BEST STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FUNDRAISING TO SUPPORT GLOBAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE INITIATIVES

BEST STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE FUNDRAISING TO SUPPORT GLOBAL

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE INITIATIVES

Week 9 PROJECT

SUMMER 2024

Introduction

Contextual Background

Natural disasters are on the rise globally due to climate change, increased rates of

urbanization and climatic fluctuations. Disaster such as floods, fire and hurricanes are now

affecting more low income and developing countries because they have poor infrastructure and

protection systems. Lately, disasters have increased in intensity and occurrence and the most

impacted groups are already vulnerable (UNDRR, 2020). In these areas prevention and or

mitigation of disasters or disaster preparedness measures to protect life are crucial. Preparedness

includes all the works which can be backed by the reinforcement of physical infrastructures, and

the development of the early alerting systems that can be helpful in case of threats that can affect

the society (Smith and Thompson, 2021). Nevertheless, these strategies are almost always unable

to address the consequences of catastrophes, particularly if the funding commitments have not

been made permanent. This paper will thus attempt to work as a proposal on the topic

“community resilience which is the capacity of any community to recover from the impact of

disaster". Patel et al. (2020), also, have also noted that resilience is not only the structure but also

the organization and the social structures within the given communities to emerge, coordinate,

aggregate, and negotiate for resources and against negative impacts.

The international relief organizations have met the first goal of responding to disasters

and the provision of necessities but the organizations lacks focus in building resilience in the

long run. The absence of a sustainable model for readiness and recovery greatly limits the ability

of most communities to prevent more loss in the event of future disasters (Harris & Kumar,

2020). Furthermore, disasters are very deterministic processes in which an action is initiated only

when disaster has happened. This short-term approach to addressing humanitarian needs does not

address the causes of risk and does not assist communities to prepare for future adversity they

shall encounter (UNDP, 2020). The threats of disasters are on the rise and the management of the

disasters requires sustainable and durable financial frameworks.

Research Objective

In view of this, the purpose of this paper shall be to analyze and evaluate the most

effective sustainable strategies for funding disaster preparedness and community resilience for

the whole world. The present funding mechanisms and plans are useful in responding to the

present disasters in the short-run but are insufficient in addressing the long-term disaster risk

reduction (Wright et al., 2021). In this context, much has been made of the idea of sustainable

fundraising in order to ensure that there is consistent funding over time for the sorts of durable

approaches to disaster risk reduction and preparedness that can contribute to better results in the

long term and that can also help to position response activities more effectively. In this paper,

several fundraising models will be discussed, these are; government funding, international aid,

public- private partnerships, social impact bonds and the community funding models which

include crowdfunding. This way, the research will find out which of the used models has the

potential of offering the most stable, sustainable financial approach to disaster preparedness.

In particular, this paper will examine the feasibility and the utility of new modes of

financing which are the Social Impact Bonds that connect financial returns to delivery of

outcomes to the execution of long-term preparedness objectives (Turner, 2020). An aspect that

also shows potential in the decentralization of financial and governance roles from the public

sector to the private is the use of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs); collaborations between the

private sector and public institutions where the focus on financial improvements would be

supplemented by public leadership and governance to support the ongoing efforts in disaster

preparedness. These models can be integrated into global disaster risk reduction frameworks for

the enhancement of the sustainability of fundraising (Anderson et al., 2019). The data from case

studies and past studies will be employed to identify how these models of fundraising have been

applied and the advantages and disadvantages of the models as well as their appropriateness to

different parts of the world and types of disaster. The reason for this study is therefore to

contribute new input to the existing information scope by conducting a systematic literature

review of the analysis of sustainable funding models with a view of ascertaining their usability in

enhancing international disaster preparedness.

Literature Review

Sustainable Fundraising as Applied to Preparation for Disasters

The research shall focus on the need to ensure that funding of community preparedness is

sustainable since it is a crucial component in the strategies towards disaster preparedness. As

defined by Martinez (2019), disaster response sustainable philanthropy is the ability to maintain

the fund raising and actual funding that is steady and not affected by future, political or

economic conditions. Whereas with the emergency funding, the community only has the

opportunity to invest in protective measures during a disaster, sustainable funding allows the

community to do so much earlier. Smith and Thompson (2021) also pointed out that disaster

response is not only the early response but also the prevention with the high spending on the

mitigation parts and infrastructure. Such funding sources require sustainable and predictable

sources of funding which are not subjected to disruption by calamities. If such funding is not

available, then it means that the communities will lack enough resources to reduce on future

effects or damages hence more losses will be incurred when there are destructions. The Red

