Humanitarian funding review: our future response to global humanitarian crises

Annex F Best practices review

The information below was originally submitted as separate report to Scottish Government as an interim deliverable in the review.

Introduction: Situating Scottish Government humanitarian assistance

The Scottish Governments’ humanitarian support, with an annual set spend of approximately £1 million (USD 1.3 million) with additional ad hoc financing, represents a relatively modest but impactful sum. If listed alongside all funds received and reported by UN OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service in 2024, the Scottish Governments’ HEF commitment would sit within a group of small donors including Government of Greece (1.7 million USD) Government of Malta (1.3 million USD), Government of Lithuania (1.3 million USD), Government of Peru (1.2 million USD), Government of Oman (1 million USD) and Government of Liechtenstein (790,000 USD).^[87] Its feminist approach to international relations place Scotland as one of just over a dozen countries that have adopted explicitly feminist foreign policy frameworks,^[88] while its international development principles on partner-led development, equality, support for global-south voices, inclusion, collaboration, and innovation align and overlap with global standards on good humanitarian donorship and the Grand Bargain.

Based on these three metrics – scale, feminist approach, and principled humanitarian funding – this review looks at best practices across the humanitarian donor space for actors comparable to Scotland. It surveys the form and objectives of funding at similar scales, the approaches employed in support of feminist approaches to international relations, and adherence to and implementation of principled assistance. It will be used to draw comparisons with Scottish Governments’ own modality and to identify alignment or differentiation between the Scottish Government and comparable actors during the comprehensive review currently underway of the Scottish Governments’ approach to humanitarian assistance.

Best practices at a similar scale

There have been several efforts dedicated to developing and formalizing best practices for smaller donors across the international development and multilateral spaces more broadly. The Forum of Small States, founded by Singapore in 1992, has produced thought leadership on how small countries can influence multilateral practices and magnify their impact through coalition-building and shared objectives.^[89] The Global Governance Group, a related initiative of 30 small and medium-sized countries, has similarly tried to confer greater legitimacy on processes such as the G20 by gathering and amplifying country voices.

In the humanitarian sphere specifically, larger donors have often set up small, quick-impact funds of comparable size to the Scottish Governments’ HEF to meet specific geographic or sectoral goals. The Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund provides grants of CAD 100,000 to 350,000 (50,000 to 150,000 pounds) for 4–6-month grants for smaller-scale, rapid-onset disasters.^[90] France’s Humanitarian Innovation call for projects (APIH), provides annual funding for high-impact, small-scale projects across the humanitarian sector. The European Commission’s Small-scale Tool (through DG ECHO’s Humanitarian Implementation Plan toolbox) allows the commission to provide rapid responses quickly.

Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund

Scale

CAD 100,000 – 350,000 per project (50,000 to 150,000 pounds)

Objective

To respond to smaller-scale, rapid-onset disasters where significant unmet humanitarian needs exist.

Criteria

• Active presence in affected area
• Rapid assessment of needs
• Relationships with local partners
• Local contextual familiarity

Evaluating body

Managed by the Humanitarian Coalition (12 leading Canadian NGOs)

Recipients

Members of the Humanitarian Coalition, with at least half of all projects implemented with or through local partners

Timeline / schedule

Projects last 4–6 months

Existing evaluations of efficacy / impact

In a review of broader Canadian humanitarian assistance and its efficacy, the Fund was recognized as a high-impact and bespoke tool to respond to ignored crises, complementing larger cabinet-level commitments.

Humanitarian Innovation Call (France)

Scale

EUR 200,000 – 1 million per project

Objective

To optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action to improve responses; to encourage the establishment of high-impact underlying solutions that benefit the whole sector.

Criteria

• Projects should involve an innovative approach compared to existing forms of action and tools.
• Initiatives are considered innovative if they develop or trial new solutions to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian action.

