Diversity in Donorship: Field Lessons HPG REPORT
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HPG Report 30 hpg hpg March 2010 Humanitarian Policy Group Diversity in donorship Field lessons Edited by Adele Harmer and Ellen Martin Overseas Development Institute About the authors Adele Harmer is a partner with Humanitarian Outcomes. Ellen Martin is a Research Officer in the Humanitarian Policy Group. Barnaby Willitts-King is an independent consultant. Roger Mac Ginty is Reader at the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. Christine Sylva Hamieh is an independent consultant. Jago Salmon formerly worked with the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Unit, UNDP Sudan. The views presented here do not reflect the views or policies of UNDP. Daniel Large is a researcher based at the Africa-Asia Centre, Royal African Society, School of Oriental and African Studies. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the wide range of organisations and individuals that assisted and supported this study. We owe particular thanks to the many interviewees and organisations in the countries visited for their time and generosity in providing valuable information and insights on non-DAC humanitarian donorship. Special thanks are due to the staff of the Turkish Embassy in Islamabad for their assistance in arranging interviews for the study on Pakistan; to Ismael al-Fadl of the University of Khartoum; Alison Hayes and Jamie Balfour-Paul, Oxfam-GB, as well as Francesca Caponera, WFP, for their support for the study on Darfur; and to Karin von Hippel and Jeremy Benthall for their comments on the Lebanon study. Thanks are also due to Carin Lenngren Martin for her help with the analysis of FTS data, and to our financing peer reviewers Kerry Smith, Development Initiatives, and Christina Jespersen. We would also like to thank Katherine Haver for her work on setting up the framework for the study. Finally, we would like to extend our thanks to our peer reviewers and colleagues in HPG for critical comments on drafts of the report, and to our editor, Matthew Foley. Humanitarian Policy Group Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD United Kingdom Tel: +44(0) 20 7922 0300 Fax: +44(0) 20 7922 0399 Website: www.odi.org.uk/hpg Email: [email protected] ISBN: 978 1 907288 16 6 © Overseas Development Institute, 2010 Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce materials from this publication but, as copyright holders, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. This and other HPG Reports are available from www.odi.org.uk/hpg. This report was commissioned by HPG. The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Humanitarian Policy Group or of the Overseas Development Institute. Contents List of acronyms iii Chapter 1 Introduction and background 1 1.1 Key findings 1 1.2 Methodology 3 1.3 Parameters and definitions 4 Chapter 2 Lessons from the field 5 2.1 Trends in non-DAC humanitarian financing, aid architecture and policy 5 2.2 The politics of engagement 7 2.3 Aiding the affected state 7 2.4 A growing recognition of multilateralism? 9 2.5 Allocating aid on the basis of need? 10 2.6 Timing 10 2.7 Forms of aid 11 2.8 Coordination with state and international actors 11 2.9 Measuring impact: the role of monitoring and evaluation 12 2.10 Conclusion 12 Chapter 3 Financing trends in non-DAC donorship 15 3.1 Overview of non-DAC financing, 2000–2008 15 3.2 Major non-DAC donors and funding patterns 15 3.3 The Gulf States 17 3.4 Other major non-DAC donors 18 3.5 Main recipients 19 3.6 Channels 21 3.7 Tracking non-DAC humanitarian financing 22 3.8 Conclusion 24 Chapter 4 Pakistan case study 25 4.1 Background 25 4.2 Financing trends 25 4.3 Policy and practice 32 4.4 Coordination 36 4.5 Impact 37 4.6 Conclusion 37 Chapter 5 Lebanon case study 39 5.1 Background 39 5.2 The humanitarian response 40 5.3 The reconstruction response 40 5.4 Non-DAC responses: case studies of Kuwait, Qatar and Iran 44 5.5 Donor motivations 45 5.6 Coordination 45 5.7 Monitoring and evaluation 46 5.8 Conclusion 47 i HPG Report 30 HPG REPORT Chapter 6 Darfur case study 49 6.1 Background 49 6.2 Volumes and sources of non-DAC assistance to Darfur 50 6.3 Channels of non-DAC assistance to Darfur 51 6.4 Coordination 55 6.5 Conclusion 57 Bibliography 59 ii Diversity in donorship: field lessons HPG REPORT List of acronyms AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir AMIS African Union Mission in Sudan AMCU Aid Management and Coordination Unit, Ministry of International Cooperation AU African Union DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee DAD Development Assistance Database DPA Darfur Peace Agreement EAD Economic Affairs Division ECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council EPI Expanded Programme of Immunisation ERRA Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority FRC Federal Relief Commission FTS Financial Tracking System G77 Group of 77 developing countries HAC Humanitarian Aid Commission ICD International