Humanitarian emergency fund: independent review

2 Key Findings

2.1 HEF Functioning

Box 2: The Purpose of the HEF was set out at its launch as follows:

"The Humanitarian Emergency Fund should provide immediate and effective assistance to reduce the threat to life and wellbeing (e.g. hunger, disease or death) for a large number of a population caused by disasters, disease or conflict.

In addition to the primary purpose, the Fund should:

• Build public awareness in Scotland of humanitarian crises in order to raise additional funding;
• Demonstrate the SG's role as a responsible global citizen with a vested interest in responding to global humanitarian challenges; and
• Bring enhanced transparency and predictability to the SG's emergency funding."^[2]

The Humanitarian Emergency Fund of £1 million (m) per annum was envisaged as being divided equally into two funding streams.

Stream 1: Large-scale emergencies which lead to the launch of a DEC Appeal:

Stream 1 A allocates funding directly to the DEC on the request of Ministers; Stream 1 B allocates funding to non-DEC members of the HEF Panel who are also responding to the emergency.

Stream 2: Medium to large-scale emergencies that are not anticipated to lead to a DEC Appeal:

Stream 2 funds are activated by Ministers on the recommendation of HEF Panel members. Stream 2 allocates funding to HEF Panel members whose proposals have been approved by the Peer Review committee.

Figure 1. HEF Funding Streams^[3]

2.1.1 Operation and functioning of the Panel

The HEF Panel works on the basis of the HEF Operations Manual, a core document which was developed by an external consultant in the inception phase and which has been revised and refined over the period since then.

The latest iteration of the Manual dates from March 2019 and covers the functioning of the Panel: "This Operations Manual outlines how the HEF is governed and activated and how HEF-funded projects will be managed. Section 2 outlines how the HEF is structured and governed; Section 3 describes the four stages in the project response cycle (activation request, project selection, project implementation and monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning); and Section 4 provides information on how funds are to be managed and administered."^[4]

The main functional stages in the Panel's work are as follows.

a. Activation

The Stream 1 A activation is directly linked to the launch of a DEC appeal (decided by actors partly outside the Panel), although in October 2018 the HEF Panel also prepared a Stream 1 Case for Activation document to support the recommendation to fund the appeal that notes the funds available (for Stream 1A and 1B) and outlines the five HEF Panel and DEC member organisations which will be responding as part of the DEC appeal,^[5] as well as those preparing non-DEC Stream 1 B responses.

The Stream 1 B activation is dependent on the launch of and Scottish Government support to a DEC appeal through Stream 1 A and is a mechanism where a smaller portion of the funding for the appeal crisis is channelled to the HEF Panel members which are not DEC members, namely Mission Aviation Fellowship, Mercy Corps and SCIAF. The pre-agreed proportions of funds available for the two streams are Stream 1 A 80% and Stream 1 B 20%.

The Stream 2 activations are activated by Scottish Ministers on advice from the Panel which considers suggestions from Panel members that can be submitted at or in advance of quarterly meetings. The Panel then discusses and votes; if they decide to recommend funding a response an Activation Request document is prepared and submitted to Scottish Government, presenting the case and recommending a specific amount to be allocated to the response, usually between £50,000 and £300,000.^[6]

Originally, the split between Streams 1 and 2 was anticipated to be an even split of 50% each; over the two first years of the HEF's operation this has been 22.5% Stream 1 and 77.5% Stream 2 (see Appendix 6). Once the Panel votes to approve an activation recommendation, the HEF Secretariat informs Scottish Government and "The SG then has three working days to raise any issues before the Panel can expect the activation to be confirmed".^[7]

Figure 2: HEF Manual funding distribution flow illustration^[8]

b. Proposal development and peer review

The Panel does not consider proposals for Stream 1 A as the DEC manages the appeal as a whole. For Stream 1 B, concept notes rather than proposals are developed and a shortened peer review process is conducted; in both cases to date this has resulted in a HEF Panel recommendation to Scottish Government for funding to the three non-DEC organisations.

More substantial proposal development and peer review is undertaken for Stream 2 proposals. A precise project proposal format has been developed with an accompanying scoring guide for peer review. The format includes specification of Outcomes and Outputs, requests estimated disaggregation of beneficiaries by age band, gender and particular vulnerability, consideration of co-ordination on the ground and MEAL, and includes a budget breakdown which provides for estimates of percentage transfer to international, national and local NGOs.