Evaluating body

The Humanitarian and Stabilization Operations Center, under the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs

Recipients

Local and international humanitarian organizations specialized in emergency responses

Timeline / schedule

Between 12 and 18 months

Existing evaluations of efficacy / impact

The fund was launched on the recommendation of an external audit conducted of the French Emergency Humanitarian Fund that called for smaller scale, disbursement mechanisms to improve humanitarian delivery.

DG-ECHO’s Small-scale Implementation Tool

Scale

EUR 500,000

Objective

To provide support to populations affected by disasters in emergency response and preparedness where local response is insufficient, for which a small-scale intervention is adequate.

Criteria

• Where number of people affected is low (up to 100,000), in situations that usually do not figure prominently in the news.
• Strengthen the capacities of local communities and authorities to respond.

Evaluating body

DG-ECHO under the European Commission’s Humanitarian Implementation Plan process

Recipients

Local and international NGOs or organizations that have entered into a “Humanitarian Partnership” with the European Commission’s Directorate-General responsible for humanitarian response.

Timeline / schedule

Unspecified (rapid response)

Existing evaluations of efficacy / impact

• Since 2025, the tool has been replaced by a mechanism called Alert, under ReliefEU’s new response model.
• This model maintains the previous tool’s focus on rapid response but urges small-to-medium responses to complement larger interventions.

Across funding mechanisms of similar scale, three major themes emerge and hold true for sovereign, non-sovereign, and philanthropic funding actors:

• Smaller disbursements are associated with lean administrative structures and rapid decision-making

With lean administrative structures and streamlined decision-making processes, donors can roll out rapid-response funding mechanisms in emergencies where larger donors might be slowed down by bureaucracy. The Rockefeller Foundation’s emphasis on “anticipate and localize” illustrates the value of agile funding: by pre-positioning resources and establishing clear disbursement triggers and steps, small donors can pivot quickly in response to new needs. This flexibility—not only in terms of financial support but also in revising targets and strategies based on real-time feedback—is reported by locally-oriented funds such as START and NEAR as key to effective support.

NEAR’s Change Fund: Bringing the benefits of shared systems, pooled funding, and lean reporting

In interviews and in the literature, the NEAR Change Fund stands out as a hybrid mechanism combining the benefits of a pooled fund, the flexibility of a philanthropic entity, and a focus on localisation. With support from the Hilton Foundation, the fund provides grants to local NGOs directly responding to humanitarian needs. It is open to members in 27 countries, and provides grants to pre-approved members – over 300 have been pre-cleared by NEAR - of between USD 150,000 and 250,000.

To avoid burdening organizations with reporting and monitoring, the fund pre-accredits its potential recipients and uses open-source monitoring to identify new crises and quickly open application windows. Funding is disbursed by its Oversight Board, which is composed of elected local organizations from among NEAR’s membership. To date, 13 grants have been awarded in 11 countries, and the Fund has recently opened a bridging window to provide support to organizations that have lost funding due to cuts to USAID.^[91]

• They often place a strong emphasis on localisation and community-led initiatives

The Forum of Small States demonstrates that when seemingly limited resources are channelled through locally guided efforts, they can generate outsized returns in terms of relevance and responsiveness. Philanthropic actors like the Hilton Foundation - an actor frequently cited as a model of good practice by interviewees from implementing and donor actors - seeks out long-term partnerships that empower local actors—eschewing one-off initiatives in favour of deep, sustainable collaborations.^[92]

Approaches to localisation (beyond pooled funds)

Pooled humanitarian funding, which this report explores in more depth below, has been the primary mechanism through which donors have recently worked to meet targets and commitments on localisation. This is because pooled funds provide an easy mechanism by which donor risk tolerance can be accommodated by intermediary organizations – the funds themselves – in cases where local organizations may not meet fiduciary, logistical, or otherwise legal thresholds.^[93]

There are other mechanisms with similar effects. The IASC has published guidance on overhead passthrough for UN agencies and other members, wherein overhead is allocated directly from primary recipients of funds – largely UN agencies and international NGOs – directly to local implementing partners.^[94] In theory, this increases the amount of humanitarian funding that eventually reaches local organizations – and where overhead allocations are shared as unrestricted funding, also provides these organizations with the flexibility and agency to use funds in the manner they deem most effective and strategic. In this mechanism, the intermediary actor mediates the risk assumed by donors by balancing their own fiduciary and other requirements with a commitment to provide this funding.

