© UNICEF/NYHQ2010-1797/McBride

Pakistan, 2010: Children displaced by massive flooding attend a temporary learning centre at a UNICEF-supported camp in the city of Sukkur. Early Warning, Early Action systems linking global, national and local responses are crucial to mitigating human suffering.

A world of increasing complexity and risk

In 2010, natural disasters of unprecedented magnitude caused untold suffering for millions of children, their families and their communities. Conflict and insecurity exacted a heavy toll on lives and spirits. The examples of these affronts are numerous and include the earthquake in Haiti that destroyed its capital city; flooding in Pakistan that submerged one-fifth of the country; parched earth and hunger across the Sahel; and displacement and violence in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. These large-scale humanitarian crises, as well as many lesser-reported emergencies, are evidence of the ongoing vulnerability of communities and entire countries to natural and man-made hazards. The country chapters in Humanitarian Action for Children 2011 show the impact of humanitarian emergencies – some short-term, many of them protracted – on the lives and dignity of children and families.

Extensive humanitarian need requires far-reaching humanitarian action, carried out with utmost speed and often simultaneously in different parts of the world. While responding to immediate needs, humanitarian action also necessitates a sharpened focus on the larger duty to address underlying vulnerabilities should disaster strike, or strike again, especially at a time when threats are intensifying, multiplying and interacting in complex and sometimes little-understood ways.

Today it is common for communities already living on the edge to be buffeted by a host of simultaneous or repeated shocks, such as political crises, disease epidemics or the destruction of shelter and productive assets in a storm or flood. Without the time and means to recover, and without social safety nets to fall back on, many communities lurch from emergency to emergency in a downward spiral of impoverishment and social disintegration. The countries in Humanitarian Action for Children 2011 confront escalating risks from pre-existing positions of great vulnerability. It is telling that conflict-affected and fragile states are furthest behind in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and that recurring civil war is now the dominant form of armed conflict.1

A renewed food crisis unfolding in 2011 is but one of several inter-related global trends with far-reaching consequences for the world’s poorest. Climate change is becoming a potent driver of increased risk in the form of extreme weather events and through slower-moving phenomena such as resource degradation and the erosion of territories and livelihoods. Large-scale humanitarian impacts are expected as water and food security deteriorate, floods and storms lay waste to cities and essential infrastructure, and people are displaced. Children, as ever, will be in the eye of the storm.2

The result of these trends is an increase in the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance and of populations at risk, and this increase requires a strengthened and more agile response capacity. It also means that the international aid system must be retooled to better manage unpredictability and address underlying vulnerabilities. While this is a vital goal of development work, humanitarian action holds an important place in lessening hardships and preparing the ground for more robust recovery and risk management in the future. In this overall context of growing complexity and need, UNICEF, which  responds to more than two hundred emergencies each year, is committed to supporting governments and helping people build their own resilience, through the humanitarian action outlined in this report, as well as in its regular programming.

Understanding resilience

Rooted in materials science and ecology, the concept of resilience has increasingly gained traction in the work of various social disciplines. While nuances vary, resilience generally describes the ability to anticipate, withstand and bounce back from external pressures and shocks – whether physical, emotional, economic, or disaster or conflict related – in ways that avoid a fundamental loss of identity and maintain core functions.3 Some interpretations highlight adeptness at changing direction, rather than resisting change, as a defining characteristic of resilience4; here adversity can become a catalyst for transformation.  For the humanitarian community, the common understanding of resilience that follows can offer a useful lens to examine and address increasingly complex crisis contexts.

In its simplest form, resilience can be best conceptualized as the ability of critical physical infrastructure to absorb shocks.5 For instance, the development of appropriate sanitation technologies for flood-prone areas can reduce the risk of infectious disease in the wake of a weather disaster.6 But the concept is much broader than simply structural fortification and hardware. It provides a lens for understanding how effectively social systems and their various components – individuals, families, schools, cities, states, and the family of states that constitutes the international system – guard against risk and collectively manage threats.

Developmental psychologists, for example, try to use resilience as a way to capture the traits, skills and circumstances that lead some children to do well despite experiencing extreme deprivation or violence. Among developmental thinkers, resilience is applied to communities, which are seen to possess multiple sources of strength and resources7 – including human, material and social capital.8 These sources may be rooted in traditions or developed over time and tapped during crises to reduce and manage loss. At yet a higher level of social organization, resilience has also been used as a characteristic of states, as in the analysis of state-building in fragile and conflict-affected situations carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Fragile States Group.9 Here, resilience is contrasted with fragility, which is rooted in social contracts that are weak or exclusionary and implies failures in core functions of the state, including failure to provide security and basic services.

