Humanitarian funding review: our future response to global humanitarian crises

Annex H Other funding options considered

A. ‘Nearly’ business as usual

a. Streamlined criteria for activations and decision making based on transparent evidence

b. HEF governance reviewed. To include public message on how/when the HEF panel will be recruited and make explicit how the Scottish Government will use the panel e.g. not all humanitarian funds have been channelled through HEF.^[104] The review should explore the potential for a proportion of member places to be allocated to Southern based actors and/or consortia.^[105]

c. A shift towards less projectized ways of working including ex post reporting and trust-based allocations potentially testing the SIDA rapid response approach as a model.^[106]

B. HEF and one new channel of funding

a. Take on amendments from A and

b. Replacement of DEC Stream 1 with an alternative pooled fund (with stronger global south credentials) and multiyear commitments

c. DEC Stream 2 continues with a transitioning HEF panel membership which includes more global south representation and new roles for Northern based panel members (as intermediaries for southern based)

d. Scottish Government steps up engagement with other small/subnational actors and engages in diplomacy and influencing on ‘good’ donorship agenda, e.g.:

i. implementing FAIR.

ii. Supporting due diligence passporting

iii. Localisation agenda

C. First principles rethink

a. Taken on amendments from A and B and only if additional funds are secured:

i. Small projects fund established to support Scottish citizens/solidarity or wider humanitarian architecture.

ii. New catalytic/high risk/innovation fund is established (potentially with a challenge fund model).

iii. Explore options around pre-positioned funding e.g. START Ready^[107]

D. (Not dependent on A-C) START Network investment

i. In place of HEF, invest the majority of funds in the START network. Offers stronger localisation benefits and has a large membership.

Table 4 Potential additional funds (dependent on budget increase)

International Development Principles – Targeted projects fund

International Development Principles Targeted projects fund – an allocation of c£100K per year determined by Scottish Government to support wider humanitarian action aligned to the Scottish Government’s International Development Principles (which includes elements of innovation). Recipient would most likely change annually e.g. Pilot funds to feminist movement/organisation to accelerate action on humanitarian projects – allocated to southern based organisations. ^[108],[109]

Scottish Led Targets projects fund

An allocation of c£100K per year determined by Scottish Government to support linkages between Scottish citizens and humanitarian projects. Recipient would most likely change annually e.g. Working with diaspora in Scotland to test innovative ways of reaching the most vulnerable in a crisis; working on innovative pilots with e.g. Halo, KIDSOR.

Humanitarian architecture support fund

Scottish Government investment in ‘humanitarian architecture, e.g. through Kuja^[110] hosted by Adeso – supporting access to funding for Global South organisations; supporting tools which will ease funding and approvals for southern based partners. Due diligence passporting tool^[111] is another example.

Catalytic fund

Scottish Government investment in a ‘pathfinder’ project with higher risks and potential rewards e.g. Horizon scanning - exploring humanitarian options in 2030; implementing the FAIR principles in humanitarian work.

All change processes come with a range of risks and opportunities – these are summarised below.

Tier A (Nearly Business as usual)

Risks

• Current actors may feel disenfranchised.
• Current model isn’t delivering best value/impact and isn’t coherent with shifting power south.
• Current HEF model is perceived as overly complicated relative to the size of funding available.

Opportunities

• Low additional transactional/administrative burdens.
• Review eligibility requirements and simplify processes.

Tier B (HEF)

Risks

• Oversubscribed panel applications – rising expectations against a modest budget.

Opportunities

• More open recruitment and presence of organisations from the Global South would enhance credibility of the funding.
• (Depending on which fund is selected) Supports requirements of Grand Bargain.
• Aligns with localisation, shifting power south principles and decolonisation.
• Efficiency of delivery.

Tier C (First Principles)

Risks

• Untenable unless additional funds secured.

Opportunities

• Opportunity to build an evidence base on implementing the International Development Principles.

If additional funding is made available

Scottish Led Targeted Projects Fund

• Risks: Not viewed as lead by the global south.
• Opportunities: Gives space for strong solidarity messaging and global citizenship stories for wider communications; potential to leverage funding.

Humanitarian Architecture

• Risks: Not viewed as ‘emergency’ – more challenging to explain the impact in the short term.
• Opportunities: Potential for leveraging impact and influencing other actors.

Catalytic Fund

• Risks: Any work in high risk/innovation spaces likely to require longer term investments.
• Opportunities: To shift the dial on exploring this new humanitarian area and deliver ‘outsized policy influence’.

For all options except A

• Risks: Transaction costs of establishing new ways of working – relatively small teams in Scottish Government which could be mitigated by working through intermediaries.
• Opportunities: Prioritise options outlined in this review and stagger over appropriate timeframes; the human resourcing costs of transitioning may be initially high but is likely to lead to higher impact over time and offer long term change pathways.

Should the Scottish Government wish to take a feminist approach to humanitarian funding and take on a thought leadership space on this, it would need to operate in a significantly altered way. It would need to work at the humanitarian systems levels with a diverse range of actors. This would involve listening to and designing funding instruments based on the needs of movements, networks and organisations led by women, girls and gender-diverse people, indigenous groups, persons with disabilities, and refugee-led organisations The review team recommends starting with a smaller, targeted project to test and innovate options around feminist humanitarian action and funding practices^[112].This could position the Scottish Government as a thought shaper.^[113]