Both of these approaches, and many of the widely adopted methods of localisation, take this mediated risk-sharing approach. Its limitation is that there remains a requirement for a mediating entity, which is usually – almost exclusively – an international, non-local institution. This has in some cases been surmounted via networks of local organizations – including Caritas and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – and through the implementation by donors of clear “exist strategies” for recipients of aid that prioritize the strengthening of local actors to assume leadership over a specific timeframe.^[95] One potential model is the establishment of national networks (and networks of networks) that remain firmly place-based but, as a function of their combined scale and capacities, meet the thresholds of major humanitarian donors. Examples include the Community Led Innovation Partnership which has led to initiatives in Turkey and elsewhere where international donors provide funds directly to local networks.^[96]

• Where they contribute to broader sectoral and system-level efforts, they focus on shared funds and services that pool scarce data, logistical, or technical resources across multiple organizations or geographies.

Small-scale humanitarian donors can benefit enormously from collaborative funding mechanisms. In interviews, practitioners cite the START funds and NEAR as impactful, but also note OCHA’s country-based pooled funds and the IFRC’s Disaster Response Emergency Fund as powerful mechanisms. But beyond pooled funding, pooled resources and efforts to build evidence and provide back-end services can provide immense impact. Efforts by Jersey Overseas Aid to host good humanitarian donorship meetings in Jersey, and to chair donor groups, are widely appreciated despite their relatively small financial contributions (GBP 4 million in 2023). Support for START’s shared services funds to provide equipment, overhead, and data support to country-based NGO networks was also widely applauded. These back-end systems are critical – and they are a quieter, but perhaps just as dramatic, casualty of current drawbacks in funding from large traditional donors.^[97]

Comparisons: Pooled Funds and Shared Services

While pooled financing can magnify value for money, it brings other benefits and characteristics that may also be appealing to donors and appreciated by others across the system. Jersey Overseas Aid provides an interesting example: its humanitarian support is channelled nearly exclusively through pooled mechanisms, and its partners and recipients applaud this approach not only for its financial impact, but for the additional, non-financial contributions that joint and pooled approaches facilitate: chairing and convening groups, leading on the development of best practices, and contributing to back-end systems and shared services that sustain humanitarian response, especially at the local level.

The major shared mechanisms each offer different benefits and characteristics, with some privileging these more collective approaches, and others focusing on maximising financial impact.

START Network Funds Key Facts: Provides rapid response funding for under-the-radar crises, as well as supporting country-based hubs with shared financial, technical, and expert services; Start Ready supports early warning and anticipatory action responses. Scale and disbursement: In 2023, GBP 27.2 million, with 11.6 million provided to local and national organizations. Objectives: Addresses small- to medium-scale crises that might otherwise be overlooked; Forecasts impending crises and enables rapid action; contributes to localized humanitarian response. Eligibility Criteria: Membership: Only available to organizations that are members of the START Network. Crisis Type: Targets small- to medium-scale, often underfunded or “under the radar” crises. Mobilization: Requires a rapid crisis alert (typically within 72 hours). Proposal Requirements: Must include clear evidence of need, a detailed action plan with set timeframes, and a comprehensive budget. Governance: Adheres strictly to prescribed procedures and accountability standards.

OCHA Country-Based and Emergency Pooled Funds Key Facts: Designed for emergencies or deteriorating crises, managed by OCHA. Supports high-priority projects via coordinated, country-level humanitarian planning. Scale and disbursement: In 2023, Country-based funds over USD 1 billion across 19 countries; the CERF allocated USD 600 million across 40 countries. Objectives: Leverages and reinforces coordinated humanitarian responses under approved needs plans. Eligibility Criteria: Crisis Validation: The situation must be recognized as a humanitarian emergency, typically supported by an approved Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan (HNRP) or consolidated appeal. National Coordination: An established OCHA presence and effective coordination among national and international partners is required. Donor/Partner Commitment: Demonstrates sustained donor engagement and operational capacities of qualified partners. Governance: Managed in line with global guidelines.

