The Ukraine crisis and diverted aid: What we know so far

• By the start of August 2022, funding for humanitarian appeals from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was equal to 33% of funding requirements. When Ukraine is omitted, funding coverage was equal to 30%, lower than in any year in the last decade (Figure 1).
• By the start of March, funding coverage for crises other than Ukraine was similar to the average at the same point in previous years (13%), but it subsequently diverged. Average funding coverage at the start of August between 2012 and 2021 was 47%, whereas funding for crises other than Ukraine in 2022 was 30%. Ukraine’s funding coverage (taking into account all appeals) was 53% following the revised requirement figure (Figure 2).
• In 2022 Somalia faced unprecedented rain failures, triggering drought and concerns about a new famine. Funding coverage for Somalia’s humanitarian response plan (launched in December 2021) was 68% by the start of August; Ukraine’s combined appeals achieved this coverage in six weeks.
• Several countries have made explicit announcements that aid will be diverted, and real-time aid data to date shows evidence of this diversion. Sweden and Denmark (Figure 4) have announced cuts to other aid priorities that equate to 14% and 10% of their 2021 aid budgets respectively. Estimates of the impact on the UK budget suggest that other priorities could be cut by up to 25% (Figure 3).
• Some countries appear to be providing additional funding. The US is on track to spend considerably more in 2022 than in previous years. For most countries, there is insufficient information to be certain (Figure 5).

As the attention of aid-giving countries has largely been absorbed by the events unfolding in Europe, there have been concerns that other crises are not getting the attention or funding they need. Obtaining an accurate picture is difficult, in part because many aid providers have stopped publishing real-time information on official development assistance (ODA) to Ukraine. This is unfortunate. While there are legitimate concerns about confidentiality, in times of crises it is even more important to have an accurate picture of what flows are available. In addition, while countries have pledged large amounts of support to Ukraine, few have been explicit about whether this will be additional or come at the expense of other causes.

This factsheet explores what we can so far say about the impact that the Ukraine crisis is having on ODA to other priorities by piecing together what we know from near-real-time aid data for all other countries, donor announcements and funding for humanitarian appeals.

Although we are still only part-way through the year and there are large caveats to the data, it tells a mixed story. As of July, funding for humanitarian appeals was higher in absolute terms than in previous years, however, the gap between funding and need continues to grow when Ukraine is omitted from the data. Some donors – notably the US – appear to have funded support for Ukraine from additional budgets, whereas others – notably those most concerned with hitting ODA/GNI targets – have announced plans to divert ODA which are already evident in the data.

We explore some of the implications of these findings in a blog setting out why we should target country-programmable aid instead of ODA.