Who would benefit from a 33% increase in country-based pooled funds?

Mostly OCHA I think. A quick back of the envelope calculation shows OCHA could benefit a lot from management fees (my assumptions in comments below). This proposal centralises power when we should be shifting and sharing it. For donors it’s low-effort option.

But this is not a good solution for local actors. Funding from CBPFs is unpredictable and short term. You cant run an organisation or a system on CBPFs. CBPFs are effective because critical responsive capabilities and functions are paid for with predictable funding from elsewhere. Thats the funding we have lost, that local and national actors need most, and that we need for an efficient and responsive system.

Instead, we need “A rebalanced, inclusive, and diverse pooled funding landscape, one where CBPFs, NGO-led funds, regional mechanisms, thematic pools work together and complement each other to serve communities in crisis. Only by embracing this diversity can we build a more effective, equitable, and resilient humanitarian system for the future.”

Thank you ICVA Network for your thoughtful analysis and doing the work of consulting with key actors currently excluded from these critical decisions that will reshape the system for years to come.

Read their new paper on this topic here.

---

Originally posted on LinkedIn.