Key points include:

• Pledges have yet to translate into cash contributions, with the RRP just 10% funded and the SHARP 11% funded (at 6 February 2013)
• Donors within the region look set to become among the leading donors to the crisis response.

This gha-2013-briefing-funding-to-the-Syria-crisis-II collates and summarises the latest available information on financial investments in humanitarian assistance via international actors and will be updated periodically to monitor the financing response to the crisis.

The post Humanitarian financing to Syria: 6 February 2013 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

• the SHARP and RRP appeals together represent the largest humanitarian financing appeal in 2013
• financing requirements per affected person within the SHARP and RRP include some of the highest of any current funding appeal
• several weeks in only 3% of financing requirements have been met
• in 2012, 65% of appeal financing requirements were met, but the scale of the crisis and of financing requirements have escalated and donors will need to increase contributions from 2013 levels considerably to address growing humanitarian needs.

This GHA Briefing on humanitarian funding to the Syria crisis collates and summarises the latest available information on financial investments in humanitarian assistance via international actors to the Syria crisis and will be updated periodically to monitor the financing response to the crisis following the donor pledging conference in Kuwait on 30 January 2013.

The post Humanitarian funding to the Syria crisis, 29 January 2013 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

• the SHARP and RRP appeals together represent the largest humanitarian financing appeal in 2013
• financing requirements per affected person within the SHARP and RRP include some of the highest of any current funding appeal
• several weeks in only 3% of financing requirements have been met
• in 2012, 65% of appeal financing requirements were met, but the scale of the crisis and of financing requirements have escalated and donors will need to increase contributions from 2013 levels considerably to address growing humanitarian needs.

This GHA Briefing on funding to the Syria crisiscollates and summarises the latest available information on financial investments in humanitarian assistance via international actors to the Syria crisis and will be updated periodically to monitor the financing response to the crisis following the donor pledging conference in Kuwait on 30 January 2013.

The post Humanitarian financing to Syria: 29 January 2013 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

The 2013 CAP includes a major advance in the quest for more predictable financing for chronic crises in the Somalia consolidated appeal, which presents a three-year planning horizon. This important test-case represents an historic opportunity for both donors and implementing organisations to demonstrate their commitment and ability to build resilience within a more enabling funding environment.

How the international donor community responds to the funding requirements articulated in the 2013 CAP overall remains to be seen of course. If the donor response to the 2012 CAP is any indication, 2013 could be another tough year for humanitarian implementing agencies.

This briefing places the financing requirements and assessment of humanitarian needs in the 2013 appeal in context with other historic UN CAP appeals. You can download the briefing paper here: gha-CAP-2013-briefing

The post GHA Briefing: UN Consolidated Appeal Process 2013 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

Yet this represented just 5% of the total humanitarian funding from international governments and private donors in 2011. There may yet be scope therefore for increasing the volumes of funds channelled via these mechanisms and space for innovations on the pooled fund model.

To date, pooled humanitarian funds have been a UN-led initiative, but a new pooled humanitarian fund was created in 2010 by the Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies (CBHA), a group of UK-based NGOs, which they are now looking to take to scale. In this article, we examine the particular features of the CBHA ERF and consider whether its global ambitions complement and enhance the existing humanitarian funding architecture.

Do we really need another pooled humanitarian fund?

Pooled humanitarian funds are generally thought to be a good thing on balance, channeling increasing volumes of humanitarian funds from a growing range of donors to both well known and some under-funded crises. In some cases pooled humanitarian funds have improved the timeliness of funding and they encourage humanitarian organisations to participate in inter-agency coordination forums.

For donors, pooled funds also have the very attractive quality of reducing transaction costs, transferring responsibility for fiduciary control and the identification of needs and suitable funding partners to the UN agencies managing the funds and the agencies or coordination bodies overseeing their allocation processes. This is particularly appealing at a time when many government donors are facing staff cuts and it also makes it easier for newer donors who have limited technical capacity and experience to assess proposals and prospective partners to participate.

But transaction costs are not necessarily reduced overall, rather in many cases they are shifted down the transaction chain. And the transaction chain itself may be lengthened and administrative costs extracted at each stage.