Resilience is therefore a property of different interconnected levels of social and political organization. Highly resilient systems have both risk exposure and response capacities broadly distributed among groups.10 Inequities and the uneven distribution of skills and resources can undermine resilience.11 If a disaster or crisis outstrips coping capacities, support from the ‘outside’ can be called on to preserve essential values (such as life) and crucial functions (such as water provision). In a disaster where the state cannot provide adequate ‘outside’ response to affected communities, the international community may be called upon. In these cases, approaches that foster resilience provide not only a rationale for when or why humanitarian action is necessary but also important guidance for how it should be conducted. 

There are some commonly considered dimensions of resilience that can offer crucial insights into how the humanitarian community can identify entry points for better supporting resilience.12  These dimensions are:

A key challenge remains: measuring resilience. It is difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, primary among them the difficulty in measuring something that does not occur: the armed violence that never happens; the hurricane that passes without causing large-scale damage. Yet examples abound of the failure to nurture resilience – whether the result of weak governance, poor planning, frayed social bonds, grave inequities or emergency responses that supplant rather than reinforce existing capacities. In a context where the future holds increased risks, the transformative capacity of resilience assumes an ever-larger importance.

Despite the body of literature on resilience, the contributions of humanitarian action to resilience have been relatively less explored. UNICEF’s own understanding of its humanitarian action within the broader humanitarian system continues to evolve. Attention to resilience can promote humanitarian action that is not only predictable, effective and timely but also strengthens the relationship between humanitarian and development programming and the capacities of national and local actors to manage increasing uncertainty and risk.

UNICEF humanitarian action and resilience

Guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF in 2010 strengthened its core humanitarian policy to uphold the rights of children and women in crises. UNICEF reframed its Core Commitments for Children (CCCs) in Emergencies as the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action, reflecting wider shifts in UNICEF’s own work in these contexts as well as the organization’s commitment to humanitarian reform.

Key changes include expanding the CCCs to include preparedness before the onset of a crisis and adopting an early recovery approach during response – with disaster risk reduction integrated throughout. The CCCs also moved from a focus on activities to broader strategic results that link humanitarian action to the fulfilment of children’s and women’s rights in each of UNICEF’s programme sectors. They also reflect the recognition that realizing these core commitments requires the contributions of a multitude of actors, including clusters.

Thus reconceived, UNICEF’s humanitarian action offers a potential platform for supporting resilience at the national and community levels. A few recent examples illustrate how this has manifested in emergency-affected countries.

In Madagascar, UNICEF supported a programme to train and raise awareness among village chiefs, school directors, health centre heads, community-based organizations and mayors on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) principles and practices in emergency response. Pre-emergency cooperation agreements have been developed with the participating organizations to ensure a timely and rapid response in the event of a cyclone or flooding. Such efforts are an example of how UNICEF’s commitment to ensuring the participation of affected populations promotes collective action and cohesion.

The revised CCCs also tighten the link between humanitarian action and development. This stronger integration contributes to UNICEF’s institutional flexibility – the nimbleness with which our programmes adjust to evolving situations. In addition, the sharpened focus on disaster risk reduction and local capacity development as explicit strategies contribute to communities’ own flexibility in the face of multiple shocks, throughout the broader cycle of prevention, response and recovery. In Ethiopia, UNICEF has supported disaster risk reduction through a government-led, decentralized health extension programme to provide essential health and nutrition services. This programme has had a significant impact in the communities: Results show an increase in national treatment capacity of severe acute malnutrition from 135,000 cases per month in 2009 to 200,000 cases per month in 2010. Through the treatment of children suffering from malnutrition, those with severe acute malnutrition can now be identified earlier and receive life-saving treatment closer to home, thus helping reduce children’s vulnerability.

Likewise, understanding on-the-ground realities is essential for achieving the CCCs. Being continuously present before, during, and after an emergency, as UNICEF is, can ensure that the situation of children and women is monitored and that interventions are appropriately designed, supporting adaptive learning through the sharing and application of new approaches and technologies. In cyclone-affected areas of Myanmar, UNICEF supported local authorities in using disaster-resistant standards to construct health centres and child-friendly schools. UNICEF continues to advocate for wider, gradual adoption of these standards across the country.