Cross and Oxfam are examples of organizations that have developed diversified funding sources

in disaster fundraising so that the public and private sectors can complement each other to

enhance the organization’s disaster portfolios (Johnson et al., 2018). These models support the

diversification of sources since none of them should be fully depended on while funds should be

obtained from various sources. Thus, this funding security will enable organizations to maintain

funding and have a more permanent presence in disaster affected areas now and before disasters

occurs. Turner (2020) also argue that sustainable fundraising models have to be connected to

other sustainable development goals to enhance the integration of the disaster risk management,

poverty reduction and climate change mitigation. These financial models do not only provide

funding for the immediate disaster response but also provide funding for medium to long term

recovery from the causes of vulnerability. Sustainable funding therefore means that the donors

must be informed on which activities and areas funding is being used for in order to increase

their confidence and trust in the whole process. This change of approach helps in funding the

disaster management organizations in the sense that the organizations can plan for both the

present and the future since the funding process is ongoing in the long run for a disaster

readiness program.

Spending of resources in the preparation for disasters is not only a matter of resource

endowment but also effective utilization. For instance, Smith and Thompson (2021) explained

that sustainable funding frameworks for disaster preparedness need to have several sources of

revenue, strong, and the most effective. Funded by government grants or one time donations

preparedness programs are left to the vagaries of political decision making or financial budgets.

On the other hand, sustainable models are development funding strategies that compel

organizations to seek other sources of funding that may include grants, individual and or

corporate contributions and social impact bonds. According to Johnson et al., (2018), the Red

Cross is a perfect example of an organization that has been forced to seek additional sources of

revenues in order to sustain its operations in the face of a crisis. Thus the range of those aspects

of disaster response, from the immediate relief through the planning of the recovery to the actual

recovery, can be widened. This way, organizations can prevent the consequences of the funding

differences which can lead to the fact that the preparation program will be passive at some point.

Turner et al. (2020) say it not only does the development of sound and sustainable fundraising

strategies make it possible to engage new and uncharted sectors, such as the private sector, in

supporting not only the organizations’ operational costs, but also community resilience

initiatives. Bilateral cooperation funding is also increasing in disaster readiness where funding is

directed towards projects that will have a favorable effect on the civil society and the business

community (Turner 2020). Such collaboration offers the financial input in the private sector and

the government especially in the provision of administrative structures for disaster response.

According to this, sustainable fundraising enables the formation of such partnerships because the

latter require the gathering of diverse resources in order to address complex and systemic

challenges. It is a change in the Disaster preparedness that extends the latter with other strategies

for development hence creating a better world.

The examples of Oxfam and the Red Cross are used to identify and analyses suitable

models of sustainable fundraising for disasters. According to Turner (2020), these organizations

have been able to develop sustainable funding mechanisms to come with the diversified funding

mechanisms that will support these organizations in the future. According to Johnson et al.,

(2018), the Red Cross through its donors, corporate partners and international funding has a

stable and diversified source of income. This diversification helps an organization to cut off or

reduce its relationship with a specific donor or fund to source other sources of funding that

support not only disaster responses but also disaster risk reduction programs. In the same way,

Oxfam also concentrates on the aspect of fundraising for local support, whereby it is expected

that the people and the communities will cater for their disaster preparedness on their own. This

makes its project sustainable because, Oxfam is very much aware of the local communities needs

and involve them in the funding process. The case studies reveal which funding strategies for

disaster preparedness are the most appropriate; that is evidence that correct funding should

contain sources sufficiently adequate for the existing and expected needs. According to Turner

(2020) when discussing with these organizations, the author identifies that the decline in

financial sustainability in disaster management is the organization’s capacity to alter the new

need as it seeks to stabilize resources. This entails funding strategies that take into account the

contingencies of the short term for instance disasters as well as the long term needs of a

community. Turner (2020) also defines sustainable fundraising as not just an economic concept

but as a means of ensuring that the public has confidence in these humanitarian organizations.

Turner (2020) argues that disaster preparedness is most effective where communities have equal

and sustained access to the resource necessary for prevention in the future.

Ensuring that sustainable fundraising is integrated into the global development strategies

is an appropriate step towards articulating long term disaster response. According to Turner

(2020), the approach to disaster preparedness should be viewed as a part of other strategies for

the development of the world. The funding for this model of disaster support should therefore be

in accordance with sustainable international development including the United Nations SDGs.

