13. Memorandum submitted by Jean-Jacques
Graisse, Senior Deputy Executive Director and Director of Operations,
World Food Programme (WFP)
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
is the largest humanitarian agency in the world and finds itself
at the frontline when disaster strikes. Increasingly, mother nature
is deciding when and where those disasters occur, so any examination
of the humanitarian response to natural disasters is of intense
interest to WFP.
Members of the International Development Committee
will no doubt be aware of the World Bank report published earlier
this year ("Hazards of Nature, Risks to Development"),
which examined this very issue in great detail. Two of its findings
stand out in explaining the extent to which natural disasters
have become a dominant feature of humanitarian work in recent
years:
— The report states that the number
of natural disasters has soared from fewer than 100 in 1975, to
more than 400 last year.
— The cost of dealing with these disasters
has risen astronomically—an estimated $652 billion in the
1990s—15 times more than in the 1950s.
The World Bank report suggests that we have
to stop treating natural disasters as one-off events, and consider
them more as part and parcel of the landscape we have to deal
with as humanitarian agencies.
They may not be predictable, but as the World
Bank report says, they are foreseeable.
— We know that small island states
in the Caribbean and states along the Gulf of Mexico are prone
to hurricane damage.
— We know that Pacific Rim states in
the "ring of fire" are prone to earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions.
— We know that low-lying coastal areas
on the Bay of Bengal are sure to experience periodic flooding.
— We know that sub-Saharan Africa is
liable to experience erratic rainfall and drought.
Indeed, Committee members may be interested
to know about a WFP pilot project in relation to this last category
of "foreseeable disasters". With the support of the
World Bank, WFP has devised a drought insurance scheme—currently
being piloted in Ethiopia—under which immediate payments
are triggered and given to farmers once rainfall in drought-prone
areas drops below a designated level. This is no panacea and we
cannot say it will necessarily work over the long-term or have
wide applicability, but several donors have stepped forward to
help us evaluate this approach.
Better contingency planning and preparation
for natural disasters has to be an integral part of our work.
And so does an effective and efficient funding mechanism. WFP
welcomes the efforts made by the UK Secretary of State for International
Development in pushing for reform of the humanitarian system.
The new Central Emergency Response Fund, or CERF, has been designed
to streamline and improve the flow of funds to sudden-onset emergencies
and those that have been neglected. We welcome any measures that
will improve the quick release of funds to deal with immediate
needs.
Over the years, we have seen so many emergencies
which have been neglected or for which donations were imbalanced
among agencies and the victims paid a heavy price. To truly meet
Mr Benn's vision, such funding measures must—repeat must—provide
very quick disposal with a minimum of bureaucracy and delay. We
are absolutely certain that the United Kingdom and other donors
supporting the CERF do not want to see a mechanism evolve that
becomes slow, cumbersome and reduces net flows reaching beneficiaries
in humanitarian emergencies.
The scale of the CERF allocations is an issue
for WFP given the size of some of our operations. In Sudan, we
are seeking $746 million for operations in Darfur and the South.
The $30 million cap on disbursements from the CERF to all agencies—not
just one—clearly makes it of rather limited utility to us
in these circumstances. We therefore worry that some donors may
feel their job is done if they contribute to the CERF and then
do not help us directly. We believe this may have been an element
in the massive shortfall we had in donations for Darfur this spring
which forced us to put 3 million displaced and abused people on
half rations of 1,050 kilocalories a day—a horrible imposition
on a population that has already suffered so much.
WFP believes there must be a range of existing
mechanisms, of which the CERF is only one. Like other UN agencies,
WFP maintains its own Immediate Response Account at its headquarters
in Rome. This has been a vital tool in our work allowing us not
only to respond quickly, but also to borrow against future donations
and provide quick relief to those who might otherwise go hungry
in rapidly unfolding emergency situations.
This evidence session of the International Development
Committee's inquiry into the humanitarian response to natural
disasters, will examine "The Relationship between Humanitarian
Response and Development".
Whether it is the response to the Asian tsunami,
the relief provided after last year's earthquake in Pakistan,
or the humanitarian assistance that followed the recent earthquake
on the Indonesian island of Java, WFP always prides itself on
being among the first humanitarian agencies on the scene.
This is important, because it is our experience
that the kind of interventions that are employed at an early stage
can have a huge impact on the long-term recovery of a community
that has fallen victim to some kind of natural catastrophe. Also,
being present in the early stages affords agencies like WFP the
information and intelligence that are likely to be vital in planning
the subsequent transition from emergency operation to recovery.
In this respect it may be useful to share a
few key observations:
— When planning the transition between
an emergency operation and a relief and recovery operation, the
dangers of pulling out too quickly are often greater than those
of staying too long. Humanitarian agencies need to be realistic
about when to go and we need to base our decisions on clear assessments.
— We should recognize that the road
from disaster to recovery and long-term development is rarely
linear. Recovery can be interrupted and one single country can
contain regions that are all at different stages of transition.
— We must take into account the ability
of local institutions to shoulder part of the burden of recovery.
Southern Sudan provides a clear example of how, despite a comprehensive
peace agreement, a lack of institutional capacity, ongoing insecurity
and funding shortages are hampering recovery and development.
— Many countries beset by natural disasters—especially
in Africa—are at the same time facing crises of poverty,
conflict and governance; in some of these countries—Somalia,
for example—large parts of the population suffer from chronic
food insecurity even before drought strikes. Disasters push an
even greater proportion of the population into vulnerability and
hunger. Building national and local capacity to deal with the
chronically hungry as well as those affected by disasters is a
long-term development process. The basic needs of vulnerable populations,
including food, cannot be forgotten.
Finally, WFP has recognized the need to support
institutional capacity building. Helping communities and governments
to take over emergency-response functions, has to be part of our
work and there are many examples of cases where WFP is working
closely with national governments and NGOs to build up local capacity
to respond to natural disasters.
July 2006
| 