Our humanitarian partnerships with governments, local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), communities, civil society and the private sector – and at national to community levels – allow UNICEF to leverage diverse approaches as a method for achieving better results for children in humanitarian action, thus promoting diversity. For example, UNICEF worked with numerous stakeholders in the conflict-affected town of Marka, near Mogadishu, in a public-private partnership approach to water management. Building on the capacities of local actors, project implementation continued even when Marka was inaccessible to international UN staff.

UNICEF’s commitment to the rights of the most vulnerable compels us to work in ways that prioritize the restoration of self-reliance in emergencies. For example, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in conjunction with NGOs and other counterparts, UNICEF implemented child protection and psychosocial services to strengthen the coping mechanisms of more than 70,000 children and 36,000 caregivers in Gaza. Since the 2009 crisis, UNICEF continues to couple psychosocial support with a community-based approach that is integrated with child protection networks.

The humanitarian system and resilience

The humanitarian community, to fulfil its role and obligations in the face of escalating risk, also needs to be resilient. The response to massive disasters in 2010, such as those in Haiti and Pakistan, as well as to other smaller-scale emergencies, has demonstrated the dedication and effectiveness of the humanitarian system – but it has also highlighted gaps and shortcomings in performance that have come under scrutiny.13 As we have seen, the challenges will only increase.

As a consequence, intense reflection is under way on what realignments in the humanitarian system are necessary without compromising fundamental principles and operational efficiency. The Secretary-General recently called on the humanitarian system to shift from an approach that is ‘shock driven’ to one that is more needs based and vulnerability led.14 Some agencies have developed explicit approaches to resilience,15 while others have called for nothing less than a profound paradigm shift in how they respond to these growing pressures.16

Since its origins, the humanitarian community has undergone successive phases of evaluation, self-assessment, reform and innovation in efforts to strengthen its effectiveness and reliability. There has been steady progress over the years. The humanitarian reform process, begun in 2005 and urged on by the response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, has led to key improvements that can be viewed as contributing to the system’s resilience, though the debate was not explicitly framed in these terms. These improvements include pooled funding mechanisms to enhance flexibility; coordination mechanisms (clusters) that maximize the collective action of diverse humanitarian actors; and assessment tools to better understand context. The recently introduced real time evaluations improve rapid learning and adaptation.

While continuing to strengthen response capacity, particularly through the cluster approach, the humanitarian community has also made important broader shifts to better address the environments particular to disasters caused by natural hazards and those associated with conflict – as well as how conflict and natural hazards interact in ways that increase risk.

Working more closely with development counterparts to implement the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005), humanitarian actors have integrated disaster risk reduction into emergency preparedness and response through the early recovery approach. Such investment in disaster risk reduction not only helps to better address underlying vulnerability but also improves partnerships and community engagement.17

The contributions of the humanitarian community to addressing the needs related to post-conflict contexts were validated in the 2009 Report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict. The Report underlined that the humanitarian community can provide critical and early peace dividends to war-weary people, particularly returnees, and that the early recovery approach can create foundations for later peacebuilding efforts through capacity assessments, early systems development in key sectors, and capacity development in pockets of peace, where possible.18

The humanitarian community is still striving to do better in key areas. These include overarching leadership, preparedness, national and local capacity development and engaging with local communities, needs assessments, early recovery, and accountability to affected populations.19 These efforts are taking place in a context of wider debate on the enabling environment for humanitarian action, including financing and human resource policies, an increasingly complex operating environment, the role of political and military actors, decreasing access to people in need, shrinking humanitarian space, and how best to engage in chronic and complex emergencies, where the bulk of humanitarian financing is directed. 

An agile humanitarian system with extensive and multi-dimensional response capacities will be essential to reducing vulnerabilities, saving lives and minimizing disaster losses. This agility is especially urgent in the face of climate change. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record and saw a spate of extreme climate events in all continents.20 Climate-related hazards are increasing, accounting for 70 per cent of all disasters today compared to 50 per cent two decades ago,21 and such climate-related crises are projected to affect hundreds of millions every year as early as 2015.22 A confluence of social and economic factors, such as unplanned urbanization and environmental degradation, are at work in determining the impact of climate-related disasters. Broader trends clearly point in the direction of more extreme global weather conditions in the future, and they will have a disproportionate adverse impact on the poorest.

