Preliminary Statement from the UN World Food Programme submitted to the International Development Committee inquiry into the "Humanitarian Response to Natural Disasters" (11 July 2006)

 

WFP Senior Deputy Executive Director and Chief of Operations, Jean-Jacques Graisse

 

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:

 

n The report states that the number of natural disasters has soared from fewer than 100 in 1975, to more than 400 last year.

n 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.

 

n We know that small island states in the Caribbean and states along the Gulf of Mexico are prone to hurricane damage.

 

n We know that Pacific Rim states in the "ring of fire" are prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

 

n We know that low-lying coastal areas on the Bay of Bengal are sure to experience periodic flooding.

 

n 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 for ward 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 1050 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:

 

n 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.

n 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.

n 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.

n 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.