Financing humanitarian needs amid the Covid-19 pandemic
Find out how needs are being responded to in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic with updated analysis on humanitarian assistance.
DownloadsThis factsheet presents updated analysis on humanitarian assistance being provided to meet needs emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic. It looks at who is receiving assistance, who this assistance is coming from, and how funding is being channelled. It also looks at the coverage of UN appeal requirements and how the proportions of requirements met for response to the pandemic compare with the proportions met for other crises.
Building on earlier analysis presented in the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2020, the factsheet focuses on humanitarian financing going to the Covid-19 pandemic response and looks at how – in the midst of the pandemic – the funding picture is changing. Below you can find information on:
- the largest recipients of humanitarian assistance for response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and how much these countries are receiving
- the largest donors of this assistance, and how much they are contributing
- the extent to which appeal requirements are being met for the pandemic response, compared to other needs for other crises
- channels of delivery.
Which countries are the largest recipients of international humanitarian grants for response to the Covid-19 pandemic – and what volumes are being directed to these countries?
Figure 1: Countries experiencing protracted crisis are receiving the largest volumes of humanitarian grants for Covid-19 pandemic response
20 largest recipient countries of international humanitarian grants for Covid-19 pandemic response, 1 October 2020
This stacked bar chart shows the twenty largest recipient countries of international humanitarian grants for Covid-19 pandemic response ranked by volume of funding and with information on whether this funding is committed or disbursed. Yemen (with US$224 million) and Syria (with US$206 million) are the two largest recipient countries.
Country name |
Protracted crisis country |
Commitments (US$ millions) |
Disbursements (US$ millions) | Total funding (US$ millions) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yemen | Yes | 149 | 75 | 224 |
Syria | Yes | 136 | 70 | 206 |
Afghanistan | Yes | 48 | 106 | 154 |
Iraq | Yes | 50 | 94 | 145 |
Bangladesh | Yes | 43 | 88 | 131 |
Sudan | Yes | 45 | 84 | 130 |
Ethiopia | Yes | 23 | 86 | 109 |
South Sudan | Yes | 52 | 52 | 104 |
Lebanon | Yes | 30 | 74 | 103 |
DRC | Yes | 46 | 49 | 94 |
Pakistan | Yes | 65 | 27 | 91 |
CAR | Yes | 37 | 41 | 78 |
Somalia | Yes | 40 | 35 | 75 |
Myanmar | Yes | 50 | 25 | 75 |
Nigeria | Yes | 29 | 43 | 72 |
Jordan | Yes | 15 | 51 | 66 |
Iran | No | 28 | 42 | 70 |
Turkey | Yes | 56 | 11 | 66 |
Palestine | Yes | 10 | 39 | 49 |
Mali | Yes | 15 | 33 | 48 |
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA's) Financial Tracking Service (FTS).
Notes: CAR = Central African Republic; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Protracted crisis countries are defined as those with at least five consecutive years of UN-coordinated humanitarian appeals or refugee response plans as of the year of analysis. As per the FTS glossary, commitments are contractual funding obligations between donor and recipient organisations that might not yet be transferred at all or in full. Disbursements reflect funds already transferred to recipients. Data is in current prices. Data was downloaded from FTS on 1 October 2020. The figure includes all international humanitarian assistance on FTS that is reported to be relevant to the Covid-19 pandemic response, both inside and outside of the Global Humanitarian Response Plan.
International grant support for response to the Covid-19 pandemic is being provided as both humanitarian grants, to meet immediate humanitarian needs, and development grants, to address the wider socioeconomic and health impacts of the pandemic. On 1 October 2020, 64% of the total humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response had been allocated for support to specific countries – with remaining funding designated for response at the global level (26%), to multiple countries (1.0%) or with the destination yet to be specified (8.6%).[1]
- Funding patterns for international humanitarian grants to the Covid-19 pandemic response largely mirror those for the response to other crises; however, funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response is spread more evenly, across a wider number of recipients.
