Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Funding Arrangements for Disaster Response

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Disaster Response Law

  • 2088 Accesses

Abstract

Complex emergencies have changed dramatically. This requires the deployment of new resources so as to ensure a more predictable and timely response. A better prevention capability and timely responses should be supported by sufficient and flexible funding. The humanitarian system has established several mechanisms to improve financing in terms of prevention, equity, and readiness for action. The author focuses attention on current funding instruments adopted at universal, regional, and bilateral levels and on the role played by private parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This paper does not include the UN financial institutions. On International Monetary Fund see Chap. 25, section 25.2, by Adinolfi in this volume.

  2. 2.

    A/RES/46/182, 15 December 1991.

  3. 3.

    “For emergencies requiring a coordinate response, the Secretary-General should ensure that an initial consolidated appeal covering all concerned organizations of the system, prepared in consultation with the affected State, is issued within the shortest possible time and in any event not longer than 1 week”. A/RES/46/182, para 31.

  4. 4.

    A/RES/48/57, 14 December 1993.

  5. 5.

    In the period between its establishment and 2005 the Fund was allocated about USD 337 million in loans. See Report of the Secretary-General, Improvement of the Central Emerging Revolving Fund, doc. A/60/432, 20 October 2005, para 5.

  6. 6.

    See Report of the Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights for All, doc. A/59/2005, 21 March 2005. The proposals advanced by the Secretary-General were accepted by the General Assembly. See A/RES/60/1, 15 September 2005.

  7. 7.

    A/RES/60/124, 15 December 2005.

  8. 8.

    The Advisory Group has also the task of providing advice to the CERF on rapidity with which the funds should be allocated, the basis of appropriations, to and also on examining the operation of the CERF to in carrying out financial checks and to contributing to the visibility and transparency.

  9. 9.

    OCHA 2010a, 25.

  10. 10.

    See CERF Pledges and contributions 2006–2011, http://ochaonline.un.org/cerfhtml/PC_2006-11_220811.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  11. 11.

    WFP is the UN agency with the largest share of CERF funding (33 %). See Report of the Secretary-General, Central Emergency Response Fund, doc. A/66/357, 13 September 2011, para 7.

  12. 12.

    In December 2010 a single loan of USD 9,9 million was disbursed to the OCHA and was repaid at the end of June 2011. See doc. A/66/357, para 10.

  13. 13.

    Secretary-General’s Bulletin, Establishment and Operation of the Central Emergency Response Fund, ST/SGB/2010/5, 23 April 2010, Sect. 3.

  14. 14.

    ST/SGB/2010/5, para 4.2.

  15. 15.

    CERF underfunded grants should mitigate the unevenness and slowness of the voluntary humanitarian contributions system by targeting emergencies that have not attracted or are unlikely to attract sufficient and timely funding for life-saving activities.

  16. 16.

    ST/SGB/2010/5, para 4.3.

  17. 17.

    Cf. OCHA, 2010b, 4.

  18. 18.

    See doc. A/66/357, para 18.

  19. 19.

    A/RES/46/182, para 38.

  20. 20.

    See doc. A/66/357 para 4.

  21. 21.

    At the beginning of July 2010 there were three existing loans. Of a total of USD 1,4 million loaned to the WHO in Sudan in 2004, USD 1,1 million has now been repaid and of a total of USD 2,660,510 million loaned to the UNPD in Sudan in 2007 only USD 1,644,474 million has been repaid. See doc. A/66/357, para 10.

  22. 22.

    The ERC “shall make every effort to obtain full reimbursement to the loan element of the Fund in respect of any outstanding advance within 2 years of the date of the advance”. ST/SGB/2010/5, para 3.8.

  23. 23.

    Channel Resources 2011.

  24. 24.

    The report about the 5-year evaluation recommends that “the CERF loan funds should be reduced to U.S. $ 30 million and the balance transferred to the grant window”. Channel Resource 2011, 37.

  25. 25.

    The key donors appear to be only seven in total. With their donations they account for 80 % of the Fund resources, whereas other donors only contribute in to a limited way extent. Channel Resources 2011, 92 ff. The United Nations General Assembly recently “called upon all member States and invited the private sector and all concerned individuals and institutions to consider increasing their voluntary contributions to the Central Emergency Response Fund […]”. A/RES/65/133, 15 December 2010.

