IASC Task Team on Funding for Preparedness – Humanitarian Financing GroupIASC Task Team on Funding for Preparedness – Humanitarian Financing Group

Resourcing IASC Resourcing IASC Preparedness Efforts - Preparedness Efforts - Tracking Humanitarian Tracking Humanitarian

Funding for Funding for PreparednessPreparedness

Resourcing IASC Resourcing IASC Preparedness Efforts - Preparedness Efforts - Tracking Humanitarian Tracking Humanitarian

Funding for Funding for PreparednessPreparedness

IASC Focus on Disaster Preparedness

The case for more and predictable funding for preparedness – IASC involvement

The Pilot Survey of Funding Humanitarian Preparedness in the Field

Resourcing IASC Preparedness Efforts – the Way Forward

The case for more and predictable funding for preparedness - IASC

The case for more funding (cont’d)

Pilot Survey on Funding Pilot Survey on Funding Humanitarian Preparedness Humanitarian Preparedness

THE EXERCISE Pilot SurveyTHE EXERCISE Pilot Survey

• Summer 2010; Sample of six countries (Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Nepal, Tajikistan) and one region (West Africa) where there is both a significant presence of humanitarian actors and a high risk for natural disasters.

• A) to understand what kind of preparedness support activities humanitarian agencies carry at country level and B) to understand in broad terms how such activities are funded.

• Out of the six target countries, five provided data concerning a total of 236 recent and on-going preparedness support activities.

• West Africa CAP and Medical Corps global submission.

Country Number of reporting organisations

Number of reported projects/activities

Nepal 13 66

Colombia 10 17

Indonesia 10 48

Ethiopia 10 38

Madagascar 16 67

LIMITATIONS Pilot SurveyLIMITATIONS Pilot Survey

• Limited sample size

• Definition of preparedness

• Under-reporting

• Selective reporting

• Identification of funding source

“BRUSH STROKES” Pilot Survey“BRUSH STROKES” Pilot SurveyBroadly, a confirmation of what was already known:

1) Many humanitarian organisations engage in a variety of preparedness support activities, and these target local actors at least as much as the organisations themselves.

2) Humanitarians engage in short-term, small-scale initiatives alongside multi-year, multi-million Dollar programmes with a seeming lack of coherence and consistency; «projectisation».

Target (1) Target (2) Target (3) Target (4) Target (5)

108

93

130

77

104

Up to 6 months(including one/tree

day events)

6-12 months More than 12 months(including

“permanent” or “on-going”

activities)

55 39 80

Less than USD 100,000

USD 100,000 – 500,000

USD 500,000 – 1 million

More than USD 1 million

99 29 13 27

“BRUSH STROKES” (cont’d)“BRUSH STROKES” (cont’d)Lack of coherence and consistency seemingly reflected in funding:

1) The funding levels reported may be misleading and do not correspond to other pieces of evidence (e.g. regional CAP).

2) A variety of funding sources likely to reflect an ad hoc, «opportunistic» approach.

3) Lack of predictability a major obstacle to going to scale.

Full funding Partial funding No funding

137 42 19

Humanitarian funding stream Development funding stream Budgetary/Internal resources

58

23

72

MAIN CONCLUSIONS – Pilot Survey

• Fragmented approach – amongst implementers and donors – counters what is required: coherence and programmatic approach

• Lack of predictability in funding makes it difficult to go to scale

• Going to scale will also require substantially more volume

• Humanitarian preparedness laying ground for transition to recovery/development

Resourcing IASC Preparedness

Resourcing IASC Preparedness - The Way Forward