HEF Panel member organisations prepare proposals with input from their field and headquarters colleagues and local implementing partners; due to different working practices, some organisations are able to complete all elements of the proposal format while others are not.

c. Proposal review and recommendations

The peer review process has also been refined over the first two years of HEF operation. Panel members rotate responsibilities, ensuring that a minimum of three Panel members review each set of proposals. Scores for each section of the proposals are then collated and reviewed for consistency,^[9] with the HEF Secretariat Co-ordinator responsible for confidential compilation of both final scores and short narrative comments and facilitating the reviewers' agreement on the final recommendation. This is presented for a Panel vote and if approved then as a formal recommendation for funding submission to Scottish Government, which then "…has three working days to consider the recommendations before the Panel can expect a decision".^[10]

d. Contracting and transfer of funds

For Stream 1 A, Scottish Government directly manages grant funding with the DEC. For Streams 1 B and 2, following the Panel's recommendations, Scottish Government directly contracts HEF Panel members using pre-agreed templates and disburses funds directly to them.

e. Reporting on humanitarian assistance delivered

The DEC manages all Stream 1 A reporting. The HEF Panel Secretariat compiles reporting on Stream 1 B grants, presenting an integrated report to Scottish Government. Similarly, for Stream 2 grants, the HEF Secretariat is responsible for compiling an integrated report on each activation. Notably, for Stream 2, the HEF template used for proposals is a combined format which also provides for 'Project Completion Reports' (PCRs), allowing for easy comparison between original plans and work delivered.

In relation to reporting, for both Stream 1 B and Stream 2 grants, as different Panel member organisations work in different ways, and on a variety of different assistance types, there are variations in their final report content. Some organisations are able to, from the outset, identify precise numbers (and breakdown) of beneficiaries, location and type of assistance, while others are not: inevitably this affects the consistency and depth of the integrated reports.

f. Reporting to Scottish Government

The HEF Secretariat is responsible for preparing interim and annual reports to Scottish Government, submitted in October and April each year respectively. To date these reports have provided a short summary of the Panel's structure and functioning, an overview of the working of the Panel during the year in question, including any particular highlights, and a summary presentation of the crisis responses HEF funding supported.

Since its launch in spring 2017, the HEF has supported responses to nine humanitarian crises (as of August 2019) of which two were Stream 1 (DEC activations) and seven were Stream 2. Just over £2m has been spent. A table summarising activations and spending can be found at Appendix 6.

2.1.2 Differing perspectives on the HEF's current structure and functioning

The interviews undertaken collected a range of perspectives on the HEF's current structure and functioning which have been presented below.

	Panel members	Scottish Government	External organisations *
Strengths	Scottish response to need Learning opportunities Relationships in Panel Setting aside own agendas Improved systems Key role of Co-ordinator and Chair Reputable expert member organisations Transparent and accountable system Flexibility and opportunity to fund 'hidden' crises	Scottish response to need Certainty of budget Recommendations made by those with expertise Improved systems Less time required of SG staff	Scottish response to need Funds high profile plus hidden emergencies Use of peer review Panel responds to good practice in sector Steady £1m p.a. responds to good practice in sector
Weaknesses	Expectations of staff time not always proportional to funds Possible for Panel members to 'game the system' for Stream 2 activations Criteria mean some Panel members less likely to be funded through Stream 2 (e.g. MAF) yet still have some expectations. Wide focus for Stream 2 can make it difficult to identify most suitable activations Lack of diversity on Panel Limited humanitarian field expertise on Panel itself No assigned external communications role	Stream 2 reporting does not allow SG to answer questions Stream 2 appears random choice of crises Stream 2 external communications Stream 2 funds not being used to leverage more funding Very limited time to decide on recommended activations or project grants	Lack of transparency and accountability Lack of expertise Fund too small for impact External communications
Opportunities	Increase funding available Collaboration in-country Increased learning and sector networking Improve communications Match funding possibility	Raise public awareness Focus on theme or area Connect HEF to other policy areas, e.g. schools and education Match funding possibility Improved reporting	Increase funding available Engage more with sector Engage more with / promote emerging good practice Focus on external comms Strategic focus
Threats	Panel may reduce if expectations increase or funds decrease	Loss of public trust Hard to justify spending	Loss of trust Lack of documented and evidenced impact

*External INGO and sector expert interviewees who had some knowledge of the HEF or of similar peer review-based models

Proportionality

A key factor to be considered in reviewing the HEF, according to both Panel members and external experts, is proportionality of the structures and expected outcomes of the Fund in line with the limited funding (currently £1m per annum) available. Proportionality was the theme most often raised in interviews with Panel members, who generally felt that initially the level of engagement required to make the Fund a success was not proportional to the impact it would help them achieve. This was broadly felt to have evened out more recently. External experts generally emphasised the small scale of the funding available in comparison to most other humanitarian instruments, and encouraged a focus on proportionality during this review.

