Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

World

Highlights of the 2024 Grand Bargain Self-Reporting Cycle

Attachments

Prepared by the Grand Bargain Secretariat

In 2023, the Grand Bargain Signatories agreed as part of the adoption of the Grand Bargain 3.0 Framework to simplify and streamline the annual self-reporting. The Grand Bargain (GB)
Secretariat subsequently worked with the Facilitation Group, Development Initiative (DI), ODI, and ActivityInfo to develop an online platform, enabling Signatories to enter and submit their data online. EU/DG ECHO and Germany kindly supported the initiative.

Signatories were asked to report against indicators on quality funding, localisation, participation, risk-sharing, gender, and adoption of caucus outcomes. These indicators had been agreed upon by the Facilitation Group.

By mid-September, 57 Signatories (22 donors, 19 INGOS/Networks, 8 UN agencies, 2 Red Cross/Red Crescent movement organisations, 2 intergovernmental organisations, 4 Local and National NGO/Networks) had submitted their self-reports. Signatories who indicated that the indicators were not applicable to their organisation were excluded from the presented results.
For full transparency, the submitted raw data can be accessed here. Through this link.

Signatories can access a dashboard with visualisations of some of the submitted data. Individual submissions can be accessed on this website. Signatories have the possibility to correct their data by 31 December 2024 by contacting the GB Secretariat.
In this document, the GB Secretariat presents highlights of the reported data while recognising limitations in verifying the accuracy and adherence to existing definitions and methodologies.

Quality Funding

• More multi-year funding (MYF) in the system.

o All donors reported that they provide MYF to their partners, with 10 out of 22 having exceeded 30% of total humanitarian funding. It is worth noting that this represents a significant shift compared to 2015, when only 18 donors had reported providing MYF. 6 donors including DG-ECHO, Ireland, US and Sweden reported having increased their MYF contributions by at least 30% compared to 2021 and 2022, in line with the Quality Funding caucus commitment. Republic of Korea reported having provided MYF for the first time in 2023.

o International aid organisations reported high-levels and/or an increase in the MYF they have received in 2023 (e.g. UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, ICRC, DRC).

o Only 4 out of 7 UN agencies and 10 out of 19 INGOs reported that they are providing multi-year funding to their partners, including LNAs. Annual financial systems are among the reasons mentioned for these low figures. Signatories who submitted their reports after mid-September were not included in these Highlights.

o Some donors as well as several aid organisations continue to face challenges in tracking and reporting the precise volume of multi-year funding provided to partners, especially to LNAs.

o OCHA reported that the pooled funds received 33% of contributions as MYF. It indicated that CBPFs do not currently provide MYF, but that the adoption of this modality is under consideration.

• Flexible arrangements are in place to adapt to crises. 38 out of 51 Signatories reported having at least 3 to 5 “flexibility measures” in place.

• Limited progress on flexible funding.

o 16 out of 22 donors reported that they provided unearmarked and softly earmarked funding, exceeding 30% of their total funding. It is worth noting that back in 2018, only 7 donors had reported having exceeded 30% of total funding.
While some steps were taken to increase softly-earmarked funding, major donors such as DG-ECHO and the US continue to have high levels of tightly earmarked funding.

o 8 out of 27 UN and INGOs reported having received unearmarked and softly earmarked, at the extent of 30 % of total contributions and above.

Localisation

• Localisation the new norm? 44 Signatories (17 out of 22 donors, 17 out of 19 INGOs, 8 out of 8 UN Agencies, and 2 out of 2 Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organisations) reported having developed/changed/adopted or are planning to have localisation funding strategies, policies or practices in place.

• Limits for donors to funding Local and National Actors (LNAs) directly. Most donors report that they are not able to fund local actors directly. New Zealand, Switzerland, United States, Ireland, Republic of Korea, and Czech Republic reported that they do.

• As direct as possible: intermediary partners and pooled funds play an important role.
Most donors continue to rely on intermediary partners to fund LNAs; and pooled funds play an important role. 17 out of 22 donors mentioned CBPFs and other pooled funds as the main instrument for localisation.

• What about the 25% target for funding LNAs ‘as directly as possible’? Four donors reported that they have reached the 25% funding target for LNAs through one intermediary.

• 15 Signatories from aid organisations reported providing at least 25% of funding directly to local state and non-state actors, including UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and – on average – Country Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs). Caveat: adherence to the GB definition in reporting the funding flow to LNAs needs to be further strengthened.

• Overall, tracking of funding for LNAs remains challenging, but internal change is possible. 26 out of 51 Signatories (14 donors, 7 INGOs, 3 UN agencies, 2 RCRC) reported challenges in tracking and reporting funding flows to LNAs and disaggregating between state and non-state actors. Signatories reported that this is mostly due to limitations of internal system, lack of available data, or non-reporting by intermediary partners. However, some Signatories, including 6 donors, 6 INGOS, 5 UN Agencies have reported having developed/changed/adopted or are planning to have a better system in place to track funding for localisation.

• Move towards more overheads for LNAs. 87 % of Signatories reported that they can cover overheads to Local National Actors. Caveat: while there has been significant progress on overheads in recent years, the issue needs to be further unpacked.

• Towards more equitable partnerships. 44 out of 55 Signatories (16 donors, 4 UN agencies, 18 INGOs, 2 RCRC, 4 Local and National Networks) appear to have policies for equitable partnerships in place.