Positioning International disaster preparedness within the context of the SDGs, helps to

guarantee funding for DRM within countries. Smith and Thompson (2021) argue that it helps in

promoting disaster preparedness as a vital component of macro and meso-development agendas

that the national and regional governments and their development partners should champion. In

this integration, funding models must advocate for development trajectories that are associated

with the causes of vulnerability including poverty, inequality and poor infrastructure. Another

aspect of sustainable fundraising is the shift in the focus in disaster responses; from episodic to

systematic. This has led to the need to apply financial resources in reaching out to all

stakeholders in society in the DRP process. When sustainable fundraising is an integral part of

the global development agenda, disaster preparedness becomes a systematic and ongoing

exercise that is undertaken by many stakeholders who share common values of sustainable

development. It implies that the required facilities are not only for the management of

consequences of the present disasters but also for the new climate conditions and new types of

risks in the future.

International Partnerships for Disaster Risk Reduction

Some of the issues that have been evident is that international frameworks have evolved

to facilitate and advocate common actions towards management of disaster risks across the

globe. The UNDRR framework for instance helps to facilitate the reduction of disaster risk

through integrating sustainable funding into country and regional policies. As stated by UNDRR

(2020 in press), sustainable financial contribution is vital if governments and organizations are to

enhance the capacity of disaster resilience through investment in prevention measures for case

constructing new structures, alerting systems, public relations etc. These two frameworks

encourage the formulation and implementation of sound post disaster risk reduction strategies

and financing strategies that will be supported by government and non-governmental

organizations. They also reinforce the position that DR (disaster risk reduction) is an

international matter that cannot be solved without the use of international funding and human

capital and international collaborative efforts. UNDRR also note that conversations around

sustainable finance should not just be on the life-sustaining funding but also on the funding for

the development of a resilient system, and reducing vulnerability in the long-term sense. In the

absence of sustained sources of funding, other than tackling the root causes of vulnerability that

make a population prone to disasters, other aspects cannot be adequately tackled for the better.

Hence, the integration of sustainable financing mechanism into the global frameworks for

disaster risk reduction is considered as necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the IOs.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction which is more commonly known was

adopted in the year 2015 and is a completely new way of thinking on how the international

community prepares for disasters. As Burke (2021) have pointed out, the Sendai Framework is

highly focused on risk reduction, which means that the necessary funds are to be directed to

disaster prevention. The discussed framework has the intention of making risk management as a

principle in all the decisions that influence the formulation of governance plans, policies and

strategies and acquisition as well as the implementation of these plans. As has been mentioned

for every shift in paradigms towards prevention and preparedness, there is a need for huge

amounts of money from the governments and the private sector for the continued programs to

address disasters. It also states that disaster resilience and management cannot be just a one

man’s show as the framework outlines that different sectors and stakeholders should be involved

in the work of rebuilding this country after disasters. This is because there is a need for

sustainable funding to support this kind of approach to teamwork, information and best practices

sharing across nationality and organization (Turner, 2020). As stated by Burke (2021), the

Sendai Framework also focuses on the financial mobilization as the process in which the

government, business, civil society, international organizations, and other actors engage to

enhance resilience to, and reduce, disaster risks.

Despite being relatively new, the connection between disaster preparedness and the SDGs

has become the main approach to discussing sustainable funding for resilience. For this reason,

Patel et al. (2020) pointed out that embedding DRR in the SDGs created an enabling

environment for the allocation of resources for readiness and preparedness programs.

Governments or organizations may therefore make disaster preparedness a sustainable and long-

term process mainly to link disaster preparedness with development goals such as poverty

reduction, climate change, and urbanization. This alignment allows for the identification of

predictable resources for disaster risk reduction in the context of a development approach, not a

crisis one. Patel et al. (2020) also noted that due to the approach of the SDGs, the relation

between disaster risk reduction and other processes or phenomena is defined, including

environmental and socio-economic ones. This integrated approach makes the country to

formulate policies that will address this vulnerability and therefore protect the affected sectors.

The sustainable funding in this regard is utilized as a form of lobbying towards enhanced

achievement of sustainable development goals for a better world.

Public and Private Dollars with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) In Disaster

Preparedness

As established for CSR, there is enough funding of disaster preparedness by the private

sector, hence manufacturing industries including those in the food industry should increase

preparedness for disasters. Taylor (2021) noted that the present has trended into something more

productive from funding disaster response, an investment in resilience in societies and states.

Most organizations know that their operations may be greatly affected by disasters; this is why

they fund these insurance and combating programs. CSR funding is usually applied in areas that

would enhance the physical development of the community, to enable it deal with disaster for

instance, better houses and water supply so that both will be able to endure during the worst. For

example, Microsoft as an IT technology giant and Google as a search engine service provider are

examples of technological firms that have adopted supply of disaster preparedness programs by

providing support in technology regarding early warning systems and other disaster response

technologies (Harris & Roberts, 2020). These contributions are in the positive path forging a new

school of thought that posits that a business can be successful and so can the communities that

host the business entities. Disaster preparedness is therefore both a way through which the

private sector assists the threatened communities and also as a form of investment in the sector in

case its operations are endangered by disaster.