  26. 26.

    There are currently 16 ERFs in operation. http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/CHFs%20and%20ERFs%20FundingStatusGraphics%2020Jun2011.pdf Accessed 14 February 2012.

  27. 27.

    Between 2006 and 2010 the number of donors using the ERFs increased from 6 to 56. In 2010, of the 15 funds that were in operation 13 attracted funding totaling USD 154,3 million, the highest amount to date. Source Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) 2011a, 3.

  28. 28.

    Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) 2011a, 10.

  29. 29.

    In 2010 the fund of Haiti received the largest amount ever received by an ERF, USD 82 million in response to the earthquake.

  30. 30.

    The Common Humanitarian Action Plan is a strategic plan for humanitarian response in a given country or region. It provides a common analysis of the context in which humanitarian action takes place; an assessment of needs; best, worst, and most likely scenarios; identification of roles and responsibilities; a clear statement of longer term objectives and goals; a framework for monitoring the strategy and revising it if necessary. The Common Humanitarian Action Plan is the foundation for developing a Consolidated Appeal and as such it is part of the CAP.

  31. 31.

    See Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in the Central African Republic and on the Activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in that Country, doc. S/2011/311, 16 May 2011, para 44.

  32. 32.

    The majority of CHFs funds are allocated at the beginning of the year.

  33. 33.

    Common Humanitarian Funds exists in the Central African Republic (total donation USD 41 million from 2006 to June 2011); the Democratic Republic of Congo (total donation USD 616 million from 2006 to June 2011); Somalia (total donation USD 81 million from 2006 to June 2011); Sudan (total donation USD 869 million from 2006 to June 2011). http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/CHFs%20and%20ERFs%20FundingStatusGraphics%2020Jun2011.pdf Accessed 14 February 2012.

  34. 34.

    A/RES/59/141, 17 December 2004.

  35. 35.

    The OCHA Emergency Cash Grant covers the most pressing needs of the affected populations resulting from natural, environmental, and technological disasters. It cannot be used for rehabilitation or reconstruction activities, establishing co-ordination mechanism or/and recruiting personnel. http://ocha.unog.ch/drptoolkit/FEmergencyCashGrant.html. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  36. 36.

    Pre-positioned Funds are currently provided by Denmark, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

  37. 37.

    Grants from Pre-positioned Funds should not exceed the amount of regular OCHA grants, except in the case of Italy, where the amount can be higher and can be released not only in case the of natural disasters but also for an acute crisis within a complex emergency situation. However, in this particular case, prior to the release of funds, a written request must be sent to the Italian Permanent Mission for approval.

  38. 38.

    See Chap. 23, section 23.2.3, by Silingardi in this volume.

  39. 39.

    This includes the recruitment of emergency management personnel to support immediate needs.

  40. 40.

    IASC 2010, 68.

  41. 41.

    In 2010 the final global budget of OCHA was USD 263,3 million. Of this total, OCHA sought USD 219 million in voluntary contributions. OCHA 2010a, 33.

  42. 42.

    See CAP 2011 http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/CAP_2011_Humanitarian_Appeal_SCREEN.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012. On the Consolidate Appeals for 2012 see http://www.unocha.org/cap/appeals/by-year/results/taxonomy%3A66. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  43. 43.

    See footnote 30.

  44. 44.

    In the case of Tsunami “the original UN Appeal amount of US $ 1.28 billion was a largely arbitrary calculation about the consolidated amount of funds different agencies felt they needed”. Flint and Goyder 2006, 30.

  45. 45.

    IASC 2006, 3–4.

  46. 46.

    See Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) 2011b, 11.

  47. 47.

    The European Development Fund is the main instrument for providing EU aid for development co-operation in the ACP countries and OCT. The tenth EDF covers the period from 2008 to 2013 and provides an overall budget of EUR 22.682 million. See Chap. 6, section 6.2.1, by Casolari in this volume.

  48. 48.

    Council Decision No 2007/162 of 5 March 2007, OJ L 71, 10 March 2007.

  49. 49.

    Article 1 (1).

  50. 50.

    See Chap. 5, section 5.3, by Gestri in this volume.

  51. 51.

    Artiche 1 (2).

  52. 52.

