Funding for disaster risk reduction not based on number of disasters, risk of mortality or proportion of people affected -report
By Megan Rowling
LONDON (AlertNet) - Just 1 percent of aid to the top 40 recipient countries of humanitarian assistance goes to help them reduce the risk of disasters, an investment that is "almost negligible", says a new report from an aid think tank.
From 2000 to 2009, only $3.7 billion out of $363 billion in total official development assistance (ODA) to those 40 states was spent on disaster risk reduction (DRR), according to figures compiled by UK-based Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA), which tracks and analyses aid flows. Three quarters of that DRR funding was allocated to four countries – Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and India.
Major humanitarian recipient countries suffer three in every 10 natural disasters, but account for five out of every 10 people affected and seven out of 10 people killed, when India and China are excluded from the calculations, according to the report.
"There is not enough DRR funding, and it all goes to a few countries," Jan Kellett, co-author of the report and GHA programme leader, told AlertNet. "It is not at all equitable, and is based on proxies of need that don't make any sense.”
For example, Zambia, Georgia and Sri Lanka feature in the top 10 countries for per capita DRR funding from 2000-2009, receiving between $5 and $7 for each citizen, even though indicators show their populations face lower risk than Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Democratic Republic of Congo, which got less than $1.50 per person, according to a country breakdown.
"Funding for DRR does not appear to be directed logically to those countries that need it most; it is not based on the number of disasters, the risk of mortality or the proportion of people affected each year," says the report.
Neither does it appear to be obviously related to country revenues, with some richer countries receiving considerable funding and many of the poorest ones receiving almost nothing over an entire decade, the report adds.
"This report is a very timely examination of funding for disaster risk reduction when it is now clear that we have broken through the trillion-dollar ceiling for economic losses (from disasters) so far this century," said Margareta Wahlström, the U.N. Secretary-General's special representative for disaster risk reduction, launching the report in Geneva.
"I would urge donors to re-examine their priorities to ensure that spending on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation is more in line with the needs," she added.
A further problem highlighted in the report is that funding is not well targeted at disasters that impact the highest numbers of people, like flooding.
The top 40 humanitarian aid recipients include many countries that suffer regular annual flooding, including Bangladesh, Mozambique, Sudan and Pakistan.
But while they regularly account for the highest proportion of deaths due to flooding and a sizeable chunk of the people affected, the bulk of funding for flood prevention and control goes to other countries outside the top 40.
Of the overall amount of DRR financing received by Bangladesh in 2000-2009, only a quarter was directly related to flooding, and in the case of Pakistan – hit by major floods in the following two years – the figure was just 2 percent.
RISING PRESSURE ON HUMANITARIAN AID
The report – which offers a rare overview of trends in DRR spending – also highlights how, in 2009, seven out of every 10 dollars spent on DRR came from humanitarian funds. "This would suggest that the pressure on humanitarian financing is unlikely to diminish," it notes.
Kellett said humanitarian aid – for emergency response and recovery – is being expected to deliver more value in line with rising needs and tight government budgets, and a larger amount of money for DRR should come from development assistance.
DRR activities include a wide range of measures – from putting in place early warning systems to improving infrastructure like drainage channels and embankments, building cyclone shelters, teaching people to swim, following guidelines on quake-resistance in construction and providing insurance for small farmers.
"DRR is a long-term process, and it needs long-term investment of time, money and capacity – why would you put a budget line on that in humanitarian aid?" asked Kellett. It would make sense for development actors to set a minimum target for the percentage of their spending that goes on DRR, but less so for the humanitarian sector, he added.
Nonetheless some humanitarian actors do earmark a proportion of their aid for DRR – 10 percent in the case of the European Commission's humanitarian office, for example.
Even so, the GHA report shows that, from 2004 to 2009, only 0.9 percent of humanitarian assistance was spent on disaster prevention and preparedness.
DRR has probably been underfunded in general because it is "not very sexy", Kellett said. Compared with flying emergency aid into a disaster zone, "risk reduction is a long-term thing, and you don’t know what difference you have made if it hasn't happened".
On top of that, donors may have shied away from DRR investments in countries with humanitarian crises because many of those states are troubled by conflict, and they fear instability will stop people reaping the benefits of disaster prevention, he said.
But there is growing awareness of the real need to fund DRR in these difficult environments, in order to safeguard development progress, and build local capacity to protect vulnerable communities from disasters, Kellett added.
He hopes the report will serve as a “considerable call” for international investment in DRR in countries that need it most.
"It's about saving lives, protecting livelihoods and protecting investments – and it's a cost-effective way of doing that," he said.
"Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it should count" can be downloaded from the GHA website.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