The CERF – the largest pooled humanitarian fund with annual funding of around US$460 million – can only pass on funds directly to UN agencies who in turn pass around a quarter of all CERF funds to NGOs to implement humanitarian programmes. While release of funds to UN agencies may be rapid, the lag-time between the award of CERF rapid-response funds and receipt of funds by NGOs receiving funds via UN agencies takes an average of up to 13 weeks.

We can’t track these multiple transactions at the moment – although the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) would enable us to – so we don’t know what proportion of the original funds donated remain or how much time is lost in these multiple tiers of transactions. This is a major limitation in our ability to assess the timeliness and efficiency of pooled humanitarian funds.

But it is clear that both money and time may be lost in a system with multiple layers of transaction and implementing NGOs – including national NGOs who often struggle to access funds via pooled channels – are often at the end of the chain, last to receive funds and with limited influence over where, how and to whom funds are allocated.

The extent to which pooled humanitarian funds are a good thing currently depends to a certain extent then on who you are but also on where you are.

The CERF, reliant on channelling funds through UN agencies, can only direct funds to places where UN agencies have a footprint. Country-level pooled humanitarian funds are established in a limited number of usually protracted crises, where the UN has an established coordination presence. That potentially leaves a large number of crisis situations, where the UN does not have a substantial footprint and capacity to monitor and articulate needs, unlikely to benefit from pooled humanitarian funding. With an increasing number of small-scale emergencies associated with climate change and many ‘forgotten’ or ‘neglected’ sub-national crises, smaller crises may experience growing inequality in funding and response to needs.

In reality, when NGOs need to start-up somewhere new or scale-up fast, they can’t wait for the donor and pooled funding leviathan to crank into gear, so they do so with their own private resources. But many international NGOs have limited private resources and they may have many competing claims on these funds. Moreover, it may be extremely difficult for national NGOs to call on reserves to respond to crises.

So if a new mechanism could take the best of humanitarian pooled funds, and improve on some of the limitations, to make funds for NGOs more accessible (including national NGOs) and to channel funds to less high profile crises, then perhaps we do need one.

What is the CBHA ERF?

The CBHA was established in 2010 by 15 UK-based NGOs to strengthen the coordination and capacity of the humanitarian NGO sector. As part of this initiative a £4 million fund was established for member agencies to draw on during an emergency. The ERF provided immediate seed money for agencies to begin relief efforts before other funding became available. Programmes funded by the ERF must begin delivering aid within seven days of the start of a response and complete within 30 days.

Funding in this pilot phase of the fund was awarded based on proposal submissions which are evaluated through peer review by representatives of all the member agencies.

Since March 2010 the ERF has allocated £4 million to 12 humanitarian emergencies and the ERF peer review mechanism was used to disburse an additional £21 million in the context of the Pakistan 2010 floods.

What are the comparative advantages of the CBHA ERF?

The CBHA, while small in scale to date, has received some pretty convincing endorsements. The UK Department for International Development’s 2011 Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR) for example, acknowledged the role of the ERF in improving the rapid response in certain disasters as a model for providing ‘greater equity in allocations, and coherence’. And two independent reviews of the ERF clearly indicate some important comparative advantages relating to timeliness, cost-effectiveness and funding in accordance with needs, particularly in less high profile crises.

Based on an independent review of the ERF after its first year of operation:

-          the ERF appears to have successfully driven up humanitarian funding to crises which did not have Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) flash appeals and therefore where the UN system and bilateral donors were not focussing much attention (Bangladesh, Myanmar, and South Kordofan)

-          the ERF provided additional resources to NGOs in contexts where the UK, at least, was otherwise only channelling its humanitarian funds through UN agencies or the CERF

-          the ERF had markedly quicker disbursement and start-up times compared to other humanitarian funding modalities

-          on average, ERF-funded projects were approved and became operational two to three times quicker than other NGO projects as a whole

-          and in avoiding multiple layers of transaction costs, ERF funds are more cost effective in that a greater proportion of donor funds remains to deliver goods and services to crisis-affected populations.