    Article 4 (1).

  53. 53.

    For example, a pilot project on stepped-up co-operation between member states to fight forest-fire (EU Forest Fire Tactical Reserve—EUFFTR) was initiated in 2008. The EUFFTR project consisted of two fire-fighting planes (Canadianair). The planes were a supplementary European resource designed to reinforce the overall EU fire-fighting resources and they were available to assist the member states requesting aerial fire-fighting assistance through the Civil Protection Mechanism. The French Ministry of the Interior (the project beneficiary) ensured the deployment of the planes, stationed in Bastia (Corsica). The EUFFTR intervened in six of nine forest-fire emergencies for which the Mechanism is activated in 2009: twice in France and Portugal, once in Italy and Greece. See European Commission, Report on the evaluation of the application of the Civil Protection Mechanism and the Civil Protection Financial Instrument for the years 2007–2009, COM (2011) 696, 10 November 2011, 11–12.

  54. 54.

    The member states requesting financial support for the assistance with transportation of their assistance shall must reimburse at least 50 % of the EU funds received, not later than 6 months after the intervention (Article 4 (3) lett. a).

  55. 55.

    COM (2011) 696, 13, para 55. In 2007, there was one request for transport financing of a total value of around EUR 0.03 million; the total value of transport co-financing during 2008 and 2009 stayed at around EUR 0.4 million yearly; in 2010 it reached around EUR 6.6 million, for 55 request, and in 2011 it increased to EUR 10.8 million, for 35 requests.

  56. 56.

    Article 5.

  57. 57.

    Decision No 1350/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, OJ L 301, 20 November 2007.

  58. 58.

    Decision No 1926/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, OJ L 404, 30 December 2006.

  59. 59.

    Regulation No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006, OJ L 327, 24 November 2006.

  60. 60.

    Council Decision No 2007/124 of 12 February 2007, OJ L 58, 24 February 2007.

  61. 61.

    Council Regulation No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996, OJ L 163, 2/07/1996. Regulation as last amended by Regulation No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, OJ L 87, 31 March 2009.

  62. 62.

    Within the framework of the reform of the existing financial instrument, in the context of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020 (see European Commission, EU Budget Proposal—Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020, available at http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/ Accessed 15 February 2012.), the European Commission presented the proposal to reform the financial instrument for civil protection: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, COM (2011) 943, 20 December 2011. The proposal merges into a single text which includes both the provisions relating to the functioning of the Civil Protection Mechanism and those relating to the financing its activities. The financial provisions are incorporated in Chapter V (Articles 19–27) of the proposal. The eligible actions are grouped in general actions (Article 20), prevention and preparedness actions (Article 21), response actions (Article 22) and actions linked to equipment, transport resources, and related logistics (Article 23). The provisions relating to the financial assistance for transport under current CPFI are amended and simplified and the proposal introduces revised conditions for financing increasing the co-financing rates up to 85 % of the total eligible cost and up to 100 % in limited cases when certain criteria are met. Actions receiving financial assistance under the proposal not receive assistance from other EU financial instruments.

  63. 63.

    Council Regulation No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002, OJ L 311, 14 November 2002.

  64. 64.

    The definition of “extraordinary regional disaster” in the Regulation is rather vague and conditions for activating the Fund under this category are difficult to meet. For this reason the Commission in the course of 2010 accepted nine of the applications and decided that the conditions for mobilizing the Fund were not met in the case of five other applications. See European Commission, European Union Solidarity Fund—Annual Report 2010, COM (2011) 694, 31 October 2011, 6–11.

  65. 65.

    See Inter-institutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, OJ C 139, 14 June 2006.

  66. 66.

    Article 2. Intended to finance measures alleviating non-insurable damage in principle, the urgent actions eligible for the Fund are the following: immediate restoration to working order of infrastructure and plant in the fields of energy, drinking water, waste water, telecommunications, transport, health and education; providing temporary accommodation and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the population concerned; immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection of the cultural heritage; immediate cleaning up of disaster-stricken areas, including natural zones (Article 3).

  67. 67.

    See, for example, Decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010, OJ L 342, 28 December 2010, 16; Decision of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 December 2011, OJ L 4, 7 January 2012, 14.

  68. 68.