The enormity of this challenge must be addressed with investments that manage climate-related risks so that entire populations can benefit. Disaster risk reduction, with community resilience as an objective, is increasingly recognized as a key climate-change adaptation strategy. Efforts to build on local capacities of disaster-prone and disaster-affected communities must be redoubled as the larger humanitarian system also better equips itself for a future of greater risk, uncertainty and demand.

The way forward

Six years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, which by nature of its scale and scope challenged every aspect of humanitarian response, the humanitarian community confronts another important watershed in its evolution. Discussions are under way to take a fresh look at its current business model. Using resilience as a guiding principle can offer the humanitarian community useful insight into priority areas requiring improvement. These areas include the following:

Achieving progress in these domains will help foster a humanitarian system that is predictable, timely and effective. This progress must be predicated on a stronger recognition of the relationship between humanitarian and development programming, and the importance of supporting national and local actors to manage increasing uncertainty and risk. In so doing, the humanitarian community works towards the resilience of both the humanitarian system and the countries and communities we are committed to serving.

Funding trends in 2010 and planned humanitarian action in 2011

In response to the pressing needs of vulnerable children and women during 2010, UNICEF’s funding requirements for humanitarian action totalled US$1.7 billion. This request was based on the humanitarian needs outlined in the Humanitarian Action Report 2010 (HAR) – which featured 36 chapters covering country, regional and global requirements23 – and in seven Flash Appeals and 13 other appeals.24 As of 31 October 2010, US$830.9 million was received for all of UNICEF’s humanitarian activities. This reflects a 45 per cent increase over 2009 funding for humanitarian action (US$572.4 million, as of 31 October 2009), largely due to resource mobilization to respond to the earthquake in Haiti and flooding in Pakistan.
Humanitarian funding received by UNICEF as of 31 October 2010 reflects a large increase over 2009 in absolute terms (as seen in the chart below). More than US$406 million, or 49 per cent, was contributed for the Haiti earthquake and Pakistan flood response, with the remaining US$426.4 million directed towards UNICEF’s other emergency operations.

Figure 1.1: Emergency funding trend 1998–2010

Source: UNICEF Public-Sector Alliances and Resource Mobilization Office, October 2010 interim figures

For the HAR 2010 requested budget of US$1.2 billion, US$448 million – 39 per cent – was received as of 31 October, matching funding levels during this period in 2009.25 Out of the total HAR requirement, those countries and regions with Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAPs) were 37 per cent funded compared to 43 per cent in 2009. Flash Appeals in 2010, on average, received a higher level of funding than in 2009 – particularly because of the Haiti Earthquake Flash Appeal. Sixty-nine per cent of Flash Appeal needs were funded in 2010, versus 47 per cent in 2009. Excluding Haiti from the aggregate flash appeals, however, would reduce the average funding level to 45 per cent.

UNICEF gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions made by public and private sector donors in support of the children and women affected by humanitarian crises throughout the world. The largest proportion of UNICEF’s humanitarian funding was from government donors (40 per cent) followed by UNICEF national committees (34 per cent). Sources for the remaining funding included multi-donor trust funds, intergovernmental organizations and funds raised through UNICEF field offices. As of end-October 2010, the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) remained the largest source of humanitarian funding, with a total contribution of US$87.3 million.26 The United States Fund for UNICEF was the second largest source of humanitarian funding, providing US$79.5 million – out of which nearly 88 per cent was for emergency operations in Haiti. As of 31 October 2010, the top 10 donors of humanitarian funding (shown in the chart below) accounted for approximately 63 per cent of the humanitarian contributions received by UNICEF for emergency operations.

Figure 1.2: Top 10 sources of humanitarian funds, 2010

Source: UNICEF Public-Sector Alliances and Resource Mobilization Office, end 2010

Out of the total humanitarian contributions of US$830.9 million received as of 31 October 2010, US$278.5 million (33.5 per cent) was received as thematic funds, which are not earmarked for particular activities, thus allowing UNICEF to invest in those sectors where resources are most needed. This represents a significant increase compared to the 2009 figure of US$52.7 million. Thematic contributions reduce transaction costs and simplify management of programme budgets at the country level, and UNICEF is grateful for the ongoing generosity of donors who provide thematic funding.

UNICEF would especially like to acknowledge national committee partners, which have provided more than 90 per cent of thematic funding received as of end-October. The United States Fund for UNICEF was the top thematic donor, with a contribution of US$72 million, followed by the United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF, the German Committee for UNICEF, the Japan Committee for UNICEF and the Canadian UNICEF Committee, as seen in the chart below.