IFRC-managed DREF Key Facts: One of the older pooled funds tailored for small- to medium-scale disasters. Works through National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Scale and disbursement: In 2023, disbursed over CHF 74 million in 90 countries. Objectives: Supports anticipatory actions and ensure prompt mobilization of resources for rapid responses by National Societies. Eligibility Criteria: Membership: Only IFRC member National Societies can request assistance. Disaster Type: Designed for small-to-medium disasters or health emergencies where a full Emergency Appeal has not been activated. Operational Planning: Proposals require a comprehensive Emergency Plan of Action (EPoA) along with a clear budget and response activities. Governance: Applications must conform to stringent DREF guidelines and programming standards.

Feminist Approaches to International Assistance

Feminist approaches in foreign policy has reshaped how humanitarian aid is conceptualized and delivered.^[98] Three different national and regional examples illustrate how feminist approaches have concretely influenced humanitarian support.

Canada’s approach is anchored in a strategy that privileges programmes with intentional design choices that empower women and girls. The policy showcases a commitment to leveraging aid to support social, economic, and political advancements for vulnerable populations.^[99] It was developed through an intensive consultation process, with over 15,000 people in 65 countries.

In Germany, there has been a focus on addressing systemic gendered inequalities, and is rooted in an explicit human rights framework in addition to a 3R approach—focusing on women’s rights, resources, and representation.

In Argentina, in 2023, the role of Special Representative for Feminist Foreign Policy was established to guide policy coherence across foreign affairs and domestic policy. While the future of this approach is unclear given recent political changes in Argentina, it did result in reorientation far beyond, but including, engagement in international development and humanitarian assistance.

Across these and other examples, key themes emerge:

• Inclusive and participatory policy design

Feminist frameworks emphasize bringing diverse voices—from women and marginalized communities to civil society experts—into the process of project design, decision, and disbursement. This involves not only funding feminist-oriented projects, but incorporating the principle into policy decisions and mechanisms.

• Dedicated and predictable funding mechanisms

Since transformational change takes time, predictable and longer-term funding enables projects to be planned and executed with an understanding that the impacts on gender equality will be sustained over time. Both donors and recipient interviewees have stressed this element in working to affect systemic changes, as well as providing emergency response. In some cases, pooled funds enable a middle ground for donors who provide annual funding. The Start fund offers options: it can hold funds that are provided in a given year for longer depending on need, or ensure specific funds earmarked for disbursement within a fiscal year are spent. These requirements are flexible and depend on the specific requirement of each donor.

• Coalition building

Coalitions and formal partnerships between governments, international organizations, NGOs, and community groups amplify marginalized voices, magnify impact, and build structural support for longer and more sustainable feminist interventions.

Principled approaches to humanitarian assistance and international development

The Grand Bargain aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance by addressing several key dimensions. The original iteration, launched at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, set forth 51 commitments.

A review conducted in 2021 resulted in the advent of Grand Bargain 2.0, which further refines these commitments by emphasizing agile governance and renewed attention to country–level implementation. Recent discussions among signatories demonstrate an evolving focus on linking workstreams and addressing gaps in direct funding to local actors. Independent assessments have also noted challenges, such as ambiguities in workstream responsibilities and difficulty in ensuring sustained local participation.^[100]

Roughly 25 governments have joined the Grand Bargain. The roster of member state signatories includes major traditional donors and smaller ones that have joined the pact in three waves: an initial uptake between 2016 and 2017, when a mix of states and organizations that together controlled nearly 95 percent of global humanitarian support launched the document; and expansion period leading up to the first comprehensive review, in 2021; and a renewal period following the launch of Grand Bargain 2.0 in 2023.

