PARIS, 21 Nov. - (ANA)  - This first comprehensive review of bilateral aid to refugee situations points to an uneven sharing of responsibility among the international community, reveals a report published by the OECD.

 

 

 

 

Forced displacement, including refugee flows, is a global phenomenon. Refugee and IDP protection deserves recognition  as  a global  public  good.  As  of  2020,  26.4 million  people  were  refugees,  4.1 million  people  were  seeking  asylum,  while  an  additional  48 million  people  were  internally  displaced.  Despite  COVID-related movement  restrictions  and  pleas  from  the  international  community  for  a  ceasefire  that  would  facilitate  the  COVID-19 response, displacement continued to occur – and to grow. One in every 95 people in the world is forcibly displaced (UNHCR, 2021[3]).  

 

Financial “responsibility sharing” for hosting refugees, over and above regular ODA, is often subject to debate. ODA recipient refugee host countries underline the cost incurred and large remaining gaps in meeting the needs of refugees and host communities. Donor countries on their part point to the efforts made from already stretched aid budgets. 

 

The OECD refugee financing survey found that in 2018-19, 32 bilateral donors gave a total of USD 44.3 billion  ODA  to  refugees  and  host  communities,  including  USD 24.2 billion  to  ODA  recipient  countries,  and  USD 20.1 billion  as  “in-donor  refugee  costs”  to  DAC  member  States.  Combined  this  represents 12.3% of all ODA world-wide in 2018-19. In addition, multilateral development banks (MDBs) reported  at  least  USD 2.33 billion  of  financing  for  refugee  situations,  corresponding  to  some  9.6%  of  bilateral  ODA  to  refugees  and  host  communities.  

 

The  slightly  upward  trend  of  financing  for  refugee  situations in ODA recipient countries continued, while “in-donor refugee costs” continued to decrease. Data on financing for refugee situations across the HDP Nexus was hard to find, difficult to collect, and incomplete. The first ever baseline of financing by major ODA donors is established with the 2020 OECD survey, mainly focussing on humanitarian and development financing, following a more limited initial survey covering 2015-17. 

 

Data on financial responsibility sharing for refugee situations will add increasing value over  time,  therefore  the  regularisation  of  data  collection  based  on  an  agreed  methodology  will  be  an  important next step. The scope of future data collection should ideally include a wider set of donors, and also less concessional financing.

 

This will lead to a better understanding of collective results and trends in responsibility sharing for refugee protection.Responsibility for hosting refugees was shared among the international community, but not evenly. The world’s top ten ODA recipient asylum countries hosted 50.1% of the world’s refugees, and received 42.3%of country-allocable refugee  ODA  financing  to  refugee  situations  in  developing  countries.  

 

However,  the  OECD observed an uneven distribution of ODA to refugee situations, resulting in a “responsibility-sharing gap” for some host countries, in particular Colombia, Pakistan, Iran, and Sudan. The Middle East region received by far the largest share of region and country-allocable bilateral ODA (45.1 %), while donors did not prioritise Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and South America as much despite significant refugee and host community needs in these regions. DAC in-donor refugee costs by volume were almost equal (86%) to financing for refugee situations in ODA recipient countries, which hosted 86.6% of the world’s refugees.

 

The bulk of global responsibility sharing for refugees and hosting communities relied extensively on the support by three main DAC donors, the United States, Germany, and the European Union Institutions, who collectively  provided  almost  two-thirds  (63%)  of  all  bilateral  ODA  to  refugee  situations.  While  their  contributions cannot be highlighted enough, this limited set of key donors also demonstrates the continued fragility of responsibility sharing under the GCR. Efforts to broaden donor engagement across the globe should continue, including towards civil society and private sector, and through innovative approaches to financing refugee situations.  

 

Donor earmarking of ODA continued to be the main feature of financing allocations to refugee situations, with 94% of all ODA to recipient countries earmarked at the regional or country level. The limited set of key donors combined with high levels of earmarking may contribute to reinforcing selective geographical repartition of financial flows to refugee situations. 

 

Only 6% of all ODA to refugee situations was provided in  the  form  of  core  contributions  to  refugee-mandated  agencies.  These  core  contributions  facilitate  a  flexible  response  to  new  displacement  emergencies,  and  more  even  responsibility  sharing,  when  mandated  agencies  use  core  contributions  for  forgotten,  less  mediatised,  or  politically-sensitive  refugee  situations. Donors should continue to include core contributions in their refugee financing strategies.

 

In  Least  Developed,  Low-  and  Middle-Income  Countries,  sharing  already  limited  resources  among  refugees and host communities may affect poverty levels and development gains among both populations, especially when the response is under-resourced.Low levels of financing also have broader implications for  the  fragility  risk  of  refugee  hosting  countries,  and  in  turn  increase  the  risk  for  secondary  or  new  displacement  movements.  Financing  strategies  should  achieve  needs-based  responsibility  sharing  for  refugee  situations,  avoiding  the  “responsibility-sharing  gap”.  

