the latest information on funding by cluster and by agency can be found on the UN OCHA FTS site. FAO has produced a map comparing affected areas in 2010 and 2011. We will continue to monitor funding to the crisis as more information becomes available.

For the Horn of Africa crisis I’ve used the number of affected people reported by UN OCHA and total funding reported by UN OCHA to the appeals in Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia as of 17th August 2011. This is a slightly different parameter for measuring funding than the other crises however, these were pre-existing funding appeals which included a wide range of funding requirements not related to the food crisis, so these figures already over-represent funding to the crisis, which I was reluctant to expand further by including funding outside the appeals.

The crisis is of course still unfolding and funds still arriving, but so far an affected person in the Horn of Africa has received slightly more than an affected person in Pakistan did last year, and US$833 less than people affected by the earthquake in Haiti last year. You can also see these figures in a many eyes visualisation.

If we were able to separate out funds specifically for the food crisis from other humanitarian funds being channelled to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, the figures would likely be more polarised.

Funding per affected person to major humanitarian crises, 2003-2011

[Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS, UN OCHA and CRED EM DAT data]

We have attempted to put some numbers together, which you can see in this visualisation:

The data which drives this and our calculations can be found in the data store section of the website. We know this is not perfect so please help us out if you can think of a better way!

Here’s what we did:

1. Downloaded data from OCHA FTS on 10^th August 2011 at 1500 GMT. The download includes funding from all donors to five ‘crises’ Djibouti 2011, Ethiopia 2011, Kenya 2011, Somalia 2011 and Horn of Africa – July 2011.
2. We then separated out funding within the three existing UN appeals for Djibouti, Kenya and Somalia (omitting funding which was outside of the UN appeals).
3. We added to this funding attributed to the ‘emergency type’ ‘Horn of Africa – July 2011’. This is not a UN appeal but a place for the FTS to report contributions which are not yet attributable to a specific recipient country, but which are identifiably for this crisis.
4. We then added ALL funding to Ethiopia. The appeal in Ethiopia is not part of the UN consolidated appeal process (CAP) and as such, it is not currently possible to differentiate funding to Ethiopia which is specifically for the drought response with the FTS data.

This means that our bilateral funding figures are an over estimate because we included all  funding to Ethiopia.

Next we attempted to impute back to government donors some of their contributions via multilateral funds and agencies like this:

1. We took from the CERF website the total funds allocated to those four countries in 2011.  We then took the contributions of each donor to the global CERF fund in 2011 and applied their percentage share to the volume of funds allocated to the crisis affected countries.
2. For ERFs and CHFs we took the donor contributions to the funds reported to the OCHA FTS and applied their proportions of the total to the total funds committed/contributed to the crisis by the ERFs in Kenya and Ethiopia and the CHF in Somalia.
3. We then took the amount committed/contributed by the EU Institutions to the crisis and applied to this, the share that each EU member state provided in multilateral ODA to the EU Institutions in 2010. This figure can be considered at best an estimate, but we think its worthwhile to illustrate a more comprehensive picture of what some EU member states are giving.

As you can see from this complex process, tracking funding to this crisis is not easy. If you can think of a better way of doing this, please comment or email me lydia.poole@devinit.org

Will the upward trend in humanitarian aid financing be sustained?

We estimate that in 2010, government and private donors provided a record US$16.7 billion to address humanitarian needs, but there are undercurrents that indicate uncertainty in future levels of giving.

Growth in humanitarian aid financing in 2010 was largely driven by contributions to the large scale natural disasters in Haiti and Pakistan and it is uncertain whether these levels – and in particular contributions from private donors and donors outside of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) group, which are typically more volatile and reactive to high profile crisis events –  will be sustained. The report also notes that counter to the overall trend, 12 OECD DAC donors had experienced a contraction in their bilateral humanitarian aid financing for two or three years between 2007 and 2010.

The CAP mid-year review reveals that funding levels at the mid-year point in 2011 are lower both in proportion and volume than in the previous year at just 45% funded against requirements, with US$3.6 billion of funding. This is perhaps not surprising given the major stimulus to funding levels that the Haiti crisis generated. However, the proportion of needs met is also lower than the mid-year point in 2009 (49%) and 2008 (46%).

Moreover, the amount of funds requested in the UN CAP appeal in 2011 is far lower than the two preceding years, at just US$7.9 billion.

Disappointingly, the collective donor response to the UN CAP appeal at the mid-year point in 2011 demonstrates that funding levels have dropped and funding gaps have widened in 2011.

Growing funding inequality?

The Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) commitment to fund in accordance with assessed needs has particular resonance in light of indications from within humanitarian aid data, highlighted in the GHA report 2011, of a possible growing inequality in funding between crises.

Between 2000 and 2009, donors reporting to the OECD DAC have increasingly concentrated their financing in a relatively small number of countries. In 2000, recipient countries which were outside of the top twenty largest recipients by volume, received 31.7% of total official humanitarian assistance. By 2009, the share of those outside of the top twenty had halved, to just 16.4%.

And in 2010 in particular, the GHA report 2011, notes that the overall growth in volumes of funding to the UN consolidated appeal masked a reduction in the level of funding for complex emergencies for the first time since 2003 and a widening gap (around a 10% increase on the three preceding years) in the proportion of needs met within consolidated appeals. In addition, some crises were bigger losers than others. Chad and CAR notably saw an increase in the proportion of their un-met financing needs of around 30%.

It is too early in the year to determine the final outcome of donor funding for ongoing crises in 2011, but at the mid-year point, inequality was certainly evident. The five worst funded appeals have so far had just 9-30% of their funding needs met. All but one are in Africa. The five best funded appeals have had at least twice as much of their funding needs met, 52-63%. Just one of these is in Africa – top of the leader-board is Afghanistan.

Figure 1. Five best and five worst funded appeals in the UN consolidated appeal, July 2011

[Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal, Mid-Year Review, 2011]

Are we investing in the right things?

Finally, in the last chapter of the GHA report 2011, we reflect on whether we have struck the right balance in our investments in crisis affected states – whether we are investing a great deal too late, when early action could have been less costly in both human suffering and financial terms.

In the top 20 recipients of official humanitarian aid between 2000 and 2009, less than 1% of humanitarian aid has been invested in prevention and preparedness. This preference for funding the latter stages of a crisis, rather than funding early preventive action is repeated in the most pressing humanitarian crisis in 2011 so far, the food security crisis in the Horn of Africa.

While donors have responded to meet immediate food needs fairly well, investments in addressing the structural causes of a predictable crisis have been far less generously funded. In Kenya for example, just 12% of agriculture and livestock funding needs in the UN consolidated appeal have been met compared with 105% of food aid needs.

Figure 2. Funding requirements met and un-met in key clusters in countries affected by the Horn of Africa food crisis at the 2011 UN CAP mid-year point

[Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA Humanitarian Appeal, Mid-Year Review, 2011]

Issues highlighted in the UN CAP mid year review echoed some of our key interests and concerns. We will continue to monitor trends in humanitarian aid financing, including monitoring trends in funding equity, how donors are balancing their investments across different phases and sectors of crises and of course the international response to developing crises, including in the Horn of Africa, which you can follow via the GHA blog and reports and our help-desk function.