- Yemen and Syria are the two largest recipients of humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response, as they are for grant funding to other humanitarian needs.[2] However, they have received a smaller proportion of total grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response than to other humanitarian needs: Yemen has received 4.2% of total humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response, and Syria has received 3.9%; these proportions are considerably smaller than the 9.1% and 10.3% received, respectively, as a proportion of total humanitarian grant funding to all needs for the same time period.
- Among the 20 largest recipients of humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response, only one country (Iran) is not currently experiencing protracted crisis.[3]
- Notable among the 20 largest recipients of humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response, are Pakistan and Iran. These countries are receiving a higher proportion of total humanitarian grant funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response than they have typically received for other needs.
Appeal targets and requirements met: how does funding for the Covid-19 pandemic response compare with that for other humanitarian needs?
Figure 2: Coverage of appeal targets varies widely – with the majority of countries having a lower proportion of requirements met for Covid-19 pandemic response than for other humanitarian needs
Requirements met for Covid-19 pandemic response, compared with other humanitarian needs, 1 October 2020
Requirements met for Covid-19 pandemic response, compared with other humanitarian needs, 1 October 2020
Ranking by Covid-19 pandemic response requirements |
Destination location name |
Response plan component |
Coverage |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Afghanistan | Covid-19 pandemic response | 32% |
Other needs | 33% | ||
2 | Bangladesh | Covid-19 pandemic response | 28% |
Other needs | 51% | ||
3 | Yemen | Covid-19 pandemic response | 38% |
Other needs | 39% | ||
4 | Syria | Covid-19 pandemic response | 42% |
Other needs | 43% | ||
5 | South Sudan | Covid-19 pandemic response | 22% |
Other needs | 41% | ||
6 | Ethiopia | Covid-19 pandemic response | 19% |
Other needs | 32% | ||
7 | Colombia | Covid-19 pandemic response | 10% |
Other needs | 13% | ||
8 | Sudan | Covid-19 pandemic response | 33% |
Other needs | 47% | ||
9 | DRC | Covid-19 pandemic response | 33% |
Other needs | 21% | ||
10 | Iraq | Covid-19 pandemic response | 44% |
Other needs | 61% | ||
11 | Kenya | Covid-19 pandemic response | 9% |
Other needs | 24% | ||
12 | Nigeria | Covid-19 pandemic response | 25% |
Other needs | 43% | ||
13 | Somalia | Covid-19 pandemic response | 31% |
Other needs | 66% | ||
14 | Uganda | Covid-19 pandemic response | 5% |
Other needs | 16% | ||
15 | Tanzania | Covid-19 pandemic response | 6% |
Other needs | 20% | ||
16 | CAR | Covid-19 pandemic response | 47% |
Other needs | 52% | ||
17 | Pakistan | Covid-19 pandemic response | 50% |
Other needs | |||
18 | Haiti | Covid-19 pandemic response | 17% |
Other needs | 15% | ||
19 | Lebanon | Covid-19 pandemic response | 40% |
Other needs | 21% | ||
20 | Zambia | Covid-19 pandemic response | 16% |
Other needs | 12% |
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA’s FTS and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) data.
Notes: CAR = Central African Republic; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Countries are ranked by requirements for respective response plans for Covid-19. Data was downloaded on 1 October 2020 and is in current prices.
The Covid-19 pandemic is putting increased strain on already limited funding for humanitarian response. On 1 October 2020, UN appeal requirements that were not related to the Covid-19 pandemic stood at US$30.4 million, with an additional US$10.2 billion required to respond to the pandemic.
Funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response has continued to increase. However, this increase in funding has occurred in the context of escalating needs, which are reflected in the increase in total appeal requirements for the pandemic response: in July 2020, the target for the Global Humanitarian Response Plan (GHRP) increased from US$7.3 billion to its current target of US10.2 billion. Therefore, the proportion of appeal requirements met remains small.
- On 1 October 2020, 28% of appeal requirements for the Covid-19 pandemic response had been met. This compares to 35% of appeal requirements for other humanitarian needs.
- At the end of June 2020, when the total appeal requirements for the pandemic response was lower, 21% of appeal requirements for the Covid-19 pandemic response had been met.
Three countries have seen large increases in their appeal requirements for Covid-19 pandemic response over the period June to October, with funding targets more than doubling.
