|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| >> Foreign Aid in the National Interest >> Chapter 5 >> Humanitarian aid in the 1990's |
|
Jump to Chapter 5 Sections:
Money matters
In 2000 the United States provided $1.6 billion in official humanitarian aid-more than the combined
total of 12 other OECD donors. Moreover, in 1998-2000 the United States provided about a third of all official humanitarian aid , up from about a fifth in 1995-97 (figure 5.3). In addition, in 2000
the United States provided more than half of all resources for the relief operations conducted by the World Food Program.
Although official financing for humanitarian aid nearly tripled in the 1990s, this growth did not keep pace with economic growth in OECD countries. In fact, between 1990 and 1998 global donor spending on humanitarian aid dropped from 0.03 percent of these countries’ GDP to 0.02 percent or to 20 cents of each $1,000 in GDP. Looking at UN agency budgets, in 2000 donors provided less than 80 percent of World Food Program requirements for long-term relief and 84 percent of requirements for immediate relief. Resources for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees peaked in 1992 but have since fallen by 60 percent. Given the differences between the funds required and provided, some triage occurs. Highly visible, geopolitically important crises in places such as the former Yugoslavia are often oversubscribed while silent emergencies such as those in Angola, Burundi, and Somalia (in the late 1990s) remain significantly underfunded. In addition, the dollar amounts of humanitarian aid mask the fact that large portions of donor resources are in kind-primarily food. The failure to provide cash for nonfood needs (such as clean water and sanitation) in emergencies seriously limits the benefits of food in many emergencies. During the 2000-02 drought in the Horn of Africa, seeds, veterinary assistance, health, water, and sanitation programs were more than 70 percent underfunded, impeding recovery. By the late 1990s donors were funneling at least a quarter of their humanitarian aid through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and for the United States, estimates are much higher. Donors’ decisions to provide funds through NGOs or multilaterally through UN agencies will continue to be a source of tension in the humanitarian relief community. Some argue that the bilateralization of this aid makes NGOs less independent, ties humanitarian goals too closely to donor geopolitics, and reduces resource allocations based on need. Others charge that UN agencies lack the speed, flexibility, and operational skills to get the job done, making NGOs essential to improving operational efficiency and effectiveness in the field. Finally, it is worth noting that humanitarian aid grew in the 1990s-while overall development assistance fell. Since 1991 official development assistance has dropped 11 percent in real terms. New Humanitarian Actors |
 |
|||
|