While the amounts of funding awarded are relatively small and the implementation period short, recipient agencies report that ERF funds enable them to scale-up and to leverage more funding from other sources – including in the Horn of Africa in 2011. According to an independent review conducted by DARA, “The CBHA response to the crisis in Somalia long before it became a major news story reflects one of the key advantages of such a peer-managed fund – the ability to respond to humanitarian needs even when they are not on the news”.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, 52% of all grants awarded via the CBHA were channelled on to local partner organisations. While many donors may recognise the critical importance of supporting domestic response capacity, they usually struggle to do this in practice. The CBHA offers an alternative channel for donors to domestic actors to international financing and to build domestic response capacity.

What are the challenges to going global?

In a relatively short space of time and with a relatively small amount of funding the ERF has demonstrated impact, cost effectiveness and major comparative advantages in responding to needs fast. The CBHA have ambitions to take the ERF to scale to build something like a global CERF for NGOs. If successful, this could provide an effective complement to the existing suite of pooled humanitarian funds. But with many government donors trimming their aid budgets, they may face some formidable challenges in accessing funds, while the demand for response, particularly in relation to climate-related disasters, continues to grow.

In reality, despite the potential of pooled humanitarian funds to broaden donor participation and a record 161 official and private donors contributing to pooled funds in 2010, just ten government donors (UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Australia) provided 90% of the total funding to all the ERFs, CHFs and the CERF from their inception in 2006 up to 2011, with the UK alone providing 29%. There are already many competing claims on these donors’ resources.

In targeting private donors, the ERF may come up against competition with the fundraising strategies of their member agencies and they may face some difficulties in achieving consensus among members on ethical and reputation considerations around accepting funds from corporate donors. Building relationships with non-traditional government donors requires time and resources.

The ERF’s peer review model, which currently functions transparently and efficiently, may need to develop new governance models for global scale operations, where informal networks, personal relationships and experience will not be adequate to evaluate partners and their proposals, and they will need to move away from their UK brand in order to appeal to a wider constituency of donors and implementing agencies.

Based on the impressive early successes of the ERF however, there is every reason to believe that the CBHA has the creative vision and drive to meet these challenges. What remains to be seen is whether donors will rise to their challenge to provide more timely, needs-driven and cost effective humanitarian funding.

You can read more about pooled humanitarian funding in GHA Report 2012, and our special reports on  CHFs and ERFs and you can access our unique dataset on financing flows through the UN OCHA managed CERF, CHFs and ERFs here.

The post The CBHA Early Response Fund (ERF) appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

The first panel of the Congress was lead by GHA’s Lydia Poole who presented on the global trends of private funding to the humanitarian sector. The panel was chaired by Kathrin Schick, the Director of VOICE, and the other panellists were Jean Saslawsky, the Secretary General of the International Network of Médecins du Monde, and Marion Lieser, the General Director of Oxfam Germany. The session had been moved into the auditorium as so many people had expressed an interest and the room was almost full, further proof that money is power!

Interest in private and other non-official sources of humanitarian funding run high in a world where demand for humanitarian response shows no signs of slowing yet the pot of official funding from traditional donors is likely to fail to meet this growing demand: with an economic slow-down in many OECD countries, ODA has probably peaked, and fell by 3% in real terms in 2011.

Private funding meanwhile may offer some hope for growth in humanitarian financing. Private funding grew rapidly, by 70% in 2010 in response to the major crises in Haiti and Pakistan, and remained surprisingly buoyant in 2011, above 2009 levels in 2011. And moreover, private funding also has some uniquely attractive attributes vis-a-vis official funding.

Jean Saslawsky of MDM received one of the biggest laughs of the conference with his brilliant comparison of trying to tessellate emergency funding for a crisis response like a game of tetris. In these circumstances, private funding can be essential to fill the gaps.

Lydia also noted that if we want to think more creatively to try and harness the potential, increase flows of private financing for humanitarian purposes, we need to look a little wider.

