1. How does the money flow?
DIHAD March 2018

2. International humanitarian assistance: rising levels International humanitarian assistance, 20122016
US$ billions
11.8
14.1
17.7
19.2
4.3
4.9
5.2 5 10 15 20 25 30
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Governments and EU Institutions
Private
Total
6.6
16.1
18.9
22.9
25.7
27.3
20.3
6.9
As Stephen O’Brien rightly said, each year donors give more towards humanitarian action. Last year when we showed the volumes of international humanitarian assistance, we saw this [SLIDE 1]. Significant consecutive rises - 12%, 21% and 18% respectively - for three years running. What drove these rises? Largely by increased responses to the Syria crisis – and on top of these major disasters the the Philippines typhoon, the Ebola outbreak and the Nepal earthquake.
So what happened in 2016? [animate in] Another rise, to a record level of US$27.3 billion – (note 20.3bn from government and institutional donors and an estimated 6.9 bn from private donors).
But although its remarkable that funding continued to rise, its noteworthy that it was a much smaller rise than previous years. Just 1.6 billion or 6%. There are a number of possible factors behind this slowdown but as we’ve just heard the shortfall against requirements indicates that it wasn’t due to lack of need. It may be to do with the kinds of crises that we saw in 2016 – largely protracted conflicts and the impacts of El Nino.
Source: Development Initiatives (DI) based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) data and DI’s unique dataset for private contributions.
Notes: Figures for 2016 are preliminary estimates. Totals for previous years differ from those reported in previous Global Humanitarian Assistance reports due to deflation and updated data and methodology (see Methodology and definitions). Data is in constant 2015 prices.
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org 2

3. Preliminary figures show total UN appeal requirements above US$25 billion in Funding and requirements, UN-coordinated appeals, 2013–2017
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org

4. Donors: changing patterns of growth International humanitarian assistance from governments by donor region, 2012–2016
Europe 10 8
N. & C. America 6
US$ billions
This global figure and global slow-down in growth is of course the sum total of many individual decisions and contributions from many donors. Looking at where the funding came from, we saw three things last year:
Firstly, concentration. Most international humanitarian assistance continues to come from a small group of donors. Nearly two thirds came from just five donors, and a third from the US alone.
But secondly, what we did see change was that unlike the previous year when nearly all of the 10 largest donors gave more, last year only four increased their contributions.
If we look at how this played out in aggregate by donor region we see this. As well as slight fall from the US and a larger one from Far East Asia we see two striking things. Funding from European donors grew by 25%. Whilst that rose from donors in the middle east region fell by nearly 24%, after year on year increases since 2011.
And finally, funding from private donors also showed a modest rise 6% after a large rise the previous year.
All these taken into account, is clear that much remains to be done to realise the WHS ambitions of predictably and sustainably diversifying the funding base – or least that which flows through the international system.
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) data
Notes: OECD DAC data for 2016 is preliminary. Funding from OECD DAC donors includes contributions from EU institutions. OECD country naming has been used for regions, except the Middle East and North of Sahara, which have been combined. 'Other regions' includes the combined total of regions where funding was below US$1 billion over the 5-year period. Calculations only include humanitarian assistance spent internationally, not in-country. See Methodology and definitions. Data is in constant 2015 prices. 4 2
Middle East & N. Sahara
Far East Asia
Oceania
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
Other
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org 4

5. 88% of international humanitarian assistance to protracted and recurrent crises Long, medium and short-term recipients of international humanitarian assistance, 1991–2015
US$ billions
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) data
Notes: Long-, medium- or short-term classification is determined by the length of time the country has received an above-average annual share of its ODA in the form of humanitarian assistance. Calculations are based on shares of country-allocable humanitarian assistance. Data is in constant 2015 prices.
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org 5

6. Local and national responders: 2% directly in Direct funding to local and national responders. FTS reported, 2016
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) data
Notes: RCRC: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Government authorities in Greece, Bulgaria and Bahamas are counted as national responders since they received international humanitarian assistance in Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Data is in current prices. For organisation coding methodology, see Methodology and definitions
a International responders
b Southern international NGOs
c Internationally affiliated NGOs
a RCRC national societies
b Local and national NGOs
c Local and national governments
global humanitarian assistance report 2017 / devinit.org 6

7. 87% of extremely poor people in high risk countries
People in extreme poverty in environmentally vulnerable/fragile countries
Environmentally vulnerable
Fragile
108m Both fragile and
environmentally vulnerable
246m
307m
98m
Other
759m People in extreme poverty
Source: Development Initiatives based on World Bank PovcalNet, World Bank World Development Indicators, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and INFORM Index for Risk Management
Notes: Chart not to scale. Poverty estimates use World Bank PovcalNet modelled 2013 data. Regional estimates are used for 21 countries with no poverty data. Eight Middle East and North Africa countries are excluded due to lack of national or regional representative data. Fragile states defined according to 2016 OECD report on States of Fragility, and environmental vulnerability defined using INFORM’s 2017 index, selecting countries scoring very high and high on 'natural hazard' indicator, and very high, high and medium on 'lack of coping capacity'.
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org 7

8. International humanitarian assistance is 5% of international resource flows Resource mix in 20 countries receiving most international humanitarian assistance, 2015
Long-term debt (commercial)
Remittances
Foreign direct investment
Official development assistance (ODA) gross (less humanitarian
assistance) 2% 5%
27%
32%
12% 4% 1%
0.3%
15%
International humanitarian
assistance, US$13.6bn
Other official flows gross
International resources, US$269bn
Peacekeeping
Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS), UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), UN Conference on Trade and Development, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute data
Notes: ODA: official development assistance: ODA. ODA includes gross disbursements from DAC, multilateral and other government donors. Humanitarian assistance includes official humanitarian assistance and humanitarian aid from other government donors as reported in OECD DAC Table 2a. Negative flows for net portfolio equity, short-term debt and foreign direct investment have been set to zero at the country level. Recipient data for some resource flows is not available and therefore is excluded from the graph. Data is in constant 2015 prices.
Non-grant government revenue US$450bn
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org 8

9. Snapshot report findings (March 2018)
…are members of IATI
…are publishing open data using IATI
…are publishing humanitarian aid data
…are publishing data on appeals, plans or clusters
45%
76%
86%
15%
Note: IATI: International Aid Transparency Initiative
DIHAD 2018 / devinit.org

10. 10