• Participation of LNAs in decision-making fora is increasing.

o Pooled Funds Advisory Boards: in 2023, 18 out of 19 CBPFs had equitable representation of donors, UN agencies, international NGOs, and LNAs on their Advisory Boards. Advisory Boards included 212 representatives, 23% of whom were from LNAs, ensuring equal proportional representation.

o Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs): LNAs participated in 80% of HCTs, up 9% in 2021, moreover, 10% of overall HCT membership globally consists of LNAs.

o Inter Cluster Coordination Groups: LNAs were part of 73% of ICCGs, up from 63% in 2021, making up 11% of total ICCG membership globally.

o Clusters, Sectors, AoRs:

▪ LNA membership in national-level clusters, sectors, and AoRs was 51% globally in 2022, steady compared to 48% in 2021.

▪ At the national level, 37% of clusters, sectors, and AoRs were led or co-led by LNAs in 2022, the same as in 2021.

▪ Strategic Advisory Groups (SAGs) at the national level had NNGOs as members in 95% of clusters, sectors, and AoRs, a 5% increase from 2021.

▪ In technical working groups, 31% had LNAs in leadership roles, a decrease from 36% in 2021.

▪ At the subnational level, 38% of clusters, sectors, and AoRs had LNAs in leadership roles, unchanged from 2021.

Participation and engagement with affected people

• 95% of donors reported that they incentivise their partners to include affected populations; 94% of aid organisations apply policies for engagement with affected people; 74% of aid organisations reported having acted upon feedback from affected people. Caveat: There is incomplete information on how donors incentivise their partners and how organisations are acting upon feedback received from affected people.

• 11 INGOs and 2 donors referenced the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) as an important instrument for participation and engagement with affected people.

Evolving perspective on risk

• More Signatories are thinking about risk differently. Most Signatories report that they have started to think about 'risk' differently within their partnerships. 11 out of 22 donors and 29 out of 33 UN/INGOS/Networks/RCRC report that they have done so. And yet: 27 UN/INGOs/Networks/RCRC report that there has been little to no progress in how risks are being dealt with as part of their partnerships with their respective donors. Caveat: thinking differently about risk it is not only based on the risk-sharing framework as presented in the context of the GB; and there is no data on how this translates into actual partnerships.
Challenges in tracking funding to WLOs/WROs

• Most Signatories reported that they cannot track support or fund directly to womenled local and national actors (WLOs). 15 Signatories (1 donor, 4 UN agencies, 8 INGOs, 2 Local and National Networks) reported a percentage of direct funding to WLOs/WROs.

High level of endorsement of Grand Bargain Caucus outcomes Based on the submitted data, the following levels of endorsement of caucus outcomes have been reached:

• 80% Signatories have endorsed the outcome of the Caucus on Cash Coordination

• 82% Signatories have endorsed the outcome of the Quality Funding Caucus

• 78% Signatories have endorsed the outcome of the Role of Intermediaries

• 73% Signatories have endorsed the outcome on Funding for Localisation

Some Signatories have not endorsed the caucus outcomes for several reasons, including still reviewing the outcomes or assessing potential endorsement. Many focus on core commitments and will only adopt new requirements if they align with existing priorities. Some actively participated in related efforts without formal endorsement, particularly those whose mandates do not align directly with the caucus or who prefer to influence outcomes through alternative channels. Capacity constraints, competing priorities, and specific organisational strategies have also played a role. Additionally, some signatories focus on direct service provision or adhere to their own frameworks and integrate relevant principles into their practices without formally endorsing the caucus outcomes.

Voices from Local and National Actors Networks (A4EP, LOCAL, NEAR,
Feminist Humanitarian Network)
As the self-report did not fully capture the role of these networks, which are not implementing aid organisations, key highlights were extracted from their comments.

• Overall, the local and national networks have observed increasing momentum for direct funding to local organisations, driven by advocacy efforts for greater visibility and more equitable partnerships within the humanitarian system.

• However, they continue to call for increased access to multi-year, flexible funding for local and national actors, enabling them to respond effectively to shifting needs on the ground.

• Community engagement and support for WLOs and gender equality remain priorities.
The local and national networks continue focusing their efforts on improving accountability, ensuring local voices influence program decisions, and advocating for sustained investment in women’s leadership throughout humanitarian actions.

Advancing cross-sector collaboration: Key points from the OECD and World Bank

The Grand Bargain Secretariat adapted the self-reporting process for the World Bank and OECD to better reflect their distinct institutional structure and mandate. Below are the main highlights from their reports, which can be accessed on the Grand Bargain website; OECD and World Bank.

The OECD helped DAC and non-DAC members better implement Nexus practices, monitored the implementation of the DAC Recommendation on the HDP Nexus, and facilitated collaboration through the DAC-UN dialogue on financing for fragile contexts. It also established a helpdesk and developed a Common Position on forced displacement, with a focus on cooperation, localisation, and climate action.

The World Bank strengthened social safety nets, promoted livelihoods, and provided essential services to vulnerable populations while fostering localisation through partnerships with local NGOs. The Bank also integrated humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding efforts, using innovative financing to enhance crisis preparedness and aligning immediate humanitarian responses with long-term development goals, particularly in countries like Yemen,
Afghanistan, and Sudan.