Figure 1.3: Top five donors – thematic humanitarian funds

Source: UNICEF Public-Sector Alliances and Resource Mobilization Office, end 2010

While the 2010 level of thematic funding is much higher than the 2009 level, an analysis of the recipients highlights that so far in 2010, more than 90 per cent of the thematic funds were provided for response to the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods. Only US$27.6 million was provided for the remaining countries and regions. UNICEF continues to urge donors to provide flexible humanitarian funding for all countries, particularly at the global level. Next to regular resources, global thematic funding is UNICEF’s preferred funding structure. However, only 0.7 per cent of the thematic humanitarian funds received in 2010 were provided as global thematic humanitarian funds. Global thematic funding is the most effective option because it allows UNICEF to respond strategically to the priority needs of children worldwide. Global thematic humanitarian funds enable UNICEF to invest efficiently in new initiatives; meet its commitments to humanitarian reform, particularly its cluster leadership responsibilities; prioritize underfunded crises; and build capacity. These actions help strengthen UNICEF’s programmatic focus on sustainable results for children.

The level of funding received determines UNICEF’s capacity to help improve the prospects and the resilience of children and women affected by sometimes multiple crises.

In Yemen, with a funding level of 66 per cent of requested amount by end of October, UNICEF, together with partners: treated more than 11,000 children for undernutrition in 32 outpatient treatment sites; provided access to safe drinking water for more than 46,000 internally displaced adults and children in the northern governorates and 5,000 people from host communities; offered educational opportunities to 125,000 children in conflict-affected governorates; and provided psychosocial support for 3,500 vulnerable children facing trauma associated with conflict and displacement.

In Somalia, where 27 per cent of the population requires humanitarian assistance, funding enabled UNICEF to provide 1.5 million children under 5 years of age and 1.3 million women of childbearing age with an essential package of life-saving health and nutrition services. Access to safe water was provided to 1.2 million people in emergency-affected areas, and more than 92,000 emergency-affected children were enrolled in school.

Tajikistan, struck by an earthquake, floods and a polio outbreak in 2010, had received only 3 per cent of funding needs as of October 2010. Despite this shortfall, UNICEF, in close collaboration with World Health Organization and the Government of Tajikistan, was able to respond to a major polio outbreak through the launch of a rapid and comprehensive polio campaign that successfully contained the virus. UNICEF, diverting funding from other sources, also responded to the flood-affected population in Kulob District, where approximately 2,000 people benefited from an emergency hygiene campaign. Approximately 300 households received water containers, hygiene kits, soap and water purification tablets. More than 1,000 teachers in 510 schools in the 20 most disaster-prone districts were trained in simple and effective disaster risk reduction measures. Psychosocial support was provided to an estimated 750 children and 560 adults following the earthquake in Vanj District.

With higher funding levels, much more could have been achieved in these countries as well as in other crisis-ridden countries featured in the Humanitarian Action Report 2010.

UNICEF funding requirements for 2011 humanitarian action

In 2011, US$1.4 billion is needed to support UNICEF-assisted humanitarian action in 32 countries and territories.27 Compared to the 2010 appeal launched in February 2010, this requirement increased 21 per cent, with the bulk of funding needs represented by Pakistan and Haiti, requiring US$296 million and US$157 million respectively. As shown in Figure 1.4, the financial needs for emergencies in Asia-Pacific have significantly increased and represent the region with the highest funding request: US$373 million. Of the funding for Asia, 80 per cent is needed for assistance to Pakistani children and women affected by flooding and conflict.

Figure 1.4: Estimated emergency funding needs by region, 2010 and 2011

Source: UNICEF Office of Emergency Programmes, end 2010

The requirements for Latin America and the Caribbean have increased eightfold, mainly as a result of emergency situations in Haiti and the addition of the Guatemala appeal. Although such precarious conditions as those in Colombia also require a scaled-up response, the increase is linked to promoting preparedness throughout the region as well as support for smaller-scale emergencies. The 2010 regional requirements for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS) have also increased with the inclusion of the Kyrgyzstan appeal as well as increasing needs in Tajikistan.

Requirements for Eastern and Southern Africa have been significantly reduced, particularly in such countries as Burundi, Eritrea and Uganda. While maintaining funding requirements for preparedness in anticipation of the Sudan referendum, overall requests in West and Central Africa and the Middle East and North Africa have also been reduced.