The other manner in which business organizations have taken part within the funding of

disaster preparedness include; funding of insurance coverage or PPR projects. In the study

conducted by Anderson et al., (2019) PPPs describe on how government, private sector, and

NGOs resources can be merged to address big challenges including disaster risk reduction. These

linkages enable the realization of some aspects of the private sector efficiency and innovation

bundled with the public sector’s disaster management experiences. The government supplies the

management role while the business firms supply the resources and data resource. A good

example of functioning PPP in disaster risk reduction is the United Nations and several

multinationals are currently involved in construction of disaster resilient infrastructure in South

East Asia (Anderson, et.al., 2019). These are effective in promoting sustainable programs of

disaster preparedness because the two sectors are complementary. Not only does that enhance the

productivity of the work of disaster preparedness agencies but such relationships also add value

to companies and communities.

The funding of disasters has also been attributed to the CSR strategies that are taken by

the large organizations doing business in the risk prone regions. In the work of Seibert and Nixon

(2020) CSR defines the degree to which various CSR initiatives are useful in disaster response

and management, stating that big organizations provide critical resources. He also said that the

activities and funds under CSR can be utilized for the construction of emergency transit shelters,

food supply lines, response teams or even the first early warning system that could potentially

minimize the effects of the disaster. Nonetheless, the interest among businesses in engaging in

disaster preparedness and responses as CSR have been criticized for being insufficient or even

irrelevant for the needs of the community (Seibert & Nixon, 2020). Therefore, businesses may

pay attention to the particular projects that are useful for organization’s image or market status,

for example, charitable activities or the response to the disaster, rather than the base development

of the community. This raises the question of how the needs of the vulnerable groups are being

met when investment on CSR is made to improve resilience that will in the long run benefit the

vulnerable groups.

There are certain factors which need to be considered while discussing about the private

sectors’ preparedness towards disaster management like the CSR funding issue. Consequently,

CSR investments are mainly short term since most of the time they are informed by the financial

status of the company and other business considerations. Seibert & Nixon (2020) observe that

CSR contributions are useful but often do not address all the requirements of disaster resilience,

and particularly those with high risks in the low-income or conflict zones. The same can also be

an issue for companies themselves in that there is often a question of how, in fact, one is to

determine the effectiveness of certain CSR activities or who is to bear responsibility for certain

measures. Therefore, CSR should be seen as complementary source of funding for disaster

preparedness rather than primary one. Chronic funding practices mean expanding the set of

actors involved, beginning with governments and international organizations and ending with

civil society to guarantee the adequate funding of disaster resilience efforts. These gaps can be

closed and PPAs can be built in a way that both the private and public sector concentrate on

sustainable disaster planning.

Innovative Fundraising Models: Crowdfunding and Social Impact Bonds

Crowdfunding can now be used to support disaster preparedness, especially when the

purpose is to establish a local or community based project. Greenfield and Clark (2021) noted

that, the following are examples that show that it is possible to develop large scale online

crowdfunding for disasters preparedness and response. Crowdfunding is an online way for

people and companies to get money from the public in a short time through the use of social

networks. GoFundMe and Kickstarter are some of the sites in disaster areas, for instance, to

support the financing of projects that can make societies more resilient, such as building flood

barriers or forming community response teams. Turner (2020) has also shown that through the

adoption of new technologies, crowdfunding has the potential of increasing the participation of

the society in disaster preparedness where institutions are unavailable. The democratization of

funding empowers the target groups in that they can fully own the preparedness interventions to

ensure the programs meet their needs. Greenfield and Clark (2021) say despite the fact that they

may help to raise awareness and concentrate attention on the needs of the affected population(s),

their effectiveness is often limited by the scale of the disaster or, more precisely, the capacity of

the local population to launch crowdfunding campaigns.

Disaster Resilience has been one of the key focal areas where SIBs have been developed

as new age financial instruments. Wright et al. (2019) describe how SIBs are used in the

management of financing of activities of programs directed at disaster risk reduction and the

financial result is linked to the achievement of specific goals. SIBs may also be used, when

discussing disaster based programs, for the funding of projects that can assist in the development

of resilience within communities such as through infrastructure investment or disaster

preparedness training (Wright et al., 2019). These service delivery projects are funded by

investors prior to the delivery of services and with the promise or guarantee of being paid after

service delivery based on the effectiveness in achieving certain service delivery objectives

among them averting loss of lives and property during disasters. A disadvantage of SIBs as a

funding mechanism is that it supports outcomes for sustained, long-term funding that can support

positive, entrance prevention rather than simply the reinforcement of exit-crisis interventions.

