Current Status

At the global level, preparedness and disaster risk reduction (DRR) saves lives and is cost effective, recognised and embedded in GHD Principles

Commitment at Second Session of the Global Platform to have 10 per cent of humanitarian relief funds to disaster risk reduction work

Current aid architecture is ill-suited for funding preparedness/DRR, as it straddles both development and humanitarian systems

Plurality of actors engaged in preparedness DRR has resulted in distinct lack of clarity on overall leadership and ad hoc coordination

Preparedness activities represent a very small percentage of overall humanitarian activity and expenditure

Bulk of preparedness funding undertaken by a small group of humanitarian donors, mainly channeled through UN agency recipients

Financing allocations happen after the “fact”

1. track humanitarian financing to preparedness 2. support the fundraising pillar of the five country

case study being undertaken by the SWG on Preparedness, and

3. engage in a structured discussion with the GHD

Reinforced by the 19 April IASC Principals Meeting

prepare a resourcing advocacy strategy to support SWG Preparedness country pilots, with individual pilot country strategies completed by end-2011;

advocate for predictable, flexible, timely and risk-tolerant financing architecture, utilising evidence from the analysis to be drawn from the five country studies, and such as that found in the joint World Bank-UN publication "Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention”; and

(inform) a structured dialogue launched by the ERC and the UNDG Chair by September 2011 with both humanitarian and development donors, possibly within on-going processes and discussions on humanitarian aid architecture, on the necessity to augment support to preparedness.

A mapping of various actors’ global contributions to preparedness and broader risk reduction. 

An Inception Report with:◦ a literature and policy review to better understand the scope of

emergency preparedness and to assist in agreeing definitions for the data tracking;

◦ an analysis of current available data to provide an idea of significant donors of preparedness and DRR funding and recipients of that funding;

◦ and an in-depth desk review of funding to Nepal to provide a best practice case study to showcase ways and means to ensure more predictable funding within the framework of the specific country context.

Real-time tracking of existing funding over a 12 month period, with quarterly update.

 

The second phase will be predominantly the field based work on other 6 countries, and will involve close collaboration with the SWG on Preparedness on 4 countries, three of which are already defined (Ghana, Uganda and Haiti).

  Geographical spread,

The existence and/or prevalence of humanitarian financing mechanisms (country-level pooled funding) to be able to analyze the capabilities of these mechanisms as a channel of funding for preparedness with bilateral funding,

By type of disaster i.e. natural disaster and/or conflict

The existence of an assertive government vs. a country with weak government presence

◦ n

◦ re

the findings and recommendations for possible application in humanitarian financing instruments (on CAPs and Pooled funding mechanisms)

the substantive support to the contingency planning and preparedness exercises of the five countries under the Sub Working Group on Preparedness (hereafter SWG) on mapping funding and identifying avenues for improved preparedness funding

the findings and recommendations to better address the issues at the global, regional and national levels for funding for preparedness which would include recommendations on the architecture on preparedness funding which could be taken forward by the informal IASC Donor Contact Group on Preparedness.