 

They  should also  continue  to contribute  to  reducing fragility, for which efforts were made with 43% of country-allocable ODA to refugee situations in 2018-19  provided  to  fragile  countries  according  to  the  OECD  States  of  Fragility  classification.  Donors’ engagement in refugee situations in fragile contexts should be informed by conflict sensitivity assessments, including at sub-national level, and apply a careful HDP Nexus approach to help reduce existing fragilities across political, security, societal, economic, environmental and human dimensions.

 

Hosting  refugees  is  as  much  a  development  co-operation  as  it  is  a  humanitarian  issue.  This  has  been  widely recognised and translated into policy. The GCR itself makes this point a priority, and DAC members developed  an  according  Common  Position  through  the  International  Network  on  Conflict  and  Fragility  (INCAF) –  (INCAF/OECD,  2019[4]).  

 

Nevertheless,  the  majority  of  ODA  (71%)  to  refugee  situations  was  sustained by humanitarian aid in 2018-19. This meant that the reality of protracted refugee situations was largely addressed through short-term interventions, with the associated planning cycles and operational strategies. 

 

The engagement of MDBs contributes to strengthening the development dimension of financing for refugee situations.  There  was  evidence  of  significant  MDB  financing  for  refugee  situations  in  2018-19,  yet  comparatively limited in volume in relation to bilateral ODA. Beyond financing, the positive role of MDBs included substantial support to empirical analysis and refugee related policy development in refugee host countries, sharing of technical expertise, the introduction of innovative financing and operational strategies, and support to high-level political advocacy.

 

The application  of  anHDP  Nexus  approach  in  refugee  situations  means  that  development  and  peace  financing  should be  made  available  from  the  onset  of  a  refugee  crisis,  complementing  humanitarian  financing,  as  relevant  and  possible.  In  protracted  situations,  development  funding  takes  on  increasing  importance for sustainable refugee protection, while humanitarian financing to vulnerable populations must continue. Supporting countries of origin to address the root causes of displacement across the HDP Nexuscan help create favourable conditions for voluntary repatriation. If and when voluntary repatriation to the country of origin in safety and dignity is possible, additional development financing plays an important role in stabilising returnees and recipient communities.

 

 

 

 

Financing  for  refugee  situations  represented  12.3%  of  total  official  development  assistance  (ODA)  in  2018-19, and included both financing for ODA recipient countries and in-donor costs. There is a clear commitment  by  ODA  donors  and  multilateral  development  banks  (MDBs)  to  share responsibility forrefugee protection in the spirit of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). 

 

1. Financing for refugee situations should be informed by situation specific strategies across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, and integrated with broader development strategies. Responsibility sharing for refugees and host communities should be measured over time, based on an agreed upon methodology.

 

The largest regional share of country and region-allocable financing was provided to the Middle East(45%),  while  other  regions  were  less  prioritised,  despite  major  refugee  presence. Donors  targeted  financing to the top ten refugee host countries, but not evenly. Some host countries were affected by a “responsibility sharing gap” between the share of global refugees they hosted, and the share of global financing for refugee situations they received. Despite the large refugee population they hosted, these countries received much less financing than other major hosts. 

 

2. More  remains  to  be  done  in  order  to  align  practice  with  commitment,  and  share  refugee  protection responsibilities more evenly across refugee host countries, and regions according to the magnitude and needs of situations.  

 

The bulk of responsibility sharing under the GCR relied heavily on the support by three DAC donors.The United States, Germany and EU Institutions provided almost two thirds, or 63%, of all financing in developing countries.

 

3. In order to reduce the risks associated with insufficient responsibility sharing under the GCR, the  financing  base  should  be  diversified  and  broadened.  Solutions  for  innovative  financing  approaches should be scaled up and tracked. 

 

A significant share (43%) of country-allocable financing for refugee situations was provided to fragile countries. The vast majority (86.6%) of world’s refugee population are hosted by Least Developed, Lowand Middle Income Countries.

 

4. Financing  refugee  situations  also  means  reducing  fragility,  preserving,  and/or  achieving  development  gains.  Further  incentives  should  be  created  to  include  refugees  in  development strategies, at global, national, and sub-national levels.  The  reality  of  protracted  refugee  situations  was  largely  addressed  through  short-term  humanitarian  financing, which constituted 71% of all ODA financing for refugee situations in developing countries. 

 

5 More needs to be done in terms of development and peace support for comprehensive refugee responses.  Tangible  guidance  should  be  developed  for  HDP  Nexusaligned  strategy  and  financing in refugee situations.  - (ANA) -

 

For the full report, visit: https://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/docs/financing-refugee-situations-2018-19.pdf?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Read%20More&utm_campaign=Fighting%20poverty%2C%20fighting%20climate%20change&utm_term=dev

 

 

AB/ANA/19 November 2021 - - -