Disaster risk reduction: Are we still failing to invest?

The Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme launches a new report today, Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it should count.

The impending food security and nutrition crisis in the Sahel, with an estimated 13 million people at risk of famine, is the latest in a series of events which have highlighted the need for more strategic investments in disaster risk reduction (DRR). While there is widespread agreement that measures to reduce risk will lessen the impact of disasters, quicken recovery and result in lower levels of emergency assistance being required, uncertainty remains as to whether this is being reflected in practice. The current situation in the Sahel together with recent crises such as the Haiti earthquake, Pakistan floods and the Horn of Africa famine, taking place in countries which have consistently been amongst the largest recipients of humanitarian aid over the last decade, suggests a continued failure to prioritise efforts to reduce risk in many countries.

The top recipients of humanitarian aid are particularly relevant when it comes to examining investment in risk reduction. These are the countries that are most susceptible to the risk of natural hazards becoming natural disasters, and are the places where those natural disasters have a particularly significant impact. These countries account for the vast bulk of humanitarian expenditure each and every year: nine out of every ten humanitarian dollars go to them annually. The new report from the Global Humanitarian Assistance programme examines the levels of donor investment in DRR in the top 40 humanitarian recipients over the last 10 years (2000-2009), and compares and contrasts these totals with overall aid figures. The report provides a comprehensive view of the levels of international DRR spending, placed in the context of risk and vulnerability, and reveals the shockingly low levels of investment and inequities of funding in this area at a time when the need for enhanced focus on preparedness is paramount. Headline figures from the report, for the period 2000-2009, include the following:

• US$3.7 billion was invested in DRR by donors for the top 40 humanitarian recipients
• this accounts for just 1% of all official development assistance
• US$1 out of every US$100 spent on aid went to reducing disaster risk
• four countries alone received 75% of all DRR financing to the top 40 humanitarian recipients – US$2.8 billion of the US$3.7 billion
• 23 countries out of the top 40 humanitarian recipients received less than US$1 per person in DRR financing over the decade.

By 2009 the top 40 recipients examined in this report accounted for 92% of all humanitarian funding (with a similar figure reported in each of the previous six years), therefore contributing to the continual upward pressure on humanitarian financing. Donors are increasingly compelled to reduce their humanitarian expenditures or at the very least to justify the value of each dollar spent. Investing in DRR can be a means to reducing this pressure as well as protecting development investments made by both the international community and national governments. Primarily, of course, it can reduce the effects that disasters have on families, communities and countries. The widely quoted World Bank estimate that every dollar spent on risk reduction saves $7 in relief and repairs is seen as a benchmark for illustrating the cost effectiveness of DRR.

DARA’s recently launched Humanitarian Response Index (2011) substantiates our analysis, revealing a lack of investment and commitment to prevention, preparedness and risk reduction. While there has certainly been an increase in awareness and the inclusion of risk reduction in policy, DRR continues to be given little priority by the majority of donors.

The relatively small amount of DRR financing identified in the new report ‘Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it should count’ provides further evidence of a continuing lack of investment in reducing risk. A key challenge to bear in mind is that it is much harder to demonstrate that a disaster was averted or the impact reduced than to quantify the disaster itself. The quality of data is also a problem. Data that is available indicates the lack of priority typically given to DRR. Considerable improvements need to be made in the quality of reporting to make sure that this reflects the complexity of DRR programming and enables a full picture to be drawn. Robust evidence is needed if the right decisions are to be made.

The full report can be read and downloaded from the GHA website.

To receive a copy of the report or to speak to the report’s authors, please email Jan Kellett jan@devinit.org and Dan Sparks dan.sparks@devinit.org

Tel: +44 (0)1749 671 343