Funding mechanisms for long-term drought mitigation and early action: examples and recommendations

Transcription

1 Funding mechanisms for long-term drought mitigation and early action: examples and recommendations E C H O D C M P A R T N E R S P R E P A R E D B Y : S T E V E M U T I S O, O X F A M K E N Y A H A S S A N H U L U F O, C A R E I N T E R N A T I O N AL T E R I E S S A J A L AT A, S A V E T H E C H I L D R E N U K E T H I OP I A

2 The scope Long term drought mitigation: Mitigation/moderating the effects of drought is not sufficient, if we are serious about addressing the issues of drought in the Horn we have to focus on building long term resilience and sustainable livelihoods in everything we do. Early action refers to taking proactive response measures before significant losses when drought is imminent. Research shows that timelines are too long to fund early action on time, in a reactive way. Funding mechanisms have to be in place, well before the rains fail.

3 A. Government funding Drought contingency funding: mainly through the EC funded Drought Management Initiative (DMI) used to reimburse the government s annual budgetary allocation to drought contingency funding. Other options include the Civil Contingency Fund and the small amounts of money held by specific ministries for broad emergency response and devolved funds. Options for DM could be enhanced if part of the development grants (by donors and Gov t) to different sectors are focused on building resilience based on sound drought risk profiling and action planning and linking relief to development planning. The Ethiopian DRM Framework: A draft document which facilitates the implementation of the new DRM approach in Ethiopia

4 Challenges for DCF Weak contingency planning at district level: too general, weak community consultations, hurriedly done for district budgeting purposes, lack timelines and responsibilities and are seen as one off exercises rather than opportunities to promote co-ordination. Inadequate funding: there is no national DCF, thus the need for it under DMA where all DC funds can be channelled and mechanisms for quick dispersal. The current DCF is based on government annual revenue allocation, thus low budgetary allocation has led to 50% underutilization of the EC grant Delays: Up to 3 months delays in disbursement of DCF, long procurement processes thus delays in early response. The emergency funds through ministries are ad hoc and quite often come in late. Not specific to drought and local needs: The emergency funds under CCF and devolved funds are for all disasters and not based on drought risk profiling for specific regions and lack the flexibility to respond to real community needs e.g. CCF. Lack of community awareness and involvement

5 Possible remedies Create a National Drought Contingency Fund for predictable contingency funding Ensure development and contingency planning are linked and share common visions for creating sustainable livelihoods including resilience and adaptive capacity. Increase resourcing for DC and DM measures based on sound risk analysis. Increase emergency kitty under the devolved funds and ring-fence allocations for DC for specific regions Allocation of CCF to consider drought risk profiles of regions Community awareness on their role in risk reduction, contingency planning & CCA and information on available funds Increased focus on the building blocks for development in the drylands community capacities, education, information, communication to create an enabling environment for building resilience and sustainable livelihoods. Institutional strengthening (capacity building)

6 B. The role of the non state actors in drought mitigation and early action The non state sector have a number of roles: 1. Develop replicable models for Government; 2.Support communities to ensure their needs are addressed by Government and evidence-based advocacy; 3.Provide capacity building support to Government; 4. Help fill any unavoidable gaps in action.

7 Current situation: Non state actors Still a divide between humanitarian and development departments of both NGOs and donors; Development planning and contingency planning is done separately in some organizations without common vision on supporting resilience and sustainable livelihoods Emergency interventions sometimes undermining sustainable livelihoods e.g. Some forms of food aid and water trucking etc.

8 What needs to be done? Common analysis and clear visions of sustainable livelihoods and resiliency developed among humanitarian and development departments; Joint planning e.g. DCM approaches to plan development and early preparedness activities; Using development approaches that integrate resilience building and early preparedness e.g. CMDRR, PFS, VICOBA DCM partner experience documented in technical briefs etc. Need strengthening, impact assessments, joint reflection and dissemination. Ensure sufficient attention is paid to long term strategies in DRR to build sustainable livelihoods development with a proper balance between prioritization and resourcing of humanitarian and sustainable development approaches. Strengthen coordination and information sharing between partners for consensus building, prevent duplication of efforts (resources) and foster joint actions.

9 Donor funding challenges NGOs can often manage their streams of funding in such a way as to support a DCM approach, however: - Timelines for early response activities are just too long to be able to access funding separately and act on time; - Serious attempts at promoting resilience and sustainable livelihoods needs 15 year time frames not 2-3 years. Development funding needs to be longer and more flexible to incorporate early preparedness.

10 Donor funding: solutions 1. Crisis modifiers e.g. ECHO DCM, USAID s PLI allowed crisis modifier often not enough and therefore just a stop gap; 2. Need to ensure donor development and humanitarian wings are co-ordinated e.g. in Zimbabwe NGOs worked with ECHO and EU to ensure that development and humanitarian streams supported DCM type approaches. 3. Long term development funding with built in DCM approaches. 4. All funding including emergency response assessed against its contribution towards building resilience and sustainable livelihoods.