Panel views - overall positive factors

Interviews with Panel members prompted unanimous responses regarding the following:

• A deserved sense of pride in how well the fund had functioned, given the difficult humanitarian aid environment and the lack of historical joint working among NGOs in this field in Scotland.
• Recognition and appreciation of the Scottish Government's work with the sector to establish a Fund and of the efforts made by officials in the consultation and inception phases.
• Particular thanks to the Chair and the first Co-ordinator for their pragmatic, responsive approach to setting up the Panel's systems.
• The willingness of all Panel members from the outset to set aside organisational interests and build a good process to meet the needs of people in humanitarian crisis.
• The value of building good personal relationships and building a sense of a team within the Panel (this was generally considered to have taken around the first 18 months to achieve).

Panel views - areas to strengthen in future

Panel members recognised that the HEF is still developing, and that more can be done to achieve (and demonstrate achievement) against the original objectives. Members called for more active guidance from the Scottish Government to help them consider:

• Which kinds of crises to prioritise, and in which places
• How best to balance proportionality with transparency and accountability
• How to better engage the Scottish public
• How and whether to seek other external funding.

Conversations with Panel and Secretariat members have identified areas of HEF structure and practice that could beneficially be reviewed going forward:

• The current absence of defined public awareness-raising responsibilities in HEF Panel roles, and consideration of how best to take this forward collaboratively with Scottish Government.
• The funding distribution flow between Streams 1 and 2, which is currently based on two DEC activations per year, when in reality there has been one DEC activation per year so far.
• The number of HEF activations overall per year, which has so far been an average of four; it may be more proportionate to decrease this.
• The number of days allocated to develop and decide on proposals for activation and funding for Stream 2 with a view to allowing more time for preparation and consideration.
• The organisations represented on the Panel with a view to considering a Panel refresh, retaining the original and appropriate criteria of adherence to the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), a Scottish presence and active engagement in international humanitarian activity. The potential inclusion of other Scottish-based organisations meeting the criteria would enhance Panel diversity and promote networking across the Scottish sector.

2.1.3 Review reflections on HEF functioning

Review reflections: what does this analysis mean for the HEF…
with its current budget?	with a £1.5m p.a. budget?	with a £0.5m p.a. budget?
The HEF can deliver valuable assistance in its current form. HEF Panel systems are generally working well though could benefit from further refinement. More Scottish Government direction on strategic focus would help Stream 2 decisions and external communications. More work on external communications is needed, defined roles would help this. Additional resourcing may be needed for the Chair role	The HEF could deliver more valuable assistance. An increased budget would likely support improved external communications. Easier to attract a more diverse and inclusive Scottish sector panel.	The HEF Panel organisations may reduce participation. Increased action to address all secondary HEF aims, including public awareness-raising and fund-raising, is unlikely. Harder to attract a more diverse and inclusive Scottish sector panel. Highly unlikely that current ways of working could be maintained on a reduced SG budget; supplementary funds from other sources would be needed and no clarity as yet on how such funds could be raised or received/disbursed.

2.2 Issues of focus

2.2.1 Learning

The HEF Operations Manual has a clear focus on learning and continuous improvement, both in terms of streamlining processes and increasing impact on the ground.

Panel interviewees could identify a range of learning that has taken place. This seems to have focussed on key areas:

• Learning about each other's organisations, structures and strategies, structured in a series of presentations by each organisation on their work during quarterly meetings
• Learning about streamlining and improving systems to make application and reporting procedures more proportional to the funds available
• Some learning about international debates on good practice, primarily through the Christian Blind Mission (CBM) presentation on disability rights during a specially arranged meeting, and through a presentation on the humanitarian 'Grand Bargain' at a regular Panel meeting.