- Appeal requirements for the Covid-19 pandemic response increased during the period June to October for Bangladesh by 231% (to US$387 million), for Sudan by 224% (to US$284 million) and for Yemen by 115% (to US$386 million).
Among the 20 countries with the largest requirements for Covid-19 pandemic response on 1 October 2020, only four countries had better coverage for pandemic response requirements than they did for other humanitarian needs.
- The four countries with a higher proportion of requirements met for Covid-19 pandemic response than for other humanitarian needs were: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (33% of pandemic response requirements met compared to 21% for other needs), Haiti (17% coverage compared to 15%); Lebanon (40% coverage to 21%); and Zambia (16% coverage compared to 12%).
- Among the 20 countries with the largest requirements for Covid-19 pandemic response, Pakistan had the largest coverage of pandemic response requirements (50%), while Uganda had with the smallest coverage (5%).
- Among the 20 countries with the largest requirements for Covid-19 pandemic response, only four had received funding fulfilling more than 50% of their other humanitarian appeal requirements: Somalia (66% of other appeal requirements met); Iraq (61%); Central African Republic (52%); and Bangladesh (51%).
Who are the largest donors of international humanitarian grants for Covid-19 pandemic response?
Figure 3: Humanitarian grant funding patterns for Covid-19 pandemic response broadly reflect funding for other humanitarian crises
20 largest donors of international humanitarian grants for Covid-19 pandemic response, 1 October 2020
This stacked bar chart shows the twenty largest donors of international humanitarian grants for the Covid-19 pandemic response ranked by volume of funding and with information on whether this funding is committed or disbursed. Five donors account for just under two thirds of all humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response.
Donor name |
Commitments | Disbursements | Total funding |
---|---|---|---|
US | 271 | 683 | 953 |
Germany | 562 | 143 | 704 |
Japan | 290 | 363 | 653 |
EU institutions | 503 | 41 | 544 |
UK | 234 | 192 | 426 |
UAE | 18 | 243 | 260 |
Saudi Arabia | 162 | 6 | 168 |
Denmark | 64 | 40 | 103 |
Canada | 11 | 54 | 66 |
Switzerland | 50 | 13 | 63 |
Kuwait | 0 | 60 | 60 |
Australia | 31 | 26 | 58 |
Norway | 18 | 31 | 49 |
Korea | 5 | 30 | 35 |
World Bank | 91 | 78 | 169 |
WHO Solidarity Response Fund | 103 | 30 | 133 |
CERF | 27 | 97 | 125 |
Private donors | 3 | 47 | 50 |
AfDB | 12 | 24 | 36 |
IsDB | 32 | 0 | 32 |
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA's FTS.
Notes: AfDB = African Development Bank; IsDB = Islamic Development Bank; UAE = United Arab Emirates; WHO = World Health Organisation. Data was downloaded on 1 October 2020. The figure includes all international humanitarian assistance on FTS that is reported to be relevant to the Covid-19 pandemic response, both inside and outside of the Global Humanitarian Response Plan. Data is in current prices.
Total humanitarian funding for the Covid-19 pandemic response reported to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA’s) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) had reached US$ 5.3 billion by 1 October 2020.
- Total humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response has doubled since late June 2020, when committed funding was US$2.6 billion. This funding includes resources committed to activities within the UN’s GHRP, as well as funding for humanitarian activities in response to the pandemic outside of this plan.
- A large proportion of humanitarian funding for the Covid-19 pandemic response has been reported as committed but not yet disbursed. On 1 October 2020, 49% of reported funding had been disbursed. This represents a slight increase in the proportion of funding disbursed compared with late June 2020, when 44% of funding was reported to have been disbursed.
A growing number of donors have committed humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response – with the total number of donors increasing from 110 at the end of June 2020 to 154 by 1 October 2020. However, a small number of donors account for the majority of international humanitarian assistance directed to the Covid-19 pandemic response.
- Five donors – the US, Germany, Japan, the EU and the UK – account for just under two thirds (62%) of all humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response.