    Correct implementation of EU-funded operations is ensured by several layers of checks and monitoring, at internal level and by external actors.

  69. 69.

    See European Commission, The future of European Solidarity Fund, COM (2011) 613, 6 October 2011, 16–18.

  70. 70.

    See COM (2011) 694, 3 ff.

  71. 71.

    See European Commission, European Solidarity Fund—Annual Report 2009, COM (2011) 136, 23 March 2011, 5-6.

  72. 72.

    Article 1, Regulation No. 1257/96.

  73. 73.

    See Chap. 6, section 6.2.1.1, by Casolari in this volume.

  74. 74.

    Article 2. See, for example, European Commission, Humanitarian Aid Strategy for 2012, SEC (2011) 1426, 21 November 2011.

  75. 75.

    Article 4.

  76. 76.

    Eligible NGOs must meet the following criteria: (a) be non-profit making autonomous organizations in a member state of the EU under the law in force in that member state; (b) have their main headquarters in a member state of the EU or in a third country that receives of EU aid.

  77. 77.

    Article 6.

  78. 78.

    http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm. Accessed 8 February 2012.

  79. 79.

    See European Commission, Annual Report on the European Union’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2010, COM (2011) 343, 10 June 2011, 6.

  80. 80.

    In Spanish Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América Central.

  81. 81.

    In Spanish Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana. Member states of SICA are Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama; Associated Member Dominican Republic.

  82. 82.

    See Article 1, Treaty establishing the CEPREDENAC available at www.sica.int/cepredenac. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  83. 83.

    Article 4, Treaty establishing the CEPREDENAC.

  84. 84.

    Article 10 of the General Rules of operation of CEPREDENAC (available at www.sica.int/CEPREDENAC) states, however, that a minimum annual voluntary contribution by member states is determined by the Council of Representatives, the highest decision-making body composed of representatives of member states.

  85. 85.

    Spain in the period 2005–2009 was the second largest donor after the European Commission, in Central America.

  86. 86.

    CEPREDENAC in the period 2006–2009 has received a contribution of USD 2,637 million. See AECID, Fondo España-SICA. Memoria de Labores 2006–2009, 12, available at www.sica.int/fes/cepredenac.aspx. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  87. 87.

    SICA, Política Centroamericana de Gestión Integral de Riesgo de Desastres, available at www.sica.int/cepredenac. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  88. 88.

    The member states of CARICOM are Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitt and Nevis, St. Vincent and Grenadine, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.

  89. 89.

    This is the new name of the regional disaster management body formerly known as CDERA, Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency. CDERA was established in 1991.

  90. 90.

    See http://www.cdema.org/CDMStrategyandProgrammeFramework2007-2012.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  91. 91.

    Participating States of CDEMA are all CARICOM member states and Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Turks, and Caicos Islands.

  92. 92.

    Article XVIII (3), 2008 Agreement establishing the CDEMA.

  93. 93.

    Article XXV of the Agreement states that “Except as may otherwise be agreed between them, the expenses incurred by a sending State in providing assistance a requesting State shall be defrayed by the sending State”. On the functions of CDEMA see Chap. 23, section 23.3 (b), by Silingardi in this volume.

  94. 94.

    Member states of ASEAN are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam.

  95. 95.

    “The objective of this Agreement is to provide effective mechanisms to achieve substantial reduction of disaster losses in lives and in the social, economic, and environmental assets of the Parties, and to jointly respond to disaster emergencies through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international co-operation. This should be pursued in the overall context of sustainable development and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement” (Article 2 AADMER). The text of the Agreement is available at http://www.asean.org/18441. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  96. 96.

    Article 21 AADMER.

  97. 97.

    Article 22 AADMER.

  98. 98.

    See Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations (SASOP), available at http://www.aseandrr.net/Portals/0/Asean-SASOP.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2012.

  99. 99.

    See Chap. 23, section 23.3 (a), by Silingardi in this volume.

  100. 100.

    See Article 20 and Annex AADMER. Web site http://ahacentre.org Accessed 15 February 2012.

  101. 101.

    Article 24 AADMER.

  102. 102.

    See AADMER Work Programme for 2010–2015 available at http://www.aseandrr.net/Portals/0/AADMER-work-programme-final.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  103. 103.

    See Chap. 1, section 1.3, by de Guttry in this volume.