Learning has led to improvements in so far as relationships have been strengthened, meaning that conversations in the Panel are more constructively challenging, and internal processes have been regularly revised. No Panel member could cite an example of learning leading to change within organisations or in the field. This is unsurprising given the small funds available and the distance between Panel members and decision-makers or field staff in organisations.

The learning expectations within the operations manual were drafted by the original consultant pre-set up and in practice have not been achievable, given the considerable amount of energy and time required to establish and run the Fund over its first two years.

Panel members were clear that the fund is young and still bedding in, with continuous learning and change at process level. Members have contributed significantly more time to the Panel than was originally expected, with many viewing their more substantive work to date-which appears for several to have only eased off towards the close of 2018-as an investment in the inception phase of a collaborative initiative with strategic value beyond its funding function. Most felt that greater expectations on learning and improvement would not be realistic, given the small sums available and the distance between Scotland offices and field response.

2.2.2 Safeguarding

There has been an increased focus on safeguarding and the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) in the sector since early 2018, with the vast majority of actors in the sector being involved in work to strengthen existing systems and standards and to engage with efforts to address the recent loss in public confidence. (Please see Section 2.3.5 below for discussion of sector trends and good practice relating to safeguarding.)

HEF templates for Scottish Government grant contracts do include a clause (4.6 A and 4.6 B) regarding the need for HEF grant implementers to both have robust safeguarding policies in place (and to have undertaken due diligence on any partners they sub-contract) and to immediately notify Scottish Government of any reports or suspicions of safeguarding incidents. The HEF's current project proposal and reporting templates do not include a section or question on safeguarding.

While many HEF Panel members have discussed their policies with the Scottish Government International Development Team and/or attended a Scottish Government-organised safeguarding workshop, these steps appear to have been taken in line with international development grant funding and not because of HEF engagement.

There has been no specific HEF Panel meeting agenda item to discuss safeguarding issues and the Panel has to date not undertaken any steps dedicated to consideration of how safeguarding aspects of the HEF's work could be strengthened.^[11]

2.2.3 Impact measurement

Measurement of longer-term impacts and monitoring the outcomes of humanitarian interventions is a sector-wide challenge in the field of humanitarian assistance.^[12] This work can be particularly hard to do in emergencies, where the rapid analysis which precedes deployment often needs to be subsequently adjusted and where tracking programme delivery effectively can be additionally challenging in a fast-moving environment. This notwithstanding, MEAL is an essential element of professional humanitarian programming and the CHS, and the HEF templates' current use of the set of common indicators defined by the DEC is a very helpful structural decision to facilitate reporting.

HEF proposal and reporting templates require Outcomes and Outputs, they do not require definition of a longer-term impact statement or evidence of progress towards it. The templates also require the disaggregation of targeted beneficiaries by age band, gender and particular vulnerability, another important point in relation to established sector practice. While rapid onset emergencies may mean that detailed needs assessment is not possible and UN agencies do accept estimates of beneficiary numbers in these circumstances, it is standard practice that these are then updated in the first one or two months of operation and are finalised in grant reporting. For assistance in protracted crisis settings it is standard sector practice to require beneficiary target numbers and disaggregation from the outset.^[13]

The usual sector practice relating to impact measurement is for aggregated evaluations conducted later or after an emergency response which tend to review the work of multiple agencies in a given location - the DEC follows this model. Given the size of the HEF, it is unrealistic to expect that the individual grants can support impact evaluations. However, the Fund should respond to established good practice norms on promoting learning, accountability and improved practice and a periodic external evaluation, for example every 5 years, would be an appropriate mechanism to consider. The definition of a strategic focus, whether thematic or geographic, for the Fund would inevitably facilitate subsequent impact measurement.

