Humanitarian funding review: our future response to global humanitarian crises

2. Scope and objectives of the review

This review builds on evidence and findings from the 2019 independent review of the HEF.^[4] The scope of the review includes all Scottish Government humanitarian impact delivered through the HEF, CJF and IDF.

In terms of objectives, the review team interpreted the invitation to tender materials in the form of these four framing questions:

(A) How can the objectives and scope of Scottish Government humanitarian funding be refined to better reflect the budget available and the operating context?

(B) What is the best mechanism to deliver Scottish Government humanitarian funding? (taking Value for Money, potential impact and alignment with Scottish Government International Development principles and FAIR, into consideration).

(C) What practical alternative modalities exist, and could be introduced, modified, or adapted to meet Scottish Government humanitarian funding objectives?

(D) To what extent are current mechanisms meeting or contributing to Scottish Government Humanitarian Funding Objectives, International Development Principles, and FAIR?

The review team was asked to consider how humanitarian funding could better align with wider aims and commitments including:

• The Scottish Government’s commitment to Shifting Power South, a Feminist Approach to International Relations (FAIR) and the Scottish Government’s International Development Principles.^[5]
• The Grand Bargain’s objective ‘to get more means into the hands of people in need and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian action’
• Broadening the focus from immediate response to anticipatory action and/or longer-term resilience and recovery.
• Supporting locally led humanitarian action.

Methods/Approach taken by the review team to gather evidence

The review team undertook desk research, key informant interviews (KII), observation of meetings and focus group discussions (FGD) to explore the review framing questions. 48 people engaged in interviews; 5 focus group discussions (FGD) were held reaching 39 people and 4 meetings were observed (see Annex B for full lists). An online survey for HEF panel members collected evidence on their views of the HEF objectives. Evidence was collated under each framing question and used to form findings and recommendations. All evidence has been anonymised unless explicit permission has been granted. Where evidence has been published the review team have provided the source.