1 / 8

Task Team on Funding for Preparedness

This study examines the current state of funding for preparedness and disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts, highlighting key issues and making recommendations for improvement. It identifies the lack of clarity on leadership and coordination, the small percentage of humanitarian funding allocated to preparedness, and the need for more predictable and flexible financing. The study aims to inform policy discussions and advocate for a more effective funding architecture.

kellyhbrown
Download Presentation

Task Team on Funding for Preparedness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Task Team on Funding for Preparedness Current Status

  2. Norwegian commissioned study (2009) 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

  3. Key Findings (cont’d) 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”

  4. IASC Humanitarian Finance GroupTask Team on Funding for PreparednessIASC WG November 2010 • 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

  5. IASC Principals Meetings – Action points on preparedness funding April 2011 • 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.

  6. First Phase • 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.

  7. Second Phase 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

  8. The intended end products for both Phases are: • 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.

More Related