2.2.4 Review reflections on Issues of focus

Review reflections: what does this analysis mean for the HEF…
with its current budget?	with a £1.5m p.a. budget?	with a £0.5m p.a. budget?
The HEF Panel should consider options to promote learning more effectively among its members. The HEF Panel should consider how to better respond to safeguarding as a sector priority (e.g. by expanding its proposal template with a dedicated section). HEF reporting templates need to be completed in full if the Fund's impact can be even estimated in outline, (e.g. cumulative beneficiary numbers), and if its work is to be effectively monitored. Beyond its current systems, the HEF would need to include a periodic evaluation to develop conclusions regarding longer-term impact.	With increased grant amounts, it is more likely that organisations would more actively promote and engage in cross-panel/-sector learning. With increased grant amounts, it is more likely that organisations would provide more information for proposals on safeguarding. Earmarking of funds for periodic evaluation should be considered. With increased grant amounts, it is more likely that organisations will devote more time and provide more detailed reports to feed impact assessment. Increased funding may incur the risk of higher Scotland-based / back-office spending with limited additional impact for people in humanitarian need.	With decreased grant amounts, it is less likely that organisations would allocate time to cross-panel/-sector learning. With decreased grant amounts, it is less likely that organisations would be open to providing more information for proposals on safeguarding. With decreased grant amounts, it is less likely that organisations will provide more detailed reports to feed assessment of impact. Reduced funding may galvanise more collaboration and seeking of alternative funding sources in order to continue the gains made.

These issues have been addressed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this report which offers recommendations and options for the future.

2.3 Trends, policy commitments and good practice in humanitarian assistance

The OECD's report on good practice in humanitarian donorship underlines the importance of clear government leadership and strategy: "Humanitarian frameworks are more effective when they are based on the donor country's comparative advantage and take into account other policy directives".^[14] The OECD also recommends matching your vision with your money - give enough, and give flexibly enough to achieve your ambition - and encourages clarity and simplicity of funding process to reduce the administrative burden on NGO partners. These learnings complement and emphasise the issues discussed below for the HEF to address in future.

2.3.1 Trends in need: "protracted is the new normal"

The funding and delivery of humanitarian assistance globally continues to grow, though 2018 saw the ending of a significant growth burst recorded since 2014.^[15] Despite this, the shortfall between estimated requirements and the actual financial contributions received has also increased: in 2017, the amount requested through UN appeals was US$ 25.5 billion, the highest ever requested, and the funding shortfall in response to these appeals was US$ 10.3 billion, the largest to date.^[16]

The UNOCHA Global Humanitarian Overview 2019 reports that the number of crises requiring more than US$1 billion humanitarian funding grew to a record eight in 2018 (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). Between 2014 and 2018, four crises (Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Syria) accounted for 55% of all funding. At point of reporting in 2018, 86% of funding was directed to crises of more than five years' duration.^[17]

All sector analyses anticipate the continuation of the current trend towards more complex and protracted crises: "Humanitarian crises are lasting longer and demanding ever more resources. They are also disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable."^[18] With most humanitarian crises today termed 'protracted', the average humanitarian appeals lasting seven years and almost 90% of humanitarian funding from OECD DAC members going to medium- to long-term crises, UN analysis concludes that "protracted is the new normal".^[19]

The UNOCHA Global Humanitarian Overview 2019 makes the following predictions going forward:

• Conflicts will continue to cause displacement and erode resilience
• Extreme weather events remain a risk for many countries
• Food insecurity remains a concern (often linked to conflict)
• The greatest needs will continue to be seen in countries of protracted crisis

The humanitarian sector is responding with a range of developments in assistance and practice.

Box 3: Multi-year and anticipatory funding

The increase in protracted crises requires changes to classic approaches as 'in-and-out' humanitarian interventions are increasingly unlikely to meet the needs of most emergencies. In addition to a range of challenges and adaptations to previous programming models, this also requires a change in donor funding models. Recent years have seen calls for more predictable multi-year funding for humanitarian assistance, including 2016 WHS commitments, and a resulting shift in donor practices^[20] as multi-year contributions from governments increased to 17% of funding in 2018 from 7% in 2016.^[21]

Multi-annual funding "refers to funding given over two or more years for humanitarian assistance". The OECD observes that "Multi-year humanitarian funding attracts minimal risk, and has significant potential to decrease operational costs in protracted crises, improve collaboration between actors, and provide for a more strategic response that can adapt to evolving contexts. There is also potential to help bridge the humanitarian action and development programming", encouraging humanitarian donors to "make multi-annual funding a larger part of their humanitarian financing portfolio."^[22]

With many crises having a 'lead in' period, there is growing sector discussion around anticipatory funding. This is defined differently to funding for crisis prevention or disaster risk reduction programmes, which are implemented to support preparedness for a potential future crisis. Anticipatory funding however is relevant only in situations where a coming crisis is evident, 'visible on the horizon' though not yet full-blown: funding intervention at this stage is seen as reducing costs and response times, facilitating better quality programme design and reducing suffering.^[23]

2.3.2 The Agenda for Humanity and the Grand Bargain

The sector has seen a number of policy responses to these significant changes in needs. At the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in May 2016, participants from 180 countries made commitments to deliver the UN Secretary General's Agenda for Humanity, a five-point plan to reduce humanitarian need, risk and vulnerability. The 'Grand Bargain', signed at the summit, was a key component of this plan.

