The success of the international community in addressing a humanitarian crisis depends not only on the formulation of a well-coordinated response, but also on raising the resources needed to ensure timely assistance. Given finite donor support, resources must be targeted to meet priorities within a broad strategic framework that sets clear goals for the humanitarian programme. Over the past few years, the variety and scope of mechanisms for funding humanitarian assistance programmes, and in particular, rapid response to crises, have increased.
Fund-raising for complex emergencies
In December 1991, General Assembly resolution 46/182 established two financial mechanisms - the Central Emergency Revolving Fund (CERF) and the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) to help DHA coordinate fundraising from the international community in response to specific complex emergencies.
The Central Emergency Revolving Fund (CERF)
CERF is a cash-flow mechanism, under the authority of the ERC, to enable an immediate response to an emergency. CERF has been used at the very outset of an emergency and, in exceptional cases, during later phases to assist agencies with cash-flow problems before donor contributions are available. The mechanism requires that agencies borrowing from the fund reimburse the amount loaned within a specific target period, not to exceed one year. Figure 4 summarizes contributions totalling US$ 49,249,000 that have been made by donor Governments since the Fund's inception.
CERF has been used 48 times, with a total of US$ 124 million disbursed from April 1992 to December 1996. UNICEF, UNHCR and WFP account for 80 per cent of this total ( See figure 5 ).
The amounts disbursed in any one year have fallen from US$ 48.6 million in 1993 to US$ 4 million in 1996 ( See figure 6 ). This reduction in the use of CERF since 1993 appears to be the result of several factors:
In general, CERF has proved useful in a number of emergencies particularly in the Great Lakes, Horn of Africa and Iraq where new or ongoing relief programmes of WFP, UNICEF and UNHCR would have been jeopardized without immediate funds. In Tajikistan, UNHCR was able to use CERF to meet a temporary shortfall in funding for a critical shelter programme, which allowed refugees to return without delay and on schedule.
Given the declining use of CERF over the past two years, however, the ongoing review of humanitarian coordination called for by ECOSOC resolution 1995/56 has elicited several proposals to expand the uses of CERF. One current proposal would create a "second window": providing funds for priority requirements for which donor funding might be uncertain and which need not be repaid if funding were not raised. There has been some reluctance among donor countries to support this proposal. Another proposal that is receiving support within IASC would permit access to CERF by those non-governmental organizations that have participated in the development of consolidated humanitarian programmes and that are included in the relevant Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal. Further review at the July 1997 session of ECOSOC in Geneva will determine how CERF might best play a role in the overall resource mobilization strategy for new and ongoing complex emergencies.
The Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal Process (CAP)
From 1992-1996, 68 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeals were launched by DHA. A total of US$ 14.2 billion was sought through CAPs, of which approximately US$ 10.4 billion was raised, or 73 per cent of requirements ( See figure 7 ). The largest number of Consolidated Appeals issued was 21, and the largest amount sought in a single year was nearly US$ 4 billion: both in 1993. The 1993 Appeal for the Former Yugoslavia alone sought almost US$ 1 billion. The total numbers of appeals as well as the total requirements have fallen since 1993, levelling off at 12-14 appeals seeking approximately US$ 2.35 billion in 1995 and 1996. In the past two years, the shortfall in contributions received increased from 20 per cent of the amount requested in 1995 to 32 per cent in 1996.
The breakdown of requirements and contributions by region shows that the largest requirements and number of emergencies are found in Africa where, in 1993 alone, ten Consolidated Appeals for countries or regions seeking US$ 2.1 billion were issued. In 1996, the number had fallen to six appeals for Africa, seeking US$ 1.2 billion, with the needs of the Great Lakes Region and Angola dominating. Since the establishment of DHA, the conflict and subsequent rehabilitation in the former Yugoslavia accounted for most of the funds required in Europe, while the humanitarian programmes in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for the largest funding requirements in the Middle East and Asia, respectively ( See figure 8 ).
Almost three quarters of the funds raised through the Consolidated Appeals process in 1996 were directed towards two emergencies: those in the Great Lakes Region and in former Yugoslavia, with the remaining 27 per cent contributing to the other 12 appeals. Several of the appeals which attracted relatively little donor support are long-standing ones which appear resistant to political settlement ( See figure 9 ).
During the past five years, a few donors have provided the vast majority of contributions to the appeals. In 1996, the six largest donors were the United States, the European Union, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, accounting for approximately 64 per cent of all assistance ( See figure 10 ).
The process of planning, preparing and tracking contributions to the CAPs has evolved considerably since 1992, consistent with the guidance of the IASC, its working group and numerous geographic task forces. At first, preparation of the CAP was not much more than a consolidation of individual agency and sectoral projects. Even at that stage, however, the CAP improved upon the prior practice of each agency producing its own appeal, with little or no consultation. The CAP is intended to provide donors with a consolidated proposal which minimizes overlaps and reflects inter-agency priorities among the full range of humanitarian needs in a given emergency.
