Multi-year humanitarian funding: Global baselines and trends: Chapter 4
Earmarking of funding from donorsDownloads
Figure 3: Available data on earmarking shows the majority of donors’ reported multi-year contributions are earmarked
An average of 65% of the multi-year funding reported by donors for the period 2016 to 2018 did not indicate the extent of earmarking. While the share of multi-year humanitarian contributions without a defined level of earmarking dropped from 75% in 2016 to 59% in 2018, the level remains significant. As such, only a partial picture can be drawn from the available data. Much greater transparency of the earmarking of multi-year funding is needed.
Where data did indicate the extent of earmarking, “earmarked” or “tightly earmarked” allocations accounted for the majority of all multi-year humanitarian funds, in all three years between 2016 and 2018.
- These “earmarked” and “tightly earmarked” funds grew as a proportion of multi-year funding for which an earmarking category was provided, from 74% in 2016 to 80% in 2017, before decreasing to 65% in 2018.
- The largest share of reported multi-year funding for which an earmarking category was provided was “tightly earmarked”, ranging between 47% and 69% of total multi-year contributions from 2016 to 2018. Over the same period, “earmarked” contributions grew from 5% to 18% of total multi-year contributions with earmarking information.
- Of those funds with an earmarking category indicated, the proportion of “unearmarked” multi-year funding is low, at 22% in 2016 and 15% in 2017. However, the proportion of total multi-year humanitarian funding identified as “unearmarked” did grow in 2018, to 27% of funds identified with an earmarking category.
Aid organisations reported that the multi-year humanitarian grants they receive are largely earmarked. This perception is confirmed in the above data analysis, although the reported increase in the extent of earmarking of multi-year funding is not found in the analysis of reported multi-year contributions for 2018, where the proportion that were identified as “tightly earmarked” or “earmarked” decreased. However, it is possible that the large share of multi-year funding for which a level of earmarking was not provided may mask higher levels of earmarking of multi-year funds in 2018 as well.
The high proportion of multi-year funds which are earmarked is perceived by aid organisations to restrict their choice of multi-year programmes. Large aid organisations often pool together multiple income sources, earmarked to varying degrees, to develop a suite of activities that make up a multi-year programme. The more flexible the funding is, the greater the opportunity for organisations to optimise how these funds are used within programmes. However, stipulations on country, sector or activity are perceived to be diluting the benefits of predictable funding by compelling aid organisations to channel their programmes toward pre-defined priorities. This limits their ability to adapt programming to changing needs or context.
Download this background paperDownload now
Analysis based on the Grand Bargain document identified degrees of earmarking: unearmarked, softly earmarked, earmarked and tightly earmarked, Available at: https://www.agendaforhumanity.org/sites/default/files/resources/2018/Jan/Grand_Bargain_final_22_May_FINAL-2.pdfReturn to source text
People, crisis and assistance
Chapter 1 focuses on the people in need of assistance – presenting a detailed analysis of the populations affected by crisis.
International humanitarian assistance
Chapter 2 presents a detailed analysis of official humanitarian assistance – showing overall volumes and how funding compares with requirements set out in appeals, as well examining the specific contributions made by government and private donors.
Wider crisis financing
Chapter 3 examines a wide range of resources – domestic and international, public and private – that have the potential to complement humanitarian assistance in crisis-affected contexts.