Box 4: The Grand Bargain includes 9 workstreams:

1. Greater Transparency

2. More support and funding tools to local and national responders

3. Increase the use and co-ordination of cash-based programming

4. Reduce Duplication and Management costs with periodic functional reviews

5. Improve Joint and Impartial Needs Assessments

6. A Participation Revolution: include people receiving aid in making the decisions which affect their lives

7. Increase collaborative humanitarian multi-year planning and funding

8. Reduce the earmarking of donor contributions

9. Harmonize and simplify reporting requirements

and one cross-cutting commitment: to enhance engagement between humanitarian and development actors.

As of 1 July 2019, 61 aid agencies and NGOs had endorsed the Grand Bargain. These include several HEF Panel members or connected organisations: international Red Cross structures, Christian Aid, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, Save the Children, and the United Kingdom Government.

Annual progress reports are produced independently by ODI, funded by USAID: the latest annual report^[24] shows that 68% of signatories can report activities to implement relevant commitments. Cash-based programme is making the most progress (see Box 6 below). Localisation is moving from dialogue on definitions to actioning the commitments, but there has been no system-wide shift in operational practice (see Box 5 below). Harmonised reporting has been piloted and is being rolled out at country level. Multi-year funding (see Box 3 above) has shown good progress, with 78% of donors reporting that they had maintained or increased their multi-year funding in 2018. Progress is being made on gender, with pre-existing gender pledges being linked to Grand Bargain commitments.

Box 5: Localisation

NGOs currently receive around 20% of humanitarian aid, with the vast majority going to INGOs. INGO funding to national and local NGOs has increased recently (from 1.7% to 2.7 % in 2017); direct funding to national and local NGOs also increased from 0.3% in 2016 to 0.4% in 2017.^[25] While these global funding patterns may not reflect the full picture of partnership on the ground, and notwithstanding the challenges of emergency response in conditions where local capacities are often limited, the conclusion remains that opportunities for building national and local capacities and integrating local perspectives are not being fully utilised.^[26]

Hence the push towards 'localisation', defined as "the process through which a diverse range of humanitarian actors are attempting, each in their own way, to ensure local and national actors are better engaged in the planning, delivery and accountability of humanitarian action, while still ensuring humanitarian needs can be met swiftly, effectively and in a principled manner".^[27] The potential contributions to resilience and development of national capacities for future disaster response are particularly highlighted in sector good practice guidance.^[28]

While increasing in policy relevance, localisation is not a recent policy direction and has been articulated in a series of international policy commitments, including the 2007 Global Humanitarian Platform's Principles of Partnership,^[29] 2015/16 Charter for Change,^[30] the 2016 Agenda for Humanity and Grand Bargain (noted above).

Although progress is being made, there remain concerns that the Grand Bargain is too complex and resource-intensive, and not enough difference is being felt on the ground. This is particularly the case for localised funding, and the connected issue of transparency. While the sector generally views the headline commitments made in the Grand Bargain as important, there are issues around the practicality of the supporting frameworks and targets; discussions are seen as having remained largely at the policy level.^[31]

2.3.3 Leave no one behind

The Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030) set a new expectation that no goal shall be considered achieved until it is achieved for all - summarised in the term 'Leave no one behind'. Emerging practice in the humanitarian sector is particularly focussed on understanding and meeting the needs of women and girls, and disabled people.

The UNOCHA Global Humanitarian Overview 2019 reminds us that conflicts and disasters exacerbate gender inequalities. Natural disasters on average kill more women than men or kill women at a younger age than men. Women and girls may also face increased vulnerabilities during or after a crisis and some 60% of all preventable maternal deaths in the world take place in conflict, displacement or disaster settings. Girls in conflict settings are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school than boys.

Globally it is estimated there are more than 1 billion disabled people,^[32] and disabled people are likely to be poorer and more vulnerable to crisis than the general population, while often being left behind by standard humanitarian response.^[33] The Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action was launched at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and has now been endorsed by more than 200 governments, UN bodies and organisations.

