Humanitarian Emergency Fund: annual report 2023-2024

Section D: Learnings

Key Learnings from Recent Activations:

Afghanistan Earthquakes

Given the complexities of the operational environment in Afghanistan, Christian Aid found that by establishing a clear process of approaching the programme design and delivery, along with building strong communications with community elders, and community groups, they prevented the programme being interfered with by government authorities, particularly during the participant identification process.

Another key lesson highlighted by Christian Aid in this response was that due to a significant portion of attendees to information sessions having limited literacy, the project team implemented practical approaches such as using photos and leaflets to facilitate productive sessions. Consequently, all participants successfully acquired the essential information.

South Sudan displacement & cross border response

Oxfam conducted a post-distribution monitoring survey with participants in their project in Gambella, Ethiopia. As part of this, a set of recommendations and learnings on how to improve aid delivery, based on participant and community feedback in this crisis, was found. These included respondents indicating the need for more items like blankets, bedsheets, toothpastes, and their steer that these should be prioritised. Oxfam will ensure that the priority placed on these key items is flagged to other humanitarian actors during coordination meetings to inform future programming in these regions and communities.

Additionally, participants of the project expressed a view that distributions of goods and services should be given to all, regardless of disability, age, and educational background.

As a result, in future, Oxfam will organise additional sessions with communities to explain, discuss and open up the dialogue around the participant selection process informing distributions.

Spotlight on: adaptability in humanitarian responses

Flexibility and adaptability in humanitarian programmes are critical for successful aid delivery for many reasons.

Humanitarian crises are often unpredictable and rapidly evolving; disasters, climate shocks, and conflicts can cause situations to change and unfold rapidly, requiring organisations to adapt their focus and strategies swiftly, in order to meet the needs of the affected communities.

Additionally, aid delivery can be fraught with unexpected logistical, political, and security challenges throughout the lifetime of a response. Adaptability enables teams on the ground to pivot and overcome these obstacles by finding new routes or methods of delivery, coordinating with other agencies in affected areas, or working on creative solutions to ensure those who require assistance receive it as soon as possible.

Examples of adaptability include real-time learning and adjustments to programmes based on community feedback, and flexibility from donors and funders to allow teams on the ground to shift their programmes as needs evolve. When adaptability and flexibility are supported in these ways, organisations are able to respond quickly and effectively to the ever-changing dynamics of challenging crises and maximise funding and impact for the affected communities.

The HEF Mechanism

In 2023-2024, the flexibility and adaptability of the HEF Mechanism was clear to see; with additional funding streams for Malawi, and piloting the allocation of new and additional funding to address climate-induced losses and damages using the existing HEF architecture, there have been many opportunities for learning and improvement along the way. As part of this real-time learning and adjustment, the Scottish Government will be commissioning a full independent review of the HEF system in autumn 2024. For more information on this please see ‘Section G: Looking ahead’.

Loss & Damage reflections and learnings

Following the initial funding from the HEF, learning has taken place to continue building on the effectiveness of the Fund. A key learning was the critical role for locally led approaches which places communities at the heart of every stage, from project selection and design to delivery. Having direct access to funding, through mechanism such as community-managed cash transfers, enabled the communities to work together to decide their own priorities and agree how best to spend the grants. As well as directly addressing economic loss and damage, this approach fosters community ownership, cohesion and legitimacy, with communities coming together to decide on their priorities.

The shorter timeframes for project development and delivery mandated by the HEF's operations manual, which focuses on immediate post-crisis interventions, may hinder effective long-term programming for loss and damage in the future. Early findings suggest that longer project timelines would enhance community participation and understanding of various types of loss and damage. While some needs, like water supply restoration and cash transfers, can be met quickly, broader issues such as peacebuilding, gender-based violence, and trauma require innovative, sustained investment. Communities have emphasised the need for resilience-building to reduce future loss and damage.

Therefore, while the HEF is effective for targeting rapid and slow onset climate impacts, extending delivery timelines for loss and damage projects could deepen their impact. HEF agencies also noted that the cyclical nature of climate impacts requires "flexible funds with substantial longevity" and adaptive management approaches. Integrating HEF into longer-term resilience and adaptation planning could better leverage county and national investments and ensure funds are spent transparently in line with community priorities while facing climate shocks. Therefore, longer-term funding would ultimately allow for innovation and sustainability for affected communities. The risk of boxing loss and damage finance into a "humanitarian paradigm" could also limit its evolution. While the HEF's flexibility and transparency in fund allocation are commendable, small, short-term funding may not be the most effective for loss and damage programming, which benefits from longer-term investments to build resilience alongside addressing climate losses. Longer, more planned funding windows would reduce strain on those carrying out the programmes and allow for better scheduling and community consultation.

Overall, the HEF has shown great potential in addressing climate-induced loss and damage. With some adjustments to funding timelines and a focus on integrating resilience-building into long-term planning, the HEF can become an even more powerful tool for supporting climate vulnerable communities. The positive impact seen in the pilot projects demonstrates the Fund’s capacity to drive meaningful change, offering hope for a more resilient future.

In 2024, there will be further learning and reflection workshops and initiatives held by the Scottish Government’s Climate Justice team with the HEF agencies involved and reported on separately in due course. It is hoped that the learning from the four HEF-funded pilot projects will inform the design of the global Loss and Damage Fund, including efforts to ensure communities have direct access to funding.