Introduction

At the Grand Bargain Annual Meeting in 2019, the provision of higher quality humanitarian funding was identified as a key enabler to move towards a more efficient and effective humanitarian response. Since the merging of the Grand Bargain workstreams on multi-year humanitarian funding and planning (MYHFP) and on reduced earmarking, the newly formed workstream on quality funding has sought to build an evidence base on the presence and impact of predictable and flexible funding (NRC, FAO and OCHA, 2017; Development Initiatives, 2019).

The purpose of this research is to contribute to an improved understanding of how predictable and flexible funding affects the reality in the field. It identifies recommendations to the global Grand Bargain workstream on enhanced quality of funding, based on these field experiences by donors and implementers alike. Jordan and Lebanon were selected as two sample contexts, given their protracted and relatively stable crisis contexts with a degree of comparability.

The report is structured in two sections. The first section explores the field perceptions on definitions and extent of MYHFP in both Jordan and Lebanon. This includes evidence on the proportions of multi-year humanitarian funding (MYHF) at the first and second level. It further outlines the perceived synergies between flexible and predictable funding, before analysing how the time frame of funding links with that of strategies and programming.

The second section provides a summary of perceived and experienced efficiency and effectiveness gains for the response in both countries through MYHFP. Alongside a summary of anecdotal evidence, it analyses in greater detail how longer term funding and programming might benefit the localisation agenda and activities with a gender focus.

The research methodology is largely based on insights from semi-structured key informant interviews and complemented with quantitative data on MYHF directly collected from implementers in both countries.^[1] The interviewees represent a range of stakeholders (humanitarian donors, the UN, development actors, international NGOs, and local and national NGOs), but the short research time frame prevented us from achieving a balance across the groups. The interviews were largely conducted in person during field trips over 10 days in each country, with some additional responses provided through remote interviews or in writing. The list of interviewees is provided in the Annex.