Based on the original application of CBM to the HEF Panel, but considering its limited international operation, it was recommended that CBM act as a disability inclusion adviser to the Panel. This was confirmed and following discussions at the second Panel meeting in September 2017 a training session on disability-inclusive practice was organised for the HEF plus wider INGO sector on 14 March 2019. Unfortunately the disability adviser has not had any further involvement in HEF activity to date, and only half the Panel members were represented at the training.

2.3.4 The 'nexus', coherence and collective outcomes

While the need to promote better collaboration between humanitarian and development actors has been acknowledged for some time,^[34] these calls gathered strength at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and became formalised into international policy commitments. The Grand Bargain Workstream 10 is dedicated to "strengthening engagement between humanitarian and development actors in order to better deal with protracted crises and shrink humanitarian needs over the long term. Measures include new partnership, better and more contextual and field-based co-ordination, joint needs assessments, joint vulnerability analysis and multi-year planning - all of which should be tailored to the context with a respect for both actual needs on the ground and humanitarian principles".^[35]

A 'third facet' to the humanitarian-development nexus was subsequently added as policy-makers confirmed the importance of integrating peacebuilding perspectives into responses in fragile and conflict-affected crises - often termed the 'triple nexus' and associated with the additional integration of climate crisis programming. The 2016 Stockholm Declaration argued that in order to deliver on the Agenda for Humanity and "transcend the divide between humanitarian and development actors to achieve collective outcomes", global stakeholders "need to have a long-term view that focuses more on prevention, by addressing the root causes and the drivers of fragility and conflict."^[36]

Further high-level discussion explored implications for donors, recommending that funders work to transcend their own internal humanitarian and development divisions by structuring financing around collective outcomes framed as desired future points three to five years into the future.^[37] A 'collective outcome' is the term increasingly used to describe a result achieved by contributions from humanitarian and development actors over a multi-year period to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience; it is particularly associated with nexus programming and the 'New Way of Working'.^[38]

The OECD produced a formal Recommendation on 'nexus' programming in 2019, noting that these approaches will be critical in responding to the increased humanitarian caseload and that they require the right kind of financing.^[39] Key aspects include an emphasis on detailed, gender- and conflict-sensitive context analysis and practice, empowering and building the capacity of national and local actors, including for crisis response and risk management, and prioritising work with international and local partners which have flexibility to work across the nexus and adapt programming to needs on the ground. The role of donors in promoting nexus approaches is underlined in much of the policy discussion, both in terms of adapting financing instruments and incentivising exchange and collaborative work towards collective outcomes.^[40]

2.3.5 Safeguarding and accountability

The CHS Alliance provide the quality assurance framework for the HEF Panel members and these commitments and verification schemes include prevention and response to safeguarding incidents.^[41] While existing frameworks continue to have value and relevance, there is also sector recognition that more needs to be done to strengthen safeguarding mechanisms and practice, including the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) and sexual harassment (SH).

Reflecting this, the OECD DAC brought out a new Recommendation in July 2019 to advise and support governments to prevent and respond to PSEA and SH in the disbursement and management of humanitarian and development assistance.^[42] The Recommendation highlights donor responsibility and influence in leading and supporting organisational culture change and accountability, building capacity, underlining the importance of donor measures and systems to ensure funded agencies establish and implement robust safeguarding systems.^[43] Donor policies are seen as critical in helping to push back on the "we haven't got time" arguments often used: they should ensure that presentation of safeguarding policies and 'safe programming' is a standard element of proposal and reporting templates, and should clearly define accountability, reporting and response chains for all funding relationships.^[44]

Critical to safeguarding systems but also to broader good practice programming that is responsive and attentive to beneficiary needs, implementing organisations' systems need to include effective and transparent channels for feedback as part of ensuring accountability. The OECD report^[45] on good practice in humanitarian donorship includes a focus on participation, including complaints mechanisms, feedback loops for beneficiaries and streamlining donor reporting to give field staff more time to engage with beneficiaries. This requires flexibility to allow programmes to adapt in response to what they hear. The ODI HPG has recently developed and prototyped 'ReliefWatch', a new mechanism for aid accountability through a system of reviews by affected people,^[46] and more developments in this direction are to be expected in the coming period.