Unlike Donation and Grants, SIB encourage investment in to programs that are financially

sustainable and also bring about positive change in the society. Wright et al., (2019), however,

note that SIBs are still relatively a new concept and they also discover that SIBs present

challenges that have to do with the questions of applicability, scale and the question of how

social impact can be measured.

In developing countries, where funds may be unavailable or insufficient, crowdfunding

and SIBs are being used frequently. In his recent work, Goffman (2020) examines the way in

which disaster preparedness projects have been financed by crowdsourcing in the low-income

countries, but not in compliance with the standard international aid norms. These platforms allow

the local communities to open to the international community as well as seek for funds for the

projects like building storm shelters or state disasters training. They can bring together a crowd

and money can come in, and this can be done fast; which is quite beneficial if one is running a

small and targeted campaign for a project within a certain locality. Goffman (2020) expounds on

the challenge of these activities, power local leadership of such programs and inequality in

access and utilization of technology enhanced platforms. Where the use of the internet is low this

may not be very effective and therefore the effectiveness of the tool may be limited in such areas.

It is good to understand that crowdfunding is useful and is now considered as the power tool that

is able to help and fund more local communities than the others to complete the tasks and

support the projects which other funding sources cannot support.

The success of the proposed framework for crowdfunding in the context of disaster

preparedness therefore has two major aspects. The financial outcome, which entails the amount

of funds that were raised, and the social impact on projects of relevance. In Davies (2021) the

author examines a number of crowdfunding campaigns for disaster resilience initiatives and

synthesizes his observations and points out that while such campaigns are capable of raising

significant sums of money, their future is contingent upon a number of factors. First, the

campaigns need to be set up with a clear and realistic objective of the money collected to be used

in this way. Secondly, this is because in most organizations the campaigns have to involve the

community to be targeted in the mobilization of the resources and ensuring that the resources

available are well utilized in supporting the right causes. Davies (2021) also show that the

advantage of the crowd-funding podium and the risk of the podiums’ organizers affects the

sustainable donor confidence. However, crowdfunding is a special chance to get money for

preparing for and preventing disasters in the situations when it is difficult to get the money by

other means.

Disaster Preparedness Fund Raising Challenges and Solutions on an International

Perspective

Among the biggest challenges for sustainable funding of the cases of disasters there is a

concept of donor fatigue. According to Wong (2020), individuals and the private sectors will be

discouraged from giving out their donations for disaster preparedness when they have gone

through several rounds of appeal or when the donations do not seem to yield results. This type of

fatigue is described in situations where people are quite willing to contribute in the immediate

wake of a disaster but do not do so consistently over time. Wong further observes or would like

to add that the emergency response support triggers a lot of public attention and contribution but

the same cannot be said for the long term funding of disaster risk reduction and preparedness.

The donors are likely to develop the notion that the readiness programs are less demanding or

less practical and therefore provide little funding. Consequently, the resources available for

disaster preparedness measures are often limited and just enough to support the exercise at its

best. According to Wong, there is need to encourage the fundraising canvases to adopt long term

argument in their explanation of how the money they raise can help prevent future calamities and

threats.

State and locality also contribute to the funding of disaster preparedness, and political

power determines the share of the funding. Kumar and Martinez (2019) have argued that there is

political element as far as the funding of disaster planning is concerned especially among the

donors in the international system. International and national organizations, regional and local

governments turn their attention to those regions or topics that are important for political,

economic, or military reasons, rather than those who require it most. This in turn leads to very

huge inequalities where some community gets all the necessary funding while the others get very

little funding. Kumar and Martinez (2019) also point out that the political factors in decision

making on funding lead to delayed funding as political authorities take some time to process the

funding and release the funds. Such delays can be a major drawback of disaster preparedness

programs because time is always of the essence in reducing any risk and building capacity.

In this case accounting scandals concerning disaster preparedness funds can be noted

from disaster agencies if fund management is done without any accountability system in place.

Rios and Patel (2019) also noted that poor governance, fraud and embezzlement and misuse of

resources and funds have also derailed many international disaster preparedness programs.

Sometimes it leads to inefficiencies due to poor direction of the funds or misuse of the funds.