Cooperation Directorate, Ministry of Finance and National Economy ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies IDB Islamic Development Bank IDP internally displaced person IIRO International Islamic Relief Organisation LAS League of Arab States NWFP North-West Frontier Province OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OHA Official Humanitarian Assistance OIC Organisation of the Islamic Conference OLS Operation Lifeline Sudan QCF Qatar Charitable Foundation PRCS Pakistan Red Crescent Society RCS Red Cross/Crescent Society RMB Renminbi SRCS Sudanese Red Crescent Society TDRA Transitional Darfur Regional Authority UNAMID UN–AU Mission in Darfur UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNSC UN Security Council WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation iii HPG Report 30 HPG REPORT iv Diversity in donorship: field lessons HPG REPORT Chapter 1 Introduction and background In 2005, a study by the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG), In late 2007, HPG embarked on the next phase of the study, entitled Diversity in Donorship: The Changing Landscape of examining non-DAC donorship at the field level. The findings Official Humanitarian Aid, documented the growing diversity of from the 2005 report demonstrated that there was a large gap donors responding to humanitarian crises.1 From as few as a in knowledge regarding the nature of non-DAC engagement in dozen government financiers just over a decade ago, it is now response to specific crises. This included understanding how commonplace to see 50 or 60 donor governments supporting non-DAC donors work with affected states, their implementing a humanitarian response. This increased engagement partners and the rest of the international community, how reflects growing ambition on the part of a wide range of their engagement is coordinated and how decisions are governments to assist others in times of need. It also reflects made regarding the nature of their support, and the means to the fact that humanitarian action is not the preserve of the rich, measure its impact. industrialised West, but a common pursuit amongst nations, rich and poor. Diverse images – a Chinese envoy promoting The study examined three emergency responses: the China’s humanitarian response to the protracted conflict in South Asian earthquake of 2005 and floods in June 2007 in Darfur, or Kuwaiti assistance to the American Red Cross to Balochistan and Sindh provinces; the response to the Israeli support its annual responses to hurricanes, for instance – have offensive in Lebanon in 2006; and the ongoing response to become less the exception, and more a reflection of modern the protracted conflict in Darfur, Sudan. Specifically, each case assistance patterns. study examined how foreign policy and strategic interests affected aid donorship, and how interventions were determined Through membership of the Development Assistance and projects prioritised, including the extent to which funding Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation was given according to assessed need. The studies reviewed and Development (OECD), Western governments have tended non-DAC response planning with the affected state and partner to dominate public debates about the direction, purpose, organisations, and the mechanisms through which aid was principles and methodology of relief. Diversity in Donorship channelled, both bilateral and multilateral, and the means of noted that countries with DAC membership do not, however, disbursement. They considered whether and how non-DAC represent the totality of aid, nor are the DAC’s members all donors participated in wider coordination efforts, and the extent necessarily the most significant aid-givers. The report found to which implementing partners were encouraged to be active that non-DAC donors, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab in field and sector coordination exercises, such as the cluster Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait, accounted for up to 12% of official approach. Finally, the case studies examined approaches to humanitarian financing in any given year between 1999 and measuring impact, including the impact of non-DAC donor 2004. It also found that resources were being concentrated in assistance within the wider humanitarian response, as well as a few specific countries, including Afghanistan, North Korea how activities were monitored and evaluated. and the occupied Palestinian territories, where these countries have more significant policy influence than in other contexts. 1.1 Key findings The study also remarked upon the overwhelming preference among these states for bilateral aid over multilateral routes, The study found that non-DAC donors do not comprise a particularly government-to-government assistance, as well as homogenous group at the field level. They have diverse policy through national operational agencies like Red Cross and Red approaches, and define humanitarian aid in diverse ways.