8.4 Humanitarian Funding: Appeal Mechanisms and Funding Instruments
  • 07 Dec 2023
  • 1 Minute to read
  • Dark

8.4 Humanitarian Funding: Appeal Mechanisms and Funding Instruments

  • Dark

Article summary


The FSC Coordinator should be aware of the different appeal mechanisms and funding instruments at country level, and the role he/she should play in relation to each.   

Appeal Mechanisms 

  • Joint funding appeals outline a prioritised set of responses requiring donor commitment and include Flash Appeals (for acute needs for up to six months) and HRP s (for protracted emergencies). These often serve as the basis for fundraising and advocacy. Although response plans primarily are management tools for the RC/HC and HCT, their secondary purpose is resource mobilisation by clearly communicating the scale of the emergency and scope of the response to donors and the public. Cluster partners participating in the HRP will often use it for fundraising with bilateral donors. See details on the Flash Appeal and the HRP in 9.5

Funding Instruments 

There is a wide range of funding sources for emergencies, including:

  • National governments (bilateral or multilateral donations) e.g. USAID/BHA, UK/FCDO, EU/ECHO, JICA, etc. 
  • Humanitarian pooled funds, which can rapidly be accessed through formal channels, without the time delay of generating donor pledges. These include multi-donor humanitarian pooled funds such as:   
    • Country-based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). 
    • Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) grants and loans.  
  • Other funding sources for FSC partners include:
    • Individual FSC Partner Agency Funds (e.g. own funds and donations, international donor co-funding).  
    • Private sector / civil society private contributions from individuals, companies, trusts and foundations.  
    • Development pooled funds and International financing institutions such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and African Development Bank (see 8.7).
Protracted Crises and Multi-Year Funding

The FSC Coordinator most often works within a one-year humanitarian programme cycle. However, in acknowledgment that protracted crises may not always be best served by one year planning cycles, there has been an increase in multi-year humanitarian planning at country level. 

Evidence of the benefits of multi-year planning and flexible (unearmarked) funding has grown in recent years. This approach can lower administrative costs (for both donors and aid organizations) and catalyse more effective, responsive, and quality programming notably where humanitarian needs are protracted or recurrent. Multi-year planning can help strengthen the linkages between humanitarian, development, stabilization and conflict management initiatives, which can be fundamental to decreasing humanitarian needs (see more from the IASC on quality funding here). See also 9.5.2 for more on multi-year planning.

Was this article helpful?