- While humanitarian funding is concentrated among a small number of large donors, the funding response is spread more widely than for total international humanitarian assistance for other crises in recent years. In 2019, the three largest donors of international humanitarian assistance (the US, Germany and the UK) accounted for 58% of total assistance, while the three largest donors to the Covid-19 pandemic response (the US, Germany and Japan) accounted for 44% of humanitarian funding for the pandemic response on 1 October 2020.
- Since the end of June 2020, large increases in funding have been made by the US, growing from US$382 million to US$953 million, and Japan, rising from US$270 million to US$653 million.
Channels of delivery for international humanitarian assistance to the Covid-19 pandemic response
Figure 4: By 1 October 2020, multilateral organisations had received two thirds of international humanitarian assistance for Covid-19 pandemic response
Channels of delivery for international humanitarian assistance for Covid-19 pandemic response, 1 October 2020
This treemap chart shows the different types of implementing organisations through which the international humanitarian assistance for the Covid-19 pandemic response was channelled in the first instance. Two thirds of this funding was channelled through multilateral organisations and 12% through NGOs.
Channel of delivery |
International humanitarian assistance for Covid-19 pandemic response (US$ millions) |
UN agencies and other multilateral organisations |
US$3,575 |
RCRC | US$298 |
Public sector | US$456 |
NGOs and CSOs | US$645 |
Other | US$23 |
Unspecified | $297 |
Total | US$5,294 |
Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA’s FTS.
Notes: RCRC = International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The chart shows first-level funding as part of the Covid-19 pandemic response as reported to FTS. Data was downloaded on 1 October 2020 and is in current prices.
As of 1 October 2020, the majority of humanitarian funding reported to UN OCHA’s FTS for response to the Covid-19 pandemic (including assistance to the GHRP and for response outside of the plan) had been channelled through multilateral organisations in the first instance.
- Two thirds (66%, US$3.5 billion) of the international humanitarian assistance for response to the Covid-19 pandemic was channelled through multilateral organisations. This represents a smaller proportion of total humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response than at the end of June, when 73% was directed through multilateral organisations.
- The majority of funding to multilateral organisations (92%, US$3.2 billion) was received by just five UN agencies. The World Health Organization received 33% (US$1.1 billion) of funding to multilateral organisations, Unicef received 21% (US$745), the World Food Programme received 17% (US$581 million), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees received 16% (US$547 million) and the International Organization for Migration received 5% (US$190 million).
The proportion of total humanitarian funding for response to the Covid-19 pandemic received by NGOs has increased since the end of June.
- As of 1 October 2020, NGOs had received 12% (US$645 million) of total humanitarian funding to the Covid-19 pandemic response. This compares to just 5% (US$134 million) reported on FTS at the end of June.
- Of the humanitarian funding for response to the Covid-19 pandemic that was channelled through to the GHRP, almost a fifth (19%, US557 million) was provided directly to NGOs.
- Outside of the GHRP, however, only a very small proportion of funding (4.0%, US498 million) for responding to the humanitarian need associated with the Covid-19 pandemic had been received directly by NGOs. Multilateral organisations had received 52% (US$1.3 billion) of this funding outside of the GHRP, the public sector received 19% (US$456 million) and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement received 12% (US$285 million).
Downloads
Download this factsheet
Download nowNotes
-
1
Analysis is as of 1 October 2020 unless otherwise stated.Return to source text
-
2
This is applicable for grants reported to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA’s) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) with information on its destination location.Return to source text
-
3
Countries experiencing protracted crisis are defined as those with at least five consecutive years of UN-coordinated humanitarian or refugee response plans as of the year of analysis.Return to source text
Related content
Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2021
The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2021 provides detailed analysis of the crisis financing landscape. Development Initiatives found that humanitarian funding failed to grow despite the Covid-19 pandemic.
Explore donors and recipients of international humanitarian assistance
Use our interactive charts to see a decade of data on the largest donors and recipients of international humanitarian assistance.
Strengthening data-driven transparency in response to Covid-19
Liz Steele and Mark Brough share DI's experience of developing a new Covid-19 data visualisation, including incentives for organisations to improve the quality of the data they are publishing.