Global Humanitarian Assistance report 2011

Humanitarian aid is being stretched. Millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa are living
with conflict and its legacy; natural disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti and the floods
in Pakistan have the power to disrupt and sometimes even paralyse economic and social
infrastructure; recovery and reconstruction remain uneven following large-scale conflict in Iraq
and Afghanistan; and political turmoil is escalating in parts of the Middle East and North Africa.
In many instances the people already affected by crises face additional threats, their livelihoods
made more insecure by the effects of climate change and the vagaries of the global economy.
The international humanitarian response to these needs reached US$16.7 billion in 2010. If
this preliminary, partial estimate proves to be accurate when full final data is available, it will
have been the largest annual humanitarian response on record – higher even than in 2005,
the year of the Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami and the South Asia (Kashmir) earthquake.
However, while the contributions of governments outside of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and those
of the private sector increased dramatically in 2010, it is not clear whether these actors will
become regular donors in years when there are no major natural disasters.
The overall humanitarian expenditure of OECD DAC member governments – the major
contributors to ongoing crises – is also estimated to have increased in 2010 (from
US$11.2 billion in 2009 to US$11.8 billion). But the substantial increases made by just
three donors (the United States, Japan and Canada) mask reductions by some of their
peers. Eight OECD DAC members look set to reduce their levels of expenditure for the third
consecutive year in 2010. While the overall international response to humanitarian crises
shows an upward trend, many governments are coming under pressure to justify existing
levels of aid spending.
In a global context of rising demand, escalating costs and budgetary constraints, the
need to target humanitarian financing effectively and equitably is ever more compelling.
In 2010, the level of needs that were unmet in the UN’s consolidated appeals process (CAP)
increased and humanitarian funding seems to have been more unevenly distributed across
crises, with complex emergencies in many cases receiving a lower proportion of their
funding requirements.
The effective targeting of humanitarian financing must include the effective coordination of
all resources to address vulnerability to crises – while it remains important for humanitarian
aid to be independent, neutral and based on need alone, it does not exist in a vacuum. Does it
make sense for humanitarian assistance, which in many cases is being spent year on year in
the same places, to be looked at in isolation from other types of potential funding?