As the Consolidated Appeals process has evolved, it has become not only the preparation of a fund-raising document, but also an instrument for coordination, consisting of four elements:
The Humanitarian Coordinator in the field takes the lead in the needs assessment process and involves not only the United Nations agencies, but also, where possible, other international organizations, donor Governments and NGOs. While not delaying a timely response to an immediate crisis, the assessment mission also develops a strategic plan which sets out, for all humanitarian partners in the field, a clear set of priority objectives, sectoral responsibilities and coordination arrangements. Wherever possible, the strategic plan also draws clear links between relief activities and reconstruction, rehabilitation and development activities carried out by development agencies such as UNDP, UNICEF, WFP, FAO and eventually the World Bank. Finally, once the appeal has been issued, DHA undertakes post-appeal follow-up and monitoring, by tracking and reporting on donor contributions. The Department issues monthly updates of contributions to all emergency operations, with detailed and summary financial information, including on the Internet through ReliefWeb (www.reliefweb.int). Tracking of contributions has been expanded to include contributions not only to the agencies included in the CAP, but also to other international organizations and NGOs, including direct bilateral contributions.
Given the time constraints in some very rapidly developing complex emergencies such as the sudden flows of refugees from eastern Zaire back to Rwanda in late 1996 - DHA sometimes issues "Flash" or Interim Appeals. These are prepared over the course of a few weeks and usually cover emergency requirements for only a few months. During this period, a more comprehensive effort is undertaken to produce a follow-on CAP: incorporating the requirements presented in the Flash Appeal, together with more detailed needs assessment and strategic planning components.
The future of the CAP
While the CAP process has come a long way since its inception, improvements are still needed. Delays in the production of appeals can occur, particularly when the emergency involves several countries, and these delays can create planning and coordination problems. Moreover, in the early stages of an emergency, it is sometimes difficult to involve all relevant international, national and local actors and to prioritize a comprehensive range of relief and recovery requirements as part of an overall strategic plan. Yet only if such priorities and linkages are included can the CAP serve as the principal means of conveying the information donors require if they are to confidently commit funds in complex emergencies. The CAP, which is a flexible mechanism and can be adjusted as additional experience is gained, is likely to remain the primary means to direct efficient, timely and appropriate humanitarian assistance to those affected by complex emergencies. In response to ECOSOC resolution 1995/56, recommendations to strengthen the CAP mechanism will be presented at its substantive session in July 1997.
Fund-raising for natural and technological disasters
In contrast to complex emergencies which can evolve over time and persist for many years, natural or technological disasters tend to happen suddenly. Thus disasters require an urgent response, but one that is quite specific and, usually, of fairly limited duration. When a country suffers such a sudden-onset disaster and seeks international assistance, DHA takes the lead within the United Nations system in mobilizing the required resources, be they cash, in kind or services.
Through DHA situation reports, appeals with specific emergency relief requirements are disseminated instantaneously to more than 700 potential donors and relevant international partners through an e-mail distribution system, as well as to the public at large through the Internet (www.reliefweb.int/dha_ol). These situation reports serve as an important means of influencing donors' decisions about whether and how to respond to the disaster. DHA also contacts national emergency relief services in donor countries and the emergency services of relief agencies to mobilize assistance and advise on the most appropriate type of aid.
In many disasters, cash resources for local or regional purchases are the most appropriate means of support. In these instances, DHA can immediately provide an emergency cash grant of up to US$ 50,000 for any one disaster, bridging the gap until supplementary donor funding becomes available. Over the past five years, DHA has provided emergency cash grants totalling an average of US$ 767,000 per year ( See figure 11 ).
In addition, donors frequently choose to channel their funds through DHA to promote a coordinated response to the disaster. DHA has recently made arrangements with Italy and Norway to deposit funds in reserve in a Trust Fund for Disaster Relief for quick release in case of need. This reserve would be further strengthened should additional donors decide to participate. If provided the requisite information by donors, DHA also maintains records and issues reports on total funding provided to the affected country through channels other than DHA ( See figure 12 ). The five largest government donors to sudden-onset disasters in 1996 were Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Germany ( See figure 13 ).
Future funding for humanitarian assistance
According to the 1996 report of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), total net overseas development assistance from DAC member countries, other donor countries, and multilateral organizations to developing countries and territories has remained at, or slightly below, US$ 60 billion per year between 1992 and 1995.
| Emergency aid as percentage of total overseas development expenditure1 1992-1995 | ||
| Year | Excluding food aid (per cent) | Including food aid (per cent) |
| 1992 | 4.2 | 7.6 |
| 1993 | 5.7 | 8.7 |
| 1994 | 5.8 | 8.9 |
| 1995 | 5.2 | 7.5 |
| 1 Internet address: http://www.oecd.org/dac/htm/table2.htm. | ||
The table above gives expenditures on emergency aid by DAC member countries as a percentage of total Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). It shows that the percentage of ODA expended on emergency humanitarian assistance - both including and excluding food aid - peaked in 1994 and declined in 1995: the last year for which full data is available from DAC.
Given the flat level of ODA in current dollars over the past few years, this data suggests that the total amount of emergency aid seems to have peaked, and may well be declining. Some of the decline is of course explained by the slowly declining number of ongoing complex humanitarian emergencies. Another possible factor may be donor fatigue, particularly with long-standing humanitarian emergencies which appear resistant to political settlement.