The funds may be misused and the chances for minimizing risks may be missed. Rios & Patel

stated that in the same way that the funding for disaster preparedness may be misused or

misappropriated because of a lack of supervision and accountability, then vulnerable populations

will be left at risk once the disaster strikes. This is to mean that there is need to put in place

proper and efficient financial system of accountability and transparency to enhance on the use of

the available resources.

The other big challenge in sustainable disaster preparedness is the short term funding. As

pointed out by Ho and Singh (2020), such specific strategic funding measures are anchored on

the contingency and emergency funding which are limited to relief funding only. That is why

emergency funds are so necessary, they do not address the root causes of people’s vulnerability

or create primary frameworks that will hold up in a crisis. According to Ho and Singh (2020), the

disaster preparedness requires restocking of funds to establish structures, train people, and

cultivate risk management culture. If the US remains passive about disasters as it has not

continued to fund these programs and agencies, then the efforts made in the past will have been

futile, and disasters will strike the country again. It captures the best practice of the long funding

periods that foster action plans and risk management as opposed to funding for repair.

Results

The problems with the traditional models of fundraising.

Existing models of disaster preparedness fundraising are based largely on the receipt of

government grants, huge international organizations and NGOs, which have their advantages and

disadvantages. Governments all over the world depend on public aid in disaster financing.

Thompson (2019), exposed that in models where disaster funding is decided by the government,

most of it is channeled through state or through international organizations such as the United

Nations. These funding models work fine for emergencies, but do not provide a sustainable

model for long term preparedness programs. In support of this, Harris and Kumar (2020) explain

that even though government aid can be good enough for the baseline emergency phase, it is not

efficient at later phases, which are subject to political change and instabilities. A challenge to the

longevity of disaster response systems arises because the governments give inadequate funds for

spending on preventive measures that should be taken to address the hazard risks.

It is known that NGOs have held some important world roles in disaster preparation

funding, and lots of organizations such as Red Cross and Oxfam use a varied funding model.

According to Lacy et al., (2021) these organizations are able to source for the funds for the short

term disaster response needs and the long term disaster risk reduction initiatives through charity,

grants and corporate sponsorship. Lacy et al. (2021) states that NGO led models provide SU the

flexibility that enhances an organization’s ability to effectively and expeditiously meet specific

needs. But the model has its limitations, and again wishes to point out that many NGOs are based

on external funding so their sources of funding are not very stable. Similar findings are revealed

by Jenkins (2020) who observes that conventional fundraising by NGOs may suffer from donor

fatigue when organizations make many appeals following different disasters. According to

Jenkins (2020), one of the challenges that face NGOs includes not having guaranteed follow-

through funding, which is the reason NGOs cannot venture into long term disaster risk reduction

initiatives. While NGO led models deliver important supplies, the given models also pose

questions to sustainability, such as, how is it possible to organize sustainable funding for

preparedness to disasters.

The public private partnership effectiveness.

In addition, the literature points to the public‐private partnership funding of disaster

preparation involving both of the capital and technical support. As mentioned in Singh (2019),

PPPs’ literature also showed that under PPPs both public and private partners working in tandem

have managed to attract significant investment for disaster risk reduction and reduction.

Governments perform the rights and responsibilities for governance through creating regulatory

environment and roles of investors, creators and improvers through bringing innovation, capital

and technology. The examples of disaster risk reduction PPPs that have been successful have

worked on the construction of disaster resilient structure and improved early warning systems

(Martinez and Harris 2021). Over a period of time, these have culminated to a more sustainable

means of funding disaster preparedness that seeks to use private sector portable resources for the

public sector. Thus, the PPPs demonstrate that they can provide long term financing even for

disaster management under high large risks and at large scale.

The drawbacks of PPPs will also be elaborated in subsequent sections. According to

Wilson (2020), the ability to have congruent interests and goals of the two entities can be elusive

and their success is highly contingent on the same. In the office, government officials may only

seek political benefits, and businesses may focus on tangible and prompt revenues and disregard

the risk prevention in disasters. In much the same way, UNDP (2020) also acknowledges that

PPPs have been very effective in mobilizing huge money to disaster preparedness, but end up

failing due to a miss-focused agenda or delayed processes. And because the task of relation

management and negotiations of these partnerships is sometimes slow, it affects the

implementation process of projects hence reducing these impacts. The PPPs have many

opportunities for financing disaster preparedness, but these kinds of contracts are only effective

when the government has an efficient governance structure, clear objectives and mutual

accountability. Also, if well managed, these partnerships can lead to a more lasting, more

efficient way of improving disaster resilience.

Crowdfunding, Social impact bonds in Disaster Preparedness.