Poles of economic growth are shifting and the public of many emerging and even developing economies are also motivated to give. In response to the Horn of Africa crisis in 2011 for example, private individuals in Turkey donated US$60 million through the Turkish Red Crescent society and the Kenyan Red Cross Society, the Kenya Media Owners Association, telecoms company Safaricom and the Kenya Commercial bank, raised 678 million Kenyan shillings ($8m) through the Kenyans for Kenya (K4K) initiative to support humanitarian relief operations.

Remittances are also a growing and relatively stable private capital flow, which can pass directly into the hands and bank accounts of vulnerable and crisis-affected people. Recorded remittance flows to fragile states have grown rapidly, by 272% in the ten years between 2002 and 2011. An estimated US$1 billion in remittances flows to Somalia each year.

This opens up a whole range of new considerations in terms of government policy, private sector regulation, investments in technology. You can find Lydia’s presentation here.

Perhaps the largest ethical area of concern around private humanitarian financing is the lack of transparency as to how and where the money is spent as compared with official sources of funding. The potential for power afforded by independence and a lack of accountability requirements associated with private funding to corrupt are explored in this blog from MSF conference panellist Jeroen Jansen.

Many questions from the audience focused on accountability and transparency including the difficulties of real time reporting of financial transactions during an emergency and several raised concerns about the additional burden of reporting asking ‘where will this transparency thing end?’ and ‘why cant we just be trusted?’. Lydia explained that in fact reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) should in fact reduce the burden of reporting in the long-run and cautioned that NGOs might as well get used to the demand for greater transparency as it is part of a world-wide cultural shift. Humanitarian organisations need to adapt and respond to this if they want to maintain their reputation for impartiality, fairness and neutrality and if we want to make real progress in accountability and efficiency in our collective response.

The Congress explores a wide range of emerging practical and ethical humanitarian considerations and immerses attendees in MSF’s culture of vigorous debate. It is truly invigorating stuff and comes highly recommended as an annual spiritual retreat for humanitarians, but the conference also contributes to the important work of collective thinking on how we interpret and apply core humanitarian principles to the challenges of an ever-changing world to ensure they continue to remain relevant and of practical use in identifying and targeting populations in need and negotiating humanitarian space.

The post Berlin Humanitarian Congress October 2012 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

Existing appeals

There are currently two major coordinated funding appeals underway. One of these is the UN-led Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan, which targets 2.5 million people inside of Syria with support provided by the UN and implementing partners. UN OCHA believes that there are currently 1.2 million internally displaced people inside of Syria. On 7 September, the appeal target was revised from US $180 million to US $347 million. This significant increase is based on the fact that the number of people in need has more than doubled since the original appeal was set up in July. Despite the high profile of the crisis, the previous target was only 53% funded against its stated funding requirements. The funding status of the appeal can be tracked in real-time here.

A second appeal, the Regional Refugee Response Plan led by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), targets displaced people in neighbouring countries and has stated funding requirements of US$193 million, of which 54% of funds have been received.

The number of refugees continues to rise and already exceeds the June planning figures upon which the current revised funding appeal is based. UNHCR is now revising its planning assumptions and financing needs and expects to launch a further revised appeal shortly. The funding status of the appeal can be tracked in periodically updated reports here.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) also launched an emergency appeal in July 2012 to support the work of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) in Syria. The appeal asks for EUR22.9 million to cover the costs of healthcare, emergency relief and support to livelihoods for 200,000 people. The Syrian Arab Red Crescent has 10,000 volunteers already trained and working on the ground. On 7 September 2012, 21% of requested funds for this appeal had been committed. The latest operational and funding reports on this appeal can be found in the latest appeals box here.

Individual NGOs are also launching appeals to support their responses to the Syrian crisis including Save the Children, International Rescue Committee, Islamic Relief, Malteser International, Muslim Hands and Human Relief Foundation. All of these are currently using the funds to assist Syrian refugees mainly in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. The national movements of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are running appeals to support the Syrian Arab Red Crescent’s work in the country.

Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries

According to the UNHCR there are currently 226,975 Syrian refugees in the region: this includes over 72,000 in Jordan; over 57,000 in Lebanon; over 18,000 in Iraq and over 78,000 in Turkey. UNHCR’s refugee tracking figures can also be monitored here.