2.3.6 Blended and innovative financing

The growing funding gap between identified humanitarian needs and funds raised has led to increased consideration of alternative funding sources in recent years. Also referred to as 'innovative financing' or 'humanitarian investing', blended finance is defined as "the strategic use of public and philanthropic resources to mobilize private capital to achieve development outcomes,"^[47] or "a range of instruments that use grant funding to attract further private sector investment in emerging markets".^[48] Global humanitarian policy leaders have emphasised the future potential for new forms of financing for humanitarian assistance to address financial shortfalls and bolster sustainability, as well as maximising humanitarian-development programming coherence. Attention is mainly being currently given to disaster risk insurance, contingency funding through the multi-lateral system, risk sharing with the private sector, and improvements to humanitarian financing systems, including the use of cash transfers.^[49]

Private investment opportunities are also being explored, with the three main types under consideration: anticipatory risk financing for disaster preparedness and response; job creation and entrepreneurship; and, investments in enterprises or assets that support the wider market for humanitarian impact in social sectors (e.g. temporary housing, portable energy products, etc.).^[50] The Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) concludes that while there is a "growing appetite" for investment approaches to humanitarian impact, this remains an emerging area and firm conclusions are premature.^[51]

Box 6: Cash transfers, SMEs and market systems

Cash transfers or vouchers are now an established good practice, confirmed by the 2016 Grand Bargain commitments and seen as preferable to distribution of food and non-food items wherever possible as they bring multiple benefits, allowing people in need to make their own choices and better tailor their purchases to their individual households. Most effective when delivered as unconditional multi-purpose cash, though also in voucher or e-transfer formats depending on the market context, well-programmed cash-based responses have evidenced lower costs and increased efficiency, effectiveness, beneficiary dignity and local markets recovery.^[52]

Although the sector's use of cash and voucher programming continues to rise, increasing 10% from 2017 to 2018 and doubling since 2015,^[53] challenges with a lack of common quality standards/guidelines or systematic monitoring remain and concerns have been raised about the need for proper context analysis.^[54]

A key element of the improved context analysis advocated by the NWOW is the economic landscape and market systems in which humanitarian assistance is delivered. Cash transfers can be a valuable tool in supporting local economies but represent only a limited aspect of market engagement. The potential of SMEs is often left untapped, a missed opportunity to use and support local capacities which can also lead to unintended negative consequences.^[55] Already incorporated in the SPHERE standards,^56] there is growing understanding that economic recovery and options for the self-sustainability of people in need requires greater attention far earlier in the humanitarian response than traditionally thought. Particularly given the greater predominance of protracted crises, good practice now requires market systems analysis be a key element of context assessment.

While there are clearly interesting initiatives being piloted, these tend to be at scale and involve large players with resources to dedicate to research and development, such as the International Finance Facility for Education in emergencies (associated with Gordon Brown),^[57] collaborations between Ikea and UNHCR on shelter design, Mastercard and the WFP on electronic transfers, or ICRC's humanitarian impact bond.^[58] Indeed, the existing Scottish Government efforts to support work in this area through the Global Ethical Finance Initiative^[59] represent another confirmation that this is clearly a direction of travel.

However, the level of risk in many emergency settings and the short timeframes needed to mobilise capital have proved challenging for the direct application of such initiatives to humanitarian response and in unstable or crisis settings. In the 2012-17 period only 6% of current blended finance initiatives supported least developed countries, with 70% in middle income countries.^[60] Overall, for humanitarian (and, to a lesser extent, development) financing much remains at a developmental stage with limited clear and tested models currently ready for application to a co-ordinated response.^[61]

2.3.7 Review reflections on trends, policy commitments and good practice

Box 7: How can the Scottish Government respond to this emerging good practice?

• Focus humanitarian funding on protracted crises (this also allows a more planned, thematic approach with potentially longer decision-making timescales)
• Offer a multi-year funding commitment to humanitarian response
• Explore options for anticipatory funding (see options below)
• Continue to promote cash-based programming
• Continue to support localisation by analysis of % of funds reaching local actors
• Encourage increased learning about gender and disability-inclusive response
• Encourage connected learning between ID Fund and humanitarian projects
• Require increased focus on safeguarding in HEF processes and reporting
• Consider how Scottish Ministers could encourage Scottish corporates to support crisis appeals by HEF members
• The HEF is already responding to a number of key global policy expectations for good humanitarian donorship, including predictability, accountability, localisation and cash programming, and this was welcomed in interviews with external humanitarian experts. The following chapter proposes further improvements which could be made to the HEF's functioning, and offers a range of options for the future.