UNICEF’s ability to undertake humanitarian assistance depends entirely on funding from donors. UNICEF gratefully acknowledges donors’ strong response during 2010 and invites supporters to maintain or increase their commitments to fostering resilience and meeting the humanitarian needs of children and women in emergencies during 2011.

1 Barbara Walter, Conflict Relapse and the Sustainability of Post-Conflict Peace, Input Paper, WDR 2011
2 DARA, Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2010 – the State of the Climate Crisis, <http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CVM_Complete.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
3 Almedom, Astier M. and James K. Tumwine, ‘Resilience to Disasters: A paradigm shift from vulnerability to strength’, African Health Sciences, vol. 8 Special Issue, December 2008, p. 1. 
4 Pelling, Mark, Adaptation to Climate Change: From resilience to transformation, Routledge, New York, 2011, p. 44. 
5 Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, Project on Resilience and Security, Workshop Report: ‘Resilience in Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Natural Disasters’, Syracuse University, March 9, 2009, <http://insct.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/insct/uploadedfiles/PDFs/INSCT%20Workshop%20Report_Resilience%20and%20Security.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
6 WHO, Regional Office for South Asia, Community Resilience in Disasters: How the Primary Health Care approach made a difference in recent emergencies in the WHO South-East Asia Region, 2010 <www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/EHA_CRD.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
7 Kirmayer, Laurance J., et al., ‘Community Resilience: Models, metaphors and measures’, Journal de la santé autochtone, November 2009, <www.naho.ca/jah/english/jah05_01/V5_I1_Community_04.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
8 World Disasters Report 2004: Focus on Community Resilience, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
9 ‘Concepts and Dilemmas of Statebuilding in Fragile States: From fragility to resilience’, OECD/DAC Discussion Paper, March 2008. 
10 Evans, Alex and David Steven, ‘The Resilience Doctrine’, published online in the World Politics Review, 7 July 2009, <www.globaldashboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/The_Resilience_Doctrine.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
11 Steward, Frances, ‘Horizontal Inequalities as a Cause of Conflict: A review of CRISE findings’, Input Paper for World Bank World Development Report 2011, August 2010.  
12 See e.g. STEPS Centre, Reframing Resilience, STEPS Briefing 13, <www.steps-centre.org/PDFs/STEPSsumResilience.pdf>, accessed 25 January 2011. 
13 DARA,Haiti One Year On, <http://daraint.org/haiti-one-year-on>, accessed 12 January 2010. 
14 Report of the Secretary-General on International cooperation on humanitarian assistance in
the field of natural disasters, from relief to development, A/65/3568, September 2010, p.2.
15 World Disasters Report 2004: Focus on community resilience, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 
16 Omamo, Steven, Ugo Gentilini, and Susannah Sandstrom, ‘Innovations in Food Assistance: Issues, lessons and implications’, in From Food Aid to Food Assistance, World Food Programme (2010), p. 2. 
17 Ibid., p. 31. 
18 Report of the Secretary-General on Peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict, June 2009, pp. 10, 15. 
19 The State of the Humanitarian System, ALNAP, January 2010, pp. 9, 35. 
20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, January 12, 2011, <www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html>, accessed 25 January 2011.   
21 OCHA (2009), using EM-DAT. Climate Change: Coping with the humanitarian impact. Campaign PowerPoint Presentation. Slide 12, <http://ochaonline.un.org/ochahome/InFocus/ClimateChangeHumanitarianImpact/tabid/5930/language/en-US/Default.aspx>, accessed 25 January 2011.
22 Ganeshan, Shamanthy and Wayne Diamond, (2009), Forecasting the numbers of people affected annually by natural disasters up to 2015. Oxfam GB. 
23 The 2010 HAR includes 16 countries and regions that were part of a Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP).
24 Other appeals include ‘Immediate Needs’ documents and inter-agency appeals (excluding CAP and Flash Appeals).
25 All funding requests through the Humanitarian Action Report 2010 refer to figures updated as per mid-year review.  
26 US$45.8 million was provided through the rapid response window and US$41.5 million through the underfunded window.
27 Twenty-eight country appeals were included in the Humanitarian Action Report 2010. The Congo was added through the HAR mid-year review. New countries included in 2011 are Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Guatemala and Kyrgyzstan. Remaining funding needs for Guinea and Mauritania, with their own appeals in 2010, have been included in the West and Central Africa regional chapter for 2011. In contrast to 2010, UNICEF offices in Guinea, Mauritania and Nepal have not included an appeal in the Humanitarian Action for Children 2011 publication.