Figure 1: The number of registered Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries, as of 30 August 2012

Source: UNHCR

Existing funding for the crisis

As of 4 September 2012, a total of US$391 million in humanitarian funding had been committed to the crisis and captured within UN OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS). OECD DAC donors provided 76% of this in bilateral support to implementing organisations: 9% has been provided by government donors outside of the OECD DAC group; 9% from the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF); and just 1% from private donors (note however that private contributions made directly to the ICRC, IFRC and MSF in particular are not reflected here and may be considerable).

Figure 2: Total funding to the crisis by donor source

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS

Table 1: Top donors to the Syria crisis

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS

Where are funds being spent?

Of the funds already allocated and being tracked in the OCHA FTS, 48% are being spent in Syria itself. Almost US$200 million of allocated funding is being spent outside of Syria. The UN is currently unable to operate in Syria because the Syrian authorities have not asked for international assistance. According to international humanitarian law, the governing authorities have responsibility for citizens within the sovereign state and external agencies must be invited in or given permission to access citizens. Other aid agencies are therefore waiting for humanitarian access to be granted before they can begin operations within the country itself.

Figure 3: Funds reported for the Syria crisis by recipient country 

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS

The leading organisations working inside Syria do not have access to the appeal funds as they do not participate in the appeal process. The UN appeal, therefore, will become more significant once access is granted and other NGOs can begin to develop programmes inside Syria.

Currently very few humanitarian organisations are operating within Syria, most notably the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Many agencies are operating in the neighbouring countries by assisting refugees fleeing the crisis and/or prepositioning teams and resources for when access is granted.

Figure 4: Amount of funding allocated to the different humanitarian organisations

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS

OCHA’s Emergency Response Fund

UN OCHA is managing an Emergency Response Fund for Syria. The total funding as of 4 September 2012 stands at US$6,930,778 which includes US$1,887,880 of unallocated funds. This fund is supporting agencies working in Jordan with Syrian refugees and the following agencies are receiving funds to work in Syria: Danish Refugee Council, Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe e.V., Jesuit Refugee Service, Premiere Urgence, Syrian Arab Red Crescent and World Food Programme. Together these agencies are assisting roughly 800,000 people inside Syria.[1]

Syria’s official development assistance (ODA) history

Syria, which is a lower-middle income country, has historically received relatively small volumes of official development assistance (ODA).

Figure 5: ODA to Syria and neighbouring countries from 1990 to 2010

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS

To speak to one of the authors please contact Laura Jump or Lydia Poole.

The post Funding to the Syrian Crisis appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

The good news is that the number of people affected by humanitarian crises and the number of people in need of assistance both went down in 2011. Humanitarian funding also reduced in 2011, but remained above 2009 levels, at US$17.1 billion.

But while the major proximate causes of disasters appear to have abated somewhat in 2011 (there were fewer natural disasters and the incidence of conflict has been on a downward trend for almost a decade), the major global vulnerabilities of climate change and economic volatility remained a present threat, with food and energy prices remaining high and subject to volatility into 2012. And in reality, we still know very little about the real number of people affected by crises or in need of assistance.

The international financing response to the crises considered of the highest priority for international response in the UN’s consolidated appeals process (CAP) fell 38% short of the financing requirements in 2011, despite a substantial reduction in the amount of funds requested. This is part of a longer-term downward trend, and in 2011, the unmet financing needs were at their widest for a decade.

In addition to the financing response falling further short of needs, the international response to the major crises of the last two years have also exhibited some concerning tendencies in the proportional allocation of funding in accordance with assessed needs, and in the timeliness of response.

The distribution of humanitarian funding has been relatively stable for a number of years. Sudan was the leading recipient for five consecutive years between 2005 and 2009. But all that changed in 2010 when Haiti and Pakistan received large volumes of funds which had far reaching effects on the distribution of funds among other recipients. Funding for these emergencies does not appear to have been entirely additional.