Small scale and community base initiatives related to disasters proved crowdfunding to

be the significant option. GoFundMe and Kickstarter have been popular when it comes to

funding local disaster resilience strategies, but they are not easy to access compared to traditional

financing sources, says Greenfield (2020). These communities can raise funds directly from the

public without going through the bureaucratic processes and take a shorter time to respond on

some of these platforms. Pavey (2019) is cited by Ives (2021) who uses the case of a flood

defense and emergency first aid training, which were funded through successful crowdfunding

campaigns. Although crowdfunding is at the top of the game for a localized campaign,

Greenfield (2020) proposes that it is not scalable. As such, crowdfunding will probably be

insufficient to finance important infrastructure needs, if at all, in low tech areas with limited

online means in elaborate LSM disaster preparation initiatives. While crowdfunding can be

useful, it is not a magic bullet behind which disaster preparation funding could become generally

sustainable.

The research has also found its way into research that is using them in disaster resilience

financing programs, which are referred to as the Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). Wright, Strasser,

and Saah (2021) state that SIBs are private investors providing funds for disaster preparedness

programs which payback from the achievement of the identified social outcomes such as lower

mortality during a disaster or increased community disaster preparedness. The performance

based contracts were intended to ensure that the funds were used effectively, and the repayment

part depends on the performance. Roberts (2021) argues that SIBs are a good fit for disaster

preparation because the funding is guaranteed, long term, and outcome oriented for a variety of

resilience initiatives. Wright et al. (2021) mention that although there is a mounting body of

evidence of use of SIBs, yet there are some challenges in their implementation, mainly related to

social impact measurement. SIBs have almost limitless benefits but startup costs and the need for

proper monitoring, and efficient evaluation systems pose a huge challenge. Yet SIBs may offer a

means of encouraging the private sector to fund long term disaster risk reduction activities in a

way that has clear financial linkages to social results.

Corporate Responsibility and Employer Engagement

In line with this, this paper will argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has

become Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) for the private sector in natural disaster prone countries.

Next, Pritchard and Wright (2021) analyzed the differences in CSR strategies adopted by

companies which have transitioned from philanthropy donations in disasters to financing disaster

prospecting solutions. Within the IT and manufacturing industries and logistics, disaster risk

reduction is becoming an important issue and questions arise at two levels. Not only as a sensible

business decision but also as a question of the organization’s and society’s responsibility. Using

Walmart’s CSR case, McKenzie (2020) explains how disaster training and community resilience

projects have improved community resilience. These discussions align with Walmart’s overall

CSR strategy that sets it on both community well-being and disaster vulnerability. Such

investments are not only a source of funds that communities can use for rebuilding; they also

protect business’ future earning capabilities from disruption; supplies chains and structures do

not have to be destroyed in disasters.

Emerging issues of how corporate contributions are most appropriately matched with the

needs of vulnerable societies still dim the lights thrown by CSR. Lee and Kumar (2020) posit

that in most cases CSR relates to the glamour of quick fix activities such as disaster relief charity

contribution rather than taking professional long term strategic procreation towards the building

of a disaster resilient society. The reasons are the company’s focus on large projects that lead to a

disconnection between what the company is doing, and what is needed on the ground. Also, the

company can initiate CSR activities to enhance its brands appeal and appeal and it is not

necessarily aimed at supporting the building of the community, as Lee and Kumar (2020) point

out, thus it is important for CSR to focus on investment that can reduce the risks of vulnerability

and possibly supplement the existing disaster risk reduction initiatives in the country. In support

of this, McKenzie (2020) rues that Good CSR programs must be aligned and form part of

disaster risk management frameworks for community engagement involving the business

community, government and NGOs. That means CSR partners working in furtherance of post

disaster sustainable, community led response, not one off philanthropy.

The Flaws of sustainable fundraising

The subsequent discussion leads to the conclusion that the prospect for the sustainable

fundraising to the disaster preparedness is far from being free from complications. Potential

disaster preparedness programs are politically and economically entailed by financial constraints.

As Anderson and Singh (2020) do in them perform, various disaster threat protection guidelines

assume continuous contributions spread across extended intervals, which can be difficult to

achieve in the wake of political instability, shifting government priorities and unfavorable

economic situations. When it comes to monies administers for direct relief of disasters, even

governments seldom make available enough monies for effortful disaster mitigation programs

which are construed as holding less emergent nature. However, these short term approaches to

disasters undermine the basic intent for the establishment of long term disaster resilience

mechanisms among nations. Anderson and Singh (2020) highlight that the barriers can be done

away with on the basis of multi stakeholders government and private organizations that have

been persistent in funding the preparation programs. Sustained commitment by all stakeholders

is needed to position Disaster Risk Reduction at the core of development frameworks, national

and international.