The Grand Bargain’s huge number of commitments and significant challenges in implementation nonetheless represent a sector-wide standard for achieving good humanitarian donor practice. Most of the commitments can be grouped under three major tracks:

• Localisation:

These commitments include empowering local responders by allocating a greater share of funding directly to communities in need. Commitments touch on direct funding for local actors, support for capacity building and the strengthening of local systems, and decision making around the global humanitarian system’s priorities and approaches.

• Cash Programming:

Commitments around cash are some of the most concrete programmatic recommendations in the Grand Bargain. Commitments have been made to improve flexibility, efficiency, adaptability to change, and accountability and tracking.

• Simplification and Harmonization:

Commitments to reducing administrative burdens, streamlining reporting, and enhancing coordination among donors, including the standardization of reporting requirements and language.

One area in which the Grand Bargain and other humanitarian standards have focused on less heavily is in climate risks and their humanitarian consequences, and the role humanitarian actors can play in responding to and anticipating these risks. In 2022, the Climate and Environment Charter for Humanitarian Actors. was launched to rally collective action across the humanitarian sector. Initially designed only for humanitarian organizations, in response to donor requests a Supporters category was opened to states, sub-national government and agencies, and philanthropic organizations.^[101] A mirroring document developed by France and the European Union has also been launched specifically for donors, attempting to gather donor commitments on climate and the environment under one document.^[102] Both initiatives responded to discussions between humanitarian actors and donors, and incorporated concerns around reporting requirements and enabling approaches into their final form. They represent some of the lesser-known repositories of best practice and standard-setting on humanitarian support since the Grand Bargain was launched.

Synthesis of emerging trends

In reviewing best practices across actors of relevant scale, and those with similar guiding principles to Scottish Government, several common areas of interest emerge. These are collated below and are intended to serve as suggested lines for further enquiry during the remaining period of the Scottish Government review, including as points of reflection during theory of change workshops and additional individual and group interviews. Key areas of interest include:

1. Support for shared services, pools, and evidence generation, with an eye towards supporting localisation:

By investing in shared service platforms, small donors can facilitate improved coordination and reduce duplication. Greater emphasis on evidence–based programming can enhance localisation, ensuring that assistance is both context–specific and scalable. By bypassing heavy bureaucratic layers, funds can reach the community level faster, and investments in local capacity ensure long-term resilience. This is also one way that small donors can strategically step in to support capacities at risk due to declining support from large, traditional aid providers. Advantages of such strategies include increased flexibility, lower operational overheads, higher value for money, and the ability to adapt quickly to emergencies.

START’s support for Country Hubs

In 9 countries, the START Network has begun incubating local collectives of organizations –national and international, operating in-country – to control and share resources. These Hubs are designed as nodes in a “network of networks”, wherein decisions around how to use funds, how to share fiduciary and technical expertise, and how to coordinate responses to needs, are taken locally. The Hubs are supported by START at a central level: this helps donors to mitigate risk, by relying on the reporting and due diligence processes of START itself rather than the specific hubs or networks. Donors are able to provide finance to the Hubs in general, or one specifically, providing opportunities for smaller donors to champion sustainable localisation at a country-level resolution. ^[103]

2. Agile funding and implementation

Agility in funding mechanisms is a recognized asset for donors operating on smaller scales. The ability to make rapid decisions and quickly adapt to evolving conditions is highly appreciated, whether it’s pivoting to a cash programming model in a crisis or adjusting priorities based on real-time feedback. Both small-scale donors and feminists call for funding mechanisms that are inherently flexible.

3. Collaboration and partnership-building

Themes across donor practices consistently point to the strength of collective action. Whether this is through participating in and supporting the convening of peers and colleagues (Jersey’s convening of donor partners, leadership of good donorship group), building multi-year relationships and providing longer-term structural support to local organizations and networks of actors (START support for national Hubs), or contributing to joint programming approaches and collective work (Jersey’s systems support, the Forum of Small States), the work of formal and less formal coalitions can magnify the impact of smaller donors and reinforce good examples.