The data suggests that the major emergencies of 2010 attracted funding at the expense of smaller scale, less high profile emergencies. The top three recipients typically receive around 30% of the total funds to recipient countries but in 2010, this jumped to 49%. All other recipients saw not only their shares of the total, but the collective volumes they received also fell. Consolidated appeals, which represent the needs of chronic complex crises, saw an 11% drop in their proportion of funding requirements met in 2010, and many appeals reported having greater difficulties attracting funding in the first half of the year, which in some cases meant programming ambitions were scaled back.

In 2011 we saw another worrying example of the limits of international response in responding to meet humanitarian financing needs, when donors showed a lack of willingness to respond to an assessment of needs that focused on risk and likely outcomes rather than manifest humanitarian needs, at great human and financial cost. Clear evidence that a crisis was building in the Horn of Africa and calls for donor support were not responded to until the crisis had already escalated to huge proportions. By June 2011, only 28% of the financing requirements in the UN consolidated appeal for Somalia were met. A few weeks later, famine was declared and funding began to flow quickly to the appeal.

Not only do we need more comprehensive, comparable and timely information on humanitarian needs, we also need a shift in mindset towards incorporating risk and probability of disaster into our assessment of crises and the need for response if we are to respond effectively, proportionately and in a timely fashion to slow-building complex disasters, which look to be increasingly likely to occur in areas such as the Sahel and Horn of Africa.

The emphasis on where we place our financing investments to deal with humanitarian crises similarly requires a major rethink. Building greater resilience to crises is the most efficient and cost-effective way of preventing suffering and protecting livelihoods, yet we currently still only spend 4% of humanitarian aid on disaster prevention and preparedness and less than 1% of development aid between 2006 and 2010.

GHA Report 2012 presents transparent and reliable analysis of how the international response has measured up to the scale of global humanitarian crises, and is an essential resource for all those working to address humanitarian crisis and vulnerability.

You can view, download, or print the report and its data, or get in touch if you would like to receive a hard copy.

The post GHA Report 2012 is launched today exposing a humanitarian aid system struggling to adapt to the changing face of crisis appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

The stark contrast with funding to the 2010 Pakistan floods appeal continues.

Just seven government donors have so far reported funding contributions to the OCHA Financial Tracking service, and almost a third of the funds received so far within the appeal have been provided via the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund.

The post Pakistan floods, #2 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.

Afghanistan has been a major humanitarian aid recipient for the last decade, but its relationship with humanitarian aid has been complex, controversial and often unpredictable.

Humanitarian aid to Afghanistan increased dramatically in the year following the US-led invasion before falling sharply again the next year. Development aid continued to grow steadily throughout the decade, while humanitarian aid remained at relatively low levels until a major escalation in humanitarian needs in 2008 put humanitarian needs in Afghanistan back on the international agenda.

Afghanistan has participated very sporadically in the UN Consolidated Appeals process. Afghanistan has only participated in the UN consolidated appeal process (CAP) just three times between 2000 and 2010 and only began to prepare a humanitarian work-plan from 2009, with the establishment of a UN OCHA office in Kabul.

There have however been five ‘non-CAP appeals’ in this period. Non-CAP appeals are by definition lower priority and typically receive a poorer donor response. The use of non-CAP appeals is illustrative of the low priority given to humanitarian needs in the post invasion period when many of the major donors prioritised state-building and stabilisation agendas.

The donor financing response to these various UN funding appeals has been extremely variable.

While the analysis and articulation of the scale and severity of humanitarian needs and humanitarian financing in Afghanistan has improved latterly with reinforced humanitarian leadership in Kabul, this latest statement of increased financing requirements happens at a time of unpredictability in donor financing responses. We commented elsewhere on the disappointing donor response to the UN CAP appeal up to the mid-year point, and noted recently the very disappointing response to the Pakistan flash appeal to date. In this climate of uncertainty, it is apposite that the revised Afghanistan appeal calls for an increased emphasis in responses on ‘more sustainable, longer term, disaster risk reduction interventions, by government and development partners over the next years.’

We will monitor donor responses to the Afghanistan appeal through this blog. You can access the data referred to in this blog here and we plan to update our report on resource flows to Afghanistan early next year.

The post UN appeal for Afghanistan, needs revised upwards in Q4 appeared first on Global Humanitarian Assistance.