The third self-interest challenge in developing sustainable disaster fundraising relates to

donor fatigue. The author of the present article about the donor fatigue that occurs when donors

fail overwhelmed all the propositions of funding, in particular after the events of several disasters

works at 2020. The problem above is that if donors get tired of funding disasters, with more

disasters and less money. For the health sector, the success is immediately obvious; unlike the

case of disaster preparedness programs, it is not easy to see the resulting outcome, and as a

result, donors tend to pull out their funding. In order not to reach the decision making fatigue

point, DRPs are advised to forward results that can be measured in terms of lives lost or people’s

HRR (Ho, 2020). Rios and Patel (2020) argue that the organization has to ensure that there is

transparency and accountability on the funds raised for the program in order to satisfy donors

who will want to know how the funds are utilized. Therefore, DR Program should invest in

projects that generate trust from donors about how the disaster preparedness funding is used,

since funds should be spent on lengthier projects that prevent and reduce risks.

CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings

The observations from this work show that sustainable funding sources need to be

supported in order to support emerging disaster risk management and response needs. As this

paper points out, the top-down or government led and the bottom-up or NGO led models of

funding have been very effective in being able to deploy a response to disasters in a timely

manner on a more frequent basis than not, but are not predictable enough to have money

available permanently for disaster risk reduction. Turner (2020) said that although PPPs and

other emerging formats such as crowdfunding and social impact bonds (SIBs) have proven

significant potential in addressing the funding gaps, they also provide a diverse range of

resources while focusing on performance. Crowdfunding has enabled communities to have a

voice and a way to self-fund smaller scale preparedness projects, while SIBs represent a

performance based funding model to incentivize ROI that aligns to desired disaster resilience

outcomes. The CSR contribution from the private sector has filled this gap in providing the

resources which are desired in improving disaster preparedness by these entities. The study also

new risks which are labeled as donor fatigue, political and economic limitations and issues of

resource identification and availability. It means that if the necessary and sustainable support for

the disaster preparedness activities that are necessary to create real and sustainable communities

is to be met, meeting these challenges is crucial.

Policy Recommendations

From the research outcomes we can conclude some policy suggestions to be given with

the objective of improving the sustainability and efficiency of disaster preparedness funding.

Governments should then first prioritize placing disaster preparedness as a cross cutting issue in

the national budget and development frameworks and ensure that predictable funding is always

available for proactive risk reduction activities. Tax incentives should be utilized by governance

initiatives to encourage private sector participation therein or funds should be provided as

matching support. Second, new funding sources need to be sought by NGOs and International

Organizations, and SIBs and crowdfunding are given as an example. However, donors want to

fund CBOs in Nigeria, but must have some level of confidence in the governance structures of

these organizations and the accountability processes that are part of the CBO. Also, the

development of CSR strategies and activities should not occur in isolation from the development

and implementation of well-coordinated and evidence based frameworks for blending corporate

giving with the profiles of risk of communities that require relief in times of disaster. The policy

intervention strategy should involve creation of multi stakeholder forums which solely involve

the government and other stakeholders from within the private sector and civil society

organizations in the development and financing of disasters readiness. Resources would have

been well used with such integrated approaches and impacts tailored towards the special

difficulties that each region exhibits.

Future Research Directions

As such, future studies should focus on analysis of new and now not so popular funding

sources to address the new challenges for disaster preparedness financing. Filling the lack of

knowledge about SIBs the further research should be focused on the areas including the work

examines the feasibility of applying SIBs in different contexts and, with respect to Ge17’s

specific context, identifies an important research gap for future work. The applicability of SIBs

in shaping change in low income communities and the different data measurement approaches

that can be used to capture outcomes that can lead to investment. Second, the mentioned

crowdfunding platforms can be examined regarding the opportunities to consider more serious

projects and expanding cooperation with the traditional financial sources. An important research

direction is how digital tools and blockchain technology can facilitate decision making on

funding of disaster preparedness. Also, the future works could include the investigation of the

linkage between climate finance and disaster risk reduction with the knowledge of methods that

the global climate change mitigation frameworks facilitate the enhancement of preparedness to

disasters. Turner (2020) and Wright et al. (2021) also said that conducting a comparative analysis

of how different countries or regions allocate funding for disaster preparedness would be

insightful to find out proven strategies, ideas and good practices in the area that could be copied

by other countries and regions in addressing disaster preparedness funding. Consequently, this

~--y

TOT

seems to have sought to fill these gaps so that future works could provide improved financing

perspectives in disaster preparedness, in light of a dynamically changing global environment.

Students also viewed