FINANCING ADAPTIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION IN BURKINA FASO
As part of the Centre for Disaster Protection's support to the World Bank Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (SASPP), the UK-funded Sahel Shock Response Programme seeks to develop a baseline of in-depth analysis on the social protection and disaster risk financing (DRF) landscape in the Sahel region. This is the first in a series of diagnostic reports aimed at informing the design and programming of the Centre’s support to the SASPP.
Available in English and French.
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
The number of people whose lives are threatened by crises is increasing and current responses are inadequate and inefficient. Pre-arranged financing is a critical component in improving crisis response. Therefore, understanding the gap between crisis financing needs, and how much is pre-arranged, could have a wide range of benefits. This report synthesises research exploring the feasibility of producing quantitative estimates of the costs of crisis protection across a variety of geographies and crisis types. Based on this research it presents a conceptual framework and provides demonstration analyses. The conclusions shine a light both on how it is increasingly possible to generate forward looking estimates of crisis protection gaps, what challenges remain and the benefits of overcoming these challenges.
This note intends to shift the discussion on pandemic and epidemic risk finance to a practical approach about the benefits of applying a disaster risk finance (DRF) lens to new financial mechanisms as they are developed and deployed. It outlines key trends of financial flows toward outbreak response and identifies relevant emerging initiatives and opportunities to help governments scale up pre-agreed finance.
Accountability is a core principle for making Disaster Risk Finance (DRF) work for risk-affected people. Although DRF actors are widely committed to this, there is not yet a shared understanding of what accountability means and how it should be applied. This guidance note is therefore intended as a common framework to support practical approaches to meaningful accountability across the sector, with the aim of assuring financing that is in the best interest of the at-risk communities that it seeks to serve. It can be used by anyone involved in DRF, including those promoting, designing, delivering and supporting DRF.
This guidance note provides an overview of the Centre for Disaster Protection’s quality assurance service—a free-to-use and impartial service that provides governments, donors, multilateral organisations, and NGOs expert advice on the design and implementation of disaster risk financing projects.
Available in English, French, German and Arabic.
This guidance document offers practical steps on how to capture lessons from DRF initiatives, providing an opportunity for real-time reflection and feedback for those designing and implementing DRF systems, as well as key partner organisations. The guidance is designed to help capture and communicate learning on what is working well, which assumptions are holding true (or not) and what needs to be adjusted or changed. This guidance builds on and complements the Centre’s ‘7 Keys to Unlock Effective DRF’. Process learning is particularly relevant to the characteristic of constant improvement – embedding scrutiny and learning into
DRF initiatives to ensure quality and effectiveness.
Human-induced climate change will continue to cause losses and damages, with vulnerable developing countries and communities that have contributed least to the climate crisis bearing the brunt of its consequences. Loss and Damage is the third pillar of the international climate regime in the 2015 Paris Agreement, alongside mitigation and adaptation.
In order to play a well-targeted and effective role, it is important to understand the applications and limits of Disaster Risk Finance as a response to climate-induced losses and damages. This paper explores how DRF instruments are being framed and understood within the panorama of Loss and Damage policy and finance agendas, highlighting areas of contention and sensitivity.
As disaster risk financing (DRF) matures, it needs to better understand and implement accountability—particularly towards the at-risk people it seeks to benefit. There is growing awareness of this, but application remains nascent. This working paper presents a framework for understanding accountability in this context, as well as an overview of implementation in order to stimulate and inform progress.
Disasters have the biggest impact on those that are least able to protect themselves from them: vulnerable people. In most cases the most vulnerable are also the poorest in a society. This guidance note sets out some questions that can be asked during programme design to help ensure that DRF is most directed to those who are least able to withstand shocks.
This guidance note offers practical guidance on contingency planning and triggers for preparing before a disaster strikes to support a faster, more coordinated, and ultimately, more effective response.
There is currently little in the way of rigorous evidence of impact or established ‘best practice’ in DRF. It is important, therefore, that we engage in scrutiny, be open to learning and willing to be held accountable. This guidance note sets out practical ways to ensure quality, independent scrutiny and improved learning in your DRF initiatives.
Ensuring the inclusive participation of people in DRF is essential but challenging. It builds trust and empowers the public to demand greater accountability of governments and reward them for reliable disaster support. This guidance note gives practical advice on consulting and involving communities in decision-making that impacts their lives.
A DRF programme can be sound from a technical angle—but when it fails to consider the broader environment, its impact is diminished. This publication explains the importance of thinking strategically and sets out four principles for taking a strategic approach, with practical advice and resources.
This insight paper examines the challenge of handling basis risk in disaster risk financing systems. It argues how the use of data and management of basis risk has the potential to significantly increase the neutrality and impartiality of humanitarian decision-making, offering a new type of financing and increased accountability.
This paper outlines the current state of anticipatory action and discusses some of the existing evidence on its impact. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive literature review or a meta-analysis of the impacts of early warning or early action initiatives. Rather, it presents some examples of different types of impact associated with a range of anticipatory action in developing countries. This is in recognition of the diversity of anticipatory action mechanisms and variety of activities being implemented in different contexts, as well as the range of studies that have been carried out focusing on different outcomes. The paper also highlights evidence gaps and points out some of the methodological challenges in measuring impact.
The growing scale, duration and impact of refugee crises requires innovative approaches to financing that are more efficient, more effective, more equitable, and more sustainable.This report – produced after two Innovation Labs which convened experts spanning the finance, insurance, humanitarian, development and policy fields – lays out a vision for new systems of financing to ensure funds are available rapidly and reliably to respond to the changing nature of global refugee crises.
The growing scale, duration and impact of refugee crises requires innovative approaches to financing that are more efficient, more effective, more equitable, and more sustainable.This report – produced after two Innovation Labs which convened experts spanning the finance, insurance, humanitarian, development and policy fields – lays out a vision for new systems of financing to ensure funds are available rapidly and reliably to respond to the changing nature of global refugee crises.
$3 billion was allocated to the CRW in IDA18, equivalent to a third of IDA’s total spending on crisis financing. This paper and accompanying policy brief detail how the CRW has been used to date, and identifies a number of concrete ways of improving its performance.