  104. 104.

    Article 1. The text of the Agreement is available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/108889.pdf Accessed 14 February 2012.

  105. 105.

    Article 6 (1). The text of the Agreement is available at http://itra.esteri.it/itrapgm/Visualizza.asp?ID=49233) Accessed 15 February 2012.

  106. 106.

    See, for example, Article 2 (3) letters d) and e) of the 1991 Agreement between Australia and Pakistan on Development Cooperation, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/35.html Accessed 14 February 2012; Article II of the 1974 Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between France and Congo, available at http://basedoc.diplomatie.gouv.fr/exl-php/util/documents/accede_document.php. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  107. 107.

    See, for example, Article 6 (3) Italy-Albania Agreement.

  108. 108.

    See Chap. 1, section 1.3, by de Guttry in this volume.

  109. 109.

    The Agreement is not in force. The text is available at http://itra.esteri.it/itrapgm/Visualizza.asp?ID=48895. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  110. 110.

    OJ L 118, 27 April 2001, 48 ff.

  111. 111.

    See European Commission, Country Strategy Paper for Bangladesh 2007–2013, 33, available at http://eeas.europa.eu/bangladesh/csp/csp_07_13_en.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  112. 112.

    GURI 16 January 1995, No. 12.

  113. 113.

    GURI 14 March 2005, No. 60.

  114. 114.

    See, for example, World Economic Forum 2010.

  115. 115.

    In certain contexts the support from private donors can be particularly significant where it can equal or even exceed the support given by government donors, for example in Haiti in 2010.

  116. 116.

    See, for example, The Patterson Foundation Disaster Relief Initiative, http://disaster.thepattersonfoundation.org/?p=287; Shafqat Human Development Foundation’s mission is to provide help to people who became victims of natural disasters http://www.shafqatfoundation.org/. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  117. 117.

    See J/P HRO (Haitian Relief Organization) founded after the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti by Sean Penn, http://www.jphro.org/. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  118. 118.

    The source of funding affects the type, duration, and scope of assistance delivered, as well as the potential outcomes.

  119. 119.

    In the case of Tsunami 2004 the majority of private donations have gone to NGOs and Red Cross Movement. See Flint and Goyder 2006, 17.

  120. 120.

    “In addition to the traditional humanitarian NGOs and international humanitarian organizations, private foundations and companies are playing an increasing role […]. This larger number of actors brings a variety of motivation, interest and practices. Reaffirming the humanitarian principles of neutrality and non-discrimination becomes all the more important”. European Commission, Annual Report on the European Union’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2010, COM (2011) 343, 10 June 2011, 2. See moreover Good Humanitarian Donorship, Principles & Good Practices of GHD, available at http://www.goodhumanitariandonorship.org/gns/principles-good-practice-ghd/overview.aspx. Accessed 15 February 2012; OCHA-World Economic Forum, Guiding Principles for Public–Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action, available at http://www.agire.it/filemanager/cms_agire/image/Come_agire/Principles_for_Public-Private_Collaboration_for_Humanitarian_Action.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  121. 121.

    See United States-Centre for International Disaster Information, Guidelines for appropriate international disaster donations, available at http://www.cidi.org/guidelines. Accessed 14 February 2012.

  122. 122.

    See Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) 2011b, 16; Namibia Flash Appeal http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R1_A931___1109240209.pdf. Accessed 12 February 2012.

  123. 123.

    For example, private donations to the OCHA have decreased over the period 2007–2010. See OCHA Donor Ranking, available at http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/Donor%20Ranking%204%20years%20as%20at%2015%20Feb%202011.pdf Accessed 15 February 2012.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Università di Modena e Reggio, Emilia via San Geminiano 3, 41121, Modena, Italy

    Ivana Palandri

Authors
  1. Ivana Palandri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Palandri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , DIRPOLIS Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56127, Italy

    Andrea de Guttry

  2. , Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, via San Geminiano 3, Modena, 41121, Italy

    Marco Gestri

  3. , Department of International Studies, University of Milan, Via Conservatorio 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Gabriella Venturini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Palandri, I. (2012). Funding Arrangements for Disaster Response. In: de Guttry, A., Gestri, M., Venturini, G. (eds) International Disaster Response Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-882-8_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation