Supporting Syria and the region: Post-Brussels conference financial tracking Report Four October 217
Contents On 5 April 217, representatives of over 7 countries, international organisations and civil society came together in Brussels for the Supporting the future of Syria and the region conference (Brussels conference) to build on momentum from the previous London and Kuwait conferences and mobilise funding to respond to the needs of the people affected by the Syria crisis. The EU, Germany, Kuwait, Norway, Qatar, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United Nations (UN) co-chaired this fifth pledging conference for Syria and the region. Multi-year pledges were made for the 217 22 period and amounted to almost US$1 billion in grants, including US$6 billion for 217 alone. International financial institutions and donors also announced almost US$3 billion in loans. This report summarises progress against pledges made by donors at the Brussels conference to respond to needs in Syria and in the neighbouring refugee-hosting countries Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. This is the fourth report in a series which tracks financial contributions against pledges made in 216 and 217 in response to the Syria crisis. This report presents an overview of the pledges made in April at the Brussels conference and a breakdown of grant and loan contributions as of 29 September 217. Information was gathered directly from donors, and supplemented by Brussels conference documentation and data from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) s Financial Tracking Service (FTS). A glossary of the terms used throughout is given at the end of the report, as are details of the data sources and methodology employed. 1. Overview 3 2. Progress by recipient 4 3. In focus: Donor contributions to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as well as inside Syria 7 4. Progress by donor 1 5. Contributions by sector 14 6. Contributions by channel of delivery 15 7. UN-coordinated appeals 16 Annex 1: Glossary 18 Annex 2: Data sources and methodology 2 Endnotes 21 2
1. Overview 1. Overview At the Brussels conference, donors pledged a total of US$9.7 billion in grants for the four-year period 217 22: US$6. billion for 217 and US$3.7 billion for the following three years. 1 By the end of the third quarter of 217, just over 88% of the pledge total for the year has been met, 2 with contributions of US$5.3 billion. At present, contributions remain US$.7 billion short of the pledges made at the conference in April 217. A further US$1.6 billion in grants has been contributed 3 for the upcoming three years, representing 43% of forwardlooking pledges met. Combined, this means that six months on from the Brussels conference, 71% of grants pledges for the 217 22 period have been met, with contributions of US$6.9 billion. 4 As some donors budget allocations are yet to be finalised and some may have different disbursement and reporting cycles, further details on planned contributions for 217 and the remaining 218 22 period are yet to be made available. In terms of loans, US$3 billion was pledged at the Brussels conference for the 217 22 period, of which US$2.3 billion was on concessional terms. The data reported so far shows that donors have made available 14% of the total loans pledged, totalling US$4.3 billion and including at least US$864 million that is concessional in nature. However, full details on the terms of concessionality of specific loans are not yet available. 5 FIGURE 1.1: Funding contributed against funding pledged, a) grants 217, b) grants 218 22, c) loans 217 22 US$ BILLIONS 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Pledges Contributions 6. 5.3 3.7 3. Grants 217 Grants 218 22 Loans 217 22 1.6 4.3 Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217, the Co-chair s declaration annex: fundraising and UN OCHA s FTS. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: Pledges represent those reported at the time of the Brussels conference and do not include subsequent revisions or additions. Total pledges may differ from the sum of pledges when disaggregated by recipient country. Where available, figures provided directly to Development Initiatives were used for calculating contributions; otherwise, FTS data has been used. The pledges reported in original currencies have been converted to US$ using the UN s Operational Rates as of 1 April 217. Contributions reported in original currencies have been converted to US$ using a 217 average of the UN s Operational Rates. Contributions refer to the sum of all funds reported as committed, contracted and disbursed see glossary. Contributions for 218 22 are based on data provided by donors in 217 on contributions known at that time. Data is partial and preliminary. 3
2. Progress by recipient 2. Progress by recipient Grant contributions reported by donors totalled US$5.3 billion by the end of September 217. The majority of these contributions (63%) have gone to the responses in Syria, Turkey and Lebanon combined. A quarter (25%) has been directed to the response in Syria alone, equating to US$1.3 billion. So far in 217, the response in Turkey has received US$1.1 billion, in Lebanon US$894 million and in Jordan US$692 million. The remaining country-allocated contributions have been delivered to the response in Iraq (US$38 million) and Egypt (US$31 million). It is likely that responses in these countries have received more funding directly, but exact quantities are unknown due to the way in which funding is reported to the regional response or without a specified country. Just under a fifth (17%) of contributions were reported without country allocable detail; of these US$612 million has been reported as multi-country and US$221 million has been directed to the regional response. Where contributions to a country exceed original pledges, this may be due to a lack of disaggregated pledge data or the original pledge not specifying a destination country. FIGURE 2.1: Grant contributions against pledges by recipient country, 217 3, 2,5 Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed Unmet pledges 12% 88% 2,634 2, Contributions 1,5 1, 5 1,39 521 1,98 1,71 958 663 894 612 368 692 46 254 38 9 253 469 181 534 22 31 221 321 2 219 128 15 36 216 15 26 557 23 312 2 216 179 85 1 15 93 Turkey Syria Lebanon Jordan Iraq Egypt Multicountry Region 17 17 Not defined Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: Data is partial and preliminary. Not defined includes a portion of funding where data by recipient country was not specified bilaterally by donors. Some data in this chart has been shown as committed because it is not yet known how much has been contracted and disbursed to each recipient country. Where contributions to a country exceed original pledges, this may be because of a lack of country-specific pledges at the time of the conference or a lack of disaggregated pledge data reported as part of this exercise. 4
2. Progress by recipient FIGURE 2.2: Grant contributions against pledges by recipient country, 218 22 2,5 Unmet pledges 2, Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed 57% 43% 2,196 Contributions 1,5 1, 745 634 4 629.1 5 38 345 194 193 75 77 194 36 3 67 155 12 43 58 73 1.5 152 75 67 121 159 32 24 2 19.5 59 1.5 6 47 Jordan Lebanon Syria Iraq Turkey Egypt Multi-country Region Not defined Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217. Notes: Data is partial and preliminary. Not defined includes a portion of funding where data on recipient country was not specified bilaterally by donors. So far, donors have reported US$1.6 billion in grants for the 218 22 period. More than a fifth (21%) of these forward-looking contributions have been directed towards the response in Jordan (US$345 million). Furthermore, of the 218 22 total, 12% will go towards the response inside Syria (US$194 million); 12% has been contributed to the response in Lebanon (US$194 million); 5% has been contributed to the response in each of Turkey (US$77 million) and Iraq (US$75 million), 6 and less than 1% to that in Egypt (US$1.5 million). defined accounting for 39% of total contributions (US$634 million) for the 218 22 period. Where contributions to a country exceed original pledges, this again may be due to a lack of disaggregated pledge data or the original pledge not specifying a destination country. While some donors may have made allocations specifically for 218, the majority of funds so far are only confirmed for the 218 22 window, with the year(s) not specified. Almost half (45%) of forwardlooking contributions do not yet specify a recipient country, with not 5
2. Progress by recipient A total of US$3 billion in loans to refugee-hosting countries in the region was pledged at the Brussels conference for the 217 22 period. Recipient details have not yet been provided for 7% of loan pledges made at the conference (US$2.9 billion), where this detail has been provided the majority has been reported as region and less than 1% of all pledges have been directed towards Jordan and Lebanon (.2%). Donors have so far reported US$4.3 billion in loans in 217, of which the response in Turkey received the most (US$1.5 billion) at 36% of total loan contributions; followed by that in Lebanon (US$1.1 billion, 25%), Egypt (US$93 million, 21%) and Jordan (US$531 million, 12%). A further US$262 million has been made available by donors, but the recipients are yet to be defined. No loan contributions have been reported for the response in Syria or Iraq. Loan concessionality can be defined as the benefit to the borrower when compared with a loan at market rate (see glossary). According to the data available, 2% of the loans contributed so far in 217 were made on a concessional basis (US$864 million). A further 22% were made on non-concessional terms (US$965 million) with the terms and levels of concessionality of the remaining loans (US$2.5 billion) still to be defined. FIGURE 2.3: Loan contributions against pledges by recipient country, 217 22 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed 9,23 531 1,89 53 81 7 279 21 27 21 1,541 995 545 93 745 158 2,889 Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217. Notes: Contributions refers to 217 only, data is not yet available for the 218 22 period. 262 262 Region Jordan Lebanon Turkey Egypt Not defined FIGURE 2.4: Loan contributions against pledges by recipient country, by loan concessionality, 217 22 25, 2, 15, 1, Pledges Concessional contributions Non-concessional contributions Unspecified contributions 9,23 2,889 5, 1,541 1,89 531 78 761 518 345 93 571 185 1 21 27 262 Egypt Turkey Lebanon Jordan Region Not defined Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217. Notes: Contributions data is for 217 only; data is not yet available for the 218 22 period. 6
3. In focus: Donor contributions to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria 3. In focus: Donor contributions to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as well as inside Syria Total contributions to the response in Jordan have reached US$1.2 billion so far in 217: US$692 million (57%) in grants and US$531 million (43%) in loans. Germany is the largest grant contributor, providing US$222 million so far in 217, followed by EU institutions (US$99 million), and the UK (US$86 million). Further to these grant contributions; the World Bank has provided US$2 million in loans to the response in Jordan, followed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (US$178 million) and Italy (US$145 million). FIGURE 3.1: Grant and loan contributions to Jordan, by donor, 217 25 222 2 2 178 Grants Loans 15 1 99 86 145 63 5 43 36 3 3 22 15 12 11 5. 4.3 3.2 3. 2.8 1.2 1.8.7.3.3.3.2.3.1 6.8.7 Germany EU institutions UK Canada Japan Netherlands UAE US Norway Australia Italy Switzerland France Belgium Czech Republic Spain World Bank Denmark Austria Qatar Luxembourg Estonia Finland Ireland Slovenia China World Bank EBRD Italy Netherlands EIB Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: EBRD: European Bank of Reconstruction and Development; EIB: European Investment Bank; UAE: United Arab Emirates; UK: United Kingdom; US: United States. 7
3. In focus: Donor contributions to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria FIGURE 3.2: Grant and loan contributions to Lebanon, by donor, 217 6 5 Grants Loans 571 47 4 3 39 2 154 133 1 73 5 49 3 2 18 13 12 12 5.4 2.9 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1.9.5.3.2.5.2 48 Germany EU institutions UK US Canada Norway Netherlands Italy Japan Switzerland Australia France Belgium UAE Ireland Finland Hungary Spain China Denmark Austria Czech Republic Estonia Iceland Luxembourg Slovenia EIB World Bank Italy Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Donor contributions to the response in Lebanon amount to US$2. billion, with US$1.1 billion (55%) delivered in the form of loans, of which the European Investment Bank (EIB) contributed over half (US$571 million). The remaining US$894 million (45%) was provided in grants; for which the largest donors were Germany (US$39 million), EU institutions (US$154 million) and the UK (US$133 million). Contributions to the response in Turkey have reached US$2.6 billion so far in 217 (see Figure 3.3 on the following page); the majority of which (58%) has been provided in the form of loans. Almost half (49%) of loan contributions came from the EIB, contributing US$761 million so far. 8
3. In focus: Donor contributions to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria A further US$1.1 billion was directed to the response in Turkey in the form of grants; the EU institutions are so far the largest grant donor to Turkey, providing US$659 million (6% of grant contributions). A large part of the contributions to Turkey from the EU institutions are provided through the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey. 7 The next largest contributors are the UK (US$156 million) and Germany (US$14 million). FIGURE 3.3: Grant and loan contributions to Turkey, by donor, 217 8 7 659 6 5 4 3 Grants Loans 761 683 By the end of September 217, donors had provided US$1.3 billion in contributions to fund the response within Syria. So far, Germany has provided the largest share (29%), contributing US$385 million, followed by the UK (16%, US$214 million) and Norway (13%, US$171 million). Based on available data, no loans have so far been pledged or reported to Syria for 217 or for the 218 22 period. 2 1 EU institutions 156 14 UK Germany 31 18 13 7.8 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.7.6.1 22 18 12 5.7 2.6 2.5 1.8.8.2.1 Denmark Austria Japan US Finland Norway Belgium Romania Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Bulgaria Netherlands Hungary Lithuania Canada Switzerland France Slovenia Luxembourg China Iceland Estonia EIB 97 World Bank EBRD FIGURE 3.4: Grant contributions to Syria, by donor, 217 45 4 385 35 3 25 2 214 171 164 15 1 5 Germany UK Norway EU institutions 77 Japan 71 Canada 48 US 34 Switzerland 28 Netherlands 13 25 Qatar Italy 12 Finland 11 Australia 7.7 7.4 4.3 2.4 2. 1.3.1.1 9.8 7.5 6. 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.1.1.1 Belgium France Hungary UAE Kuwait Spain Denmark Czech Republic Austria Ireland China Luxembourg Iceland Latvia Bulgaria Malta Korea.1.2.4 Estonia Slovenia Lithuania Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. 9
4. Progress by donor 4. Progress by donor The Brussels conference donors have contributed US$5.3 billion so far in 217 against their pledges to Syria and the region, according to available data. This includes funds reported as committed, contracted and disbursed. 8 Of the 42 conference grant donors, 2 have made contributions in 217 for as much as or more than they pledged in April at the Brussels conference. 9 FIGURE 4.1: Grant contributions against pledges by donor, 217 Germany 1,394 168 268 841 EU institutions 1,369 631 254 273 UK 626 325 266 US 566 77 Canada 274 23 Norway 269 91 17 Japan 26 266 Netherlands NGO Consortium Kuwait Qatar France Sweden UAE Switzerland Denmark Italy All other donors 171 15 1 1 81 73 68 66 62 5 282 21 2.9 14 25 61 42 14 7.6 2 41 66 25 26 33 51 43 4 38 4.3 161 Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217, the Co-chairs declaration annex: fundraising and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: The World Bank and the EBRD did not pledge any grants at the Brussels conference but are included in this chart as they subsequently made grant contributions. Where data was unavailable from donors, the FTS voluntary reporting mechanism was used. FTS data primarily captures humanitarian funding and more funding may have been contributed to the region that is not recorded on FTS. FTS data is used for China, France, Korea, Kuwait, Malta and Qatar. Australia and Italy have met their 217 pledges; this is not visible in the chart or table due to differences in exchange rate conversions to US$ of the pledges and contributions. 2 4 6 8 1, 1,2 1,4 1
4. Progress by donor TABLE 4.1: All other donors, US$ millions Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed Contributed % met Australia 4 1.5-38 39 98% Belgium 38-26 12 38 11% Finland 38 1.1 5.7 26 33 88% China 29 - - 5. 5. 17% EBRD - 28 - - 28 - Ireland 27-28 28 13% Austria 26 9. - 17 26 1% Portugal 18 - - - - % Korea 14 - -.1.1 1% Hungary 1 7. 2.2 2.5 12 116% Czech Republic 8.3 - - 8.9 8.9 18% Luxembourg 8.1 3.9-4.2 8.1 1% Spain 8..1.4 8.6 9.1 114% World Bank - 5.8 - - 5.8 - Poland 5.4-6.4-6.4 119% Slovakia 3. - - - - % Bulgaria 2.8 - - 2.9 2.9 14% Lithuania 2.5 1. - 1.5 2.5 1% Estonia 2.2 - - 1.7 1.7 79% Iceland 2.2 - - 1.5 1.5 69% Liechtenstein.4 - - - - % Croatia.2 - - - - % Romania.2 3.7-2.3 5.9 2,755% Latvia.1.1 -.1.1 1% Malta.1 - -.1.1 1% Cyprus.1 - -.6.6 1,183% Slovenia.3.3.1.7 1.1 3,462% EU member states and EU institutions total 4,21.8 873.5 958.2 1,688.6 3,52.3 88% 11
4. Progress by donor For the 218 22 period, US$3.7 billion was pledged by donors at the conference. Of the 42 conference grant donors, 26 made pledges for beyond 217. Almost three-quarters (73%) of the forwardlooking pledges were made by Germany, the UK, EU institutions and Norway, totalling US$2.7 billion. So far, Germany has provided the largest amount of forward-looking funding, at US$783 million, followed by the UK (US$628 million) and Australia (US$85 million). Some donors such as the EU institutions have not yet delivered on their pledges beyond 217 because of the annuality of their budget cycles. FIGURE 4.2: Grant contributions against pledges by donor, 218 22 Germany 96 48 375 UK EU institutions Norway 626 628 62 585 Canada Australia NGO Consortium 125 35 129 7 14.1 Sweden Kuwait All other donors 122 1 227 6 61 Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1, TABLE 4.2: All other donors, US$ millions Pledged Committed Contracted Contributed % met France 63 - - - % Italy 48 - - - % Netherlands 27 - - - % Luxembourg 24 24.2-24.2 1% Switzerland 2-6.2 6.2 294% Austria 17 17.2-17.2 1% Finland 8.6 8.6-8.6 1% Iceland 5.3 - - - % Czech Republic 4.2 4.3-4.3 14% Hungary 2.5 2.5-2.5 1% Bulgaria 1.7 1.7-1.7 1% Lithuania 1.5 1.5-1.5 1% Estonia 1.4 1.4-1.4 1% Croatia.6 - - - % Romania.6 - - - % Slovenia.3 - - - % Liechtenstein.2 - - - % EU member states and EU institutions total 2,457 436 1,36 1,472 6% Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217, the Co-chair s declaration annex: fundraising and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: Due to variations in the exchange rate to US$ since the time of the Brussels conference, some donors are recorded as marginally exceeding their pledge. 12
4. Progress by donor Multilateral development banks have so far provided the overwhelming majority of loan contributions, (95%, US$4.1 billion). The remaining 5% have been provided by Italy and the Netherlands. The EIB has contributed the largest volume of loans so far for the period, providing US$2.5 billion (58% of total contributions). It is possible that more loans have been contributed, but not yet reported. Of the US$3 billion in loans pledged at the Brussels conference, US$2.3 billion was pledged on concessional terms. Full details of pledged and contributed loans from the multilateral development banks, including their degree of concessionality and timeframes, are still to be finalised. Based on available data so far on contributions, the World Bank has provided the largest volume of concessional loans; contributing US$67 million, followed by Italy, who has committed US$194 million in concessional loans. FIGURE 4.3: Loan contributions against pledges by donor, 217 22 EIB EBRD World Bank Italy Netherlands 276 875 248 194 25 6.8 1,332 1,253 21 982 262 8,56 14,51 Pledged Committed Contracted Disbursed 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, 12, 14, 16, Source: Development Initiatives based data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and the Co-chairs declaration annex: fundraising. Notes: Pledge data is taken from the conference annex. Some Brussels conference loan pledges may include a portion of those at the London conference. Contributions refer to 217 only; no contributions data is yet available for the 218 22 period. The pledged amounts for EBRD refer to countries of operation that have experienced refugee influx; committed amount refer directly to EBRD refugee response. This chart only includes donors that have reported contributions and does not include all donors who made loan pledges at the Brussels conference. FIGURE 4.4: Loan contributions against pledges by donor, by loan concessionality, 217 22 EIB 2,497 14,51 EBRD 276 8,56 World Bank 875 683 67 Italy Netherlands 248 194 25 6.8 Pledges Concessional contributions Non-concessional contributions Unspecified contributions 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, 12, 14, 16, Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and the Co-chair s declaration annex: fundraising. Notes: Pledge data is taken from the conference annex. Some Brussels conference loan pledges may include a portion of those made at the London conference. Contributions refer to 217 only; no contributions data is yet available for the 218 22 period. The pledged amounts for EBRD refer to countries of operation that experienced refugee influx; committed amounts refer directly to EBRD refugee response. This chart only includes donors that have reported contributions and does not include all donors who made loans pledges at the Brussels conference. 13
5. Contributions by sector 5. Contributions by sector FIGURE 5.1: Grant contributions by sector, 217 Social and cultural infrastructure US$119m Shelter and non-food items US$172m Remaining sectors under US$1m US$25m Other US$25m Water and sanitation US$16m Multi-sector US$1,178m Economic recovery and infrastructure (including agriculture, mine action and livelihoods) US$749m Protection/human rights/ rule of law US$274m Food US$641m Health US$343m Not yet specified US$379m Education US$462m Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: Remaining sectors under US$1m includes: coordination and support services (US$96 million), governance and civil society (US$47 million), unearmarked (US$44 million) and general budget support (US$18 million). For more than a third (US$1.9 billion) of grant contributions in 217 to date, there is no sectoral detail available. Around two-thirds of those funds (US$1.2 billion) are multisectoral, 14% (US$25 million) are towards sectors other than those listed in Annex 2, 2% (US$44 million) are unearmarked contributions and the remaining 2% (US$379 million) have not been assigned to a sector yet or the information was not provided. Where sector information is available, most grant contributions have gone towards economic recovery and infrastructure, which also includes agriculture, mine action and livelihoods (25%, US$749 million). The food and education sectors have received 21% (US$641 million) and 15% (US$462 million) of the total specified grant contributions respectively. Of the loan contributions with sectoral information, more FIGURE 5.2: Loan contributions by sector, 217 Transport and ICT 7% Energy and extractives 8.7% Finance and markets 1% Health, nutrition and population 16%.2% Economic recovery and infrastructure (including agriculture, mine action and livelihoods) 35% Macro and fiscal management 22% Social, urban, rural and resilience Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217. Notes: Data is partial and preliminary as full details on sector disaggregation are not available. than a third (35%, US$1 billion) have targeted macro and fiscal management. A further US$633 million (22%) has gone towards the social, urban, rural and resilience sector, while US$47 million (16%) has been directed to health, nutrition and population. 14
6. Contributions by channel of delivery 6. Contributions by channel of delivery FIGURE 6.1: Grant contributions by channel of delivery to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt, 217 29% Other channels of delivery UN agencies 53% 13% NGOs 3.5% RCRC 1.3% Government institutions.9% Private sector Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by donors in 217 and UN OCHA FTS data. Data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: NGOs: non-governmental organisations; RCRC: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. In the first three-quarters of 217, more than half of grant contributions have been channelled through UN agencies (53%, US$2.6 billion). A further 13% or US$627 million was channelled directly to NGOs and 3.5% or US$173 million by member organisations of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Partner country governments and the private sector received US$65 million (1.3%) and US$41 million (.9%) respectively. Close to US$1.4 billion (29%) of grant contributions went towards other channels of delivery, which include the EU-managed Facility for Refugees in Turkey as well as other financial institutions, funds and organisations for which no detail is available. 15
7. UN-coordinated appeals 7. UN-coordinated appeals The Syria Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) responds to the humanitarian needs within Syria throughout 217 across a number of sectors. A second appeal, the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) covers protection and humanitarian needs as well as aiming to strengthen resilience in the neighbouring countries of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. As of September 217, the aggregate funding towards these two appeals amounted to US$3.5 billion, leaving a funding gap of US$4.5 billion. The coverage for the Syria HRP and the 3RP appeals was at 37% and 49% respectively. 1 Since 1 July, the 3RP recorded a significant increase in coverage, amounting to US$2.3 billion (up by 26 percentage points); the remaining funding gap was US$2.4 billion. Over the same period, a further 8% of the HRP has been covered, with contributions amounting to US$1.2 billion, and unmet requirements remaining at US$2.1 billion. By the start of October 217, twothirds of the combined appeals requirements were left unmet. According to UN OCHA FTS, total commitments/contributions outside the two Syria-specific UN appeals stood at US$1.4 billion. FIGURE 7.1: Requirements and contributions for Syria-related UN-coordinated appeals, 217 5, 4,5 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 3,351 2,12 37% 4,633 2,357 2,276 49% % of requirements met Unmet requirements Requirements met 1, 5 1,232 Syria HRP 217 Syria 3RP 217 Source: Development Initiatives based on UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 3RP Interagency Funding snapshot as of 11 October 217 11 and UN OCHA FTS data. FTS data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: The US$4.6 billion requirement is the original 3RP requirements figure. This does not include US$943 million in multi-year funds. Further details on contributions for the US$943 million figure are not currently available. For more information see UNHCR s Regional Overview. 16
7. UN-coordinated appeals Of the funds reported outside the appeals to UN OCHA FTS, 57% (US$85 million) have been directed to the response in Turkey and close to a quarter (23%, US$322 million) to Syria. Of the total contributions towards the Syria crisis both inside and outside the UN appeals, just less than a third (32%, US$1.6 billion) have gone to the response in Syria and almost a quarter (US$1.1 billion) to that in Turkey. 12 A number of reasons may explain the volumes of funding recorded outside UN-coordinated appeals. The appeals do not cover all needs or include all agencies; some implementing organisations are part of the UN appeal framework; and large funding envelopes may be recorded outside appeals initially and those records may be amended retrospectively and logged against appeal requirements once partners are contracted and information is reported in detail to FTS. Additionally, and more broadly, not all the pledges delivered following the Brussels conference contributed towards UN-coordinated appeals, notably because the protracted nature of the crisis and the associated complex response saw a range of financing instruments, delivery channels and implementation modalities used by donors. The EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey is just one example of this. Some of them, however, did support the priority sectors identified in the appeals. FIGURE 7.2: Funding inside and outside the Syria-related UN-coordinated appeals, by country, 217 4, 3,5 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 3,58 331 497 62 686 1,232 Inside appeals 43 99 1,46 131 322 Outside appeals Source: Development Initiatives based on UNHCR 3RP Interagency Funding snapshot as of 11 October 217 13 and UN OCHA FTS data. FTS data downloaded 27 September 217. Notes: Contribution figures may not match data provided bilaterally by donors. Regional funding includes contributions that have not yet been allocated to a specific country, both in and outside appeals. Some of these contributions may be attributed to a specific destination country once more detail becomes available. The US$4.6 billion requirement is the original 3RP requirements figure. This figure does not include US$943 million in multi-year funds. Further details on contributions for the US$943 million figure are not currently available. For more information see UNHCR s Regional Overview. 85 3 14 5 81 Egypt Iraq Turkey Jordan Lebanon Region Syria 17
Annex 1: Glossary Annex 1: Glossary TERM DEFINITION Commitment Contract Contributions Disbursement A firm plan expressed in writing and backed by the necessary funds, carried out by an official donor to provide specified assistance to a recipient country government, organisation or implementing agency. In this report, commitments refer to funds that have been committed but not yet contracted or disbursed. A binding agreement signed between a donor and a recipient implementing institution, organisation or agency to implement an action. Funds can then be disbursed on this basis. In the context of this report, contracted funding refers to those funds which have been contracted but not yet disbursed. For the purpose of this report, contributions is used as a general term to refer to the sum of all funds reported as committed, contracted and disbursed. Outgoing funds that are transferred to a recipient institution, organisation or agency, following a commitment and/ or a contract. In this report, disbursements refer to funds disbursed from the donor to the first level recipient, not to the funds which are ultimately spent at the project level. Grant Funding for which no repayment is required. Loans Loan concessionality level Loans concessional Loans non-concessional Multi-country Funding for which the recipient incurs a legal debt. The concessionality level of a loan reflects the benefit to the borrower compared with a loan at market rate. Concessional loans benefits can include a lower interest rate, a longer period in which the loan has to be repaid or a delay to when the repayment has to begin. The World Bank s concessional loans typically meet International Development Association equivalent lending terms, which carry no or low interest rates. If a loan is highly concessional, it will typically have a grant element of at least 35% with a discount rate of 5%. The World Bank s non-concessional loans will typically be based on the International Bank for Reconstruction And Development (IBRD) s marketbased rates. Pledges and funding labelled as multi-country in this report refer to instances where funding is directed (or will be directed) to two or more (but not all) specified countries in the Syria region. This differs from pledges and funding labelled as going to the region, which is specified as funding for the regional response by donors and may go to all countries in the region; as well as not defined, which refers to pledges and funding where no country or regional detail has been provided. 18
Annex 1: Glossary TERM Multi-sector Multilateral development banks Pledge Recipient country Region Unearmarked UN-coordinated appeals DEFINITION In the context of sectoral disaggregation of grants and for the purposes of this report, multi-sector refers primarily to projects and activities with no one dominant sector, and often applies to assistance for refugees provided and/or coordinated by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This definition is in line with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee s (IASC) sectoral definitions. Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are supranational institutions established by a group of countries with the common task of fostering economic and social progress in developing countries by financing projects (in the form of loans or grants), supporting investment, generating capital and providing technical expertise. A non-binding announcement of an intended contribution or allocation by donors. Here, pledges refer to those made at the London Conference. The report includes analysis of pledges and funding by recipient country. This includes direct funding to the governments of recipient countries, as well as funding channelled through organisations working in the country, such as the UN, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the private sector. In the context of the London Conference, this refers to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. In this report, unearmarked refers to funding that is deliberately not directed to any particular sector by the donor. This differs from sector not specified where details of sector-specific allocation are not available from the reports provided by the donors. Humanitarian response plans and appeals, usually coordinated by UNOCHA or UNHCR, through which national, regional and international relief systems mobilise to respond to selected major or complex emergencies that require a system-wide response to humanitarian crises. Not all international humanitarian organisations take part in UN-coordinated appeal processes, notably ICRC and Médecins Sans Frontières do not. 19
Annex 2: Data sources and methodology Annex 2: Data sources and methodology Information on pledges by donor has been taken from the Co-chair s declaration - annex: fundraising. Supporting the future of Syria and the region (Brussels, 5 April 217). 14 Subsequent pledges, or significant revisions to the volume or distribution of pledges made after the Brussels conference have not been included in this analysis. Additional disaggregated data on pledges and contributions by recipient country, by year, by sector or by channel of delivery was gathered directly from donors in 217 using an online form (shown on the next page). Breakdowns of current levels of contributed funding are provided using data shared directly by donors via the same form wherever possible. Where data was unavailable from donors, data reported to UN OCHA s FTS voluntary reporting mechanism was used. The allocation of contributions by year for the 218 22 period is likely to change as further data becomes available. The data presented in the report is in current prices. The pledges reported in original currencies have been converted to US$ using the UN s Operational Rates as of 1st April 217. Where figures in US$ were available in the Conference Annex, these were used as such. Contributions reported in original currencies have been converted to US$ using a 217 average of the UN s Operational Rates. UN appeal information is taken from UNHCR funding snapshots for the Syria Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan 217 and from UN OCHA s FTS for the Syria Humanitarian Response Plan 217. Pledges and contributions to the Facility for Refugees in Turkey are included in figures for Turkey and not shown separately as in previous reports. These funds are recorded under multi-sector and other channels of delivery. Analysis of grant sectors in the report uses sector classifications that are specific to this tracking project. The classification of sectors is informed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee sectors and purpose codes, the IASC 15 standard sectors, and sector classifications used by specific government and multilateral donors. The sector classification seeks to align different sector classifications to the fullest extent possible under the following headings: Education Health Water and sanitation Governance and civil society Social and cultural infrastructure Economic recovery and infrastructure (including agriculture, mine action and livelihoods) General budget support Food Coordination and support services Protection/human rights/rule of law Shelter and non-food items Multi-sector Unearmarked Not yet specified. Volumes of funding that do not fall under any of these sector categories are combined into other. In addition, sectoral classifications of loans include the World Bank sectors macro and fiscal management, transport and information and communication technologies, energy and extractives, social, urban, rural resilience and finance and markets. 2
POST-BRUSSELS CONFERENCE FINANCIAL TRACKING: REPORT FOUR Endnotes Endnotes 2 Pledge met means it has been committed, contracted or disbursed. Grants total for 217 includes US$33 million in contributions from the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development combined; neither of these donors made grants pledges at the Brussels conference. 3 This report uses contributions to refer to the sum of all funds reported as committed, contracted and disbursed. Forward-looking funding uses the same term, but in general only refers to funding that has been committed or contracted as disbursements for future years are yet to be made. 4 See note 2. 5 Loan terms are generally negotiated on a case-by-case basis and 6 may be needed to facilitate better reporting. way in which contributions are reported to Development Initiatives and a reduction in the level of detail provided. 7 The EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey is a coordinating mechanism for the mobilisation of EU assistance to refugees in Turkey. It ensures as humanitarian assistance or not, to ensure that the needs of refugees and host communities are addressed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. It coordinates a 3 billion budget to be contracted in 216 217. This is made up of 1 billion from the EU budget and 2 billion in additional funding from member states. Their contributions are made directly to the EU General Budget in the form of external assigned revenue pursuant to Article 21(2) (b) of the EU Financial Regulation. An overview of member states contributions to the Facility is available at: http://www.consilium. europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/216/2/3-refugee-facility-forturkey/. For more information on the EU Facility see: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/news_corner/ migration_en 9 This includes Australia and Italy; due to exchange rate variations, contributions fall marginally short of the pledge. 1 See data sources and methodology (Annex 2) for sources of UN appeal data. Funding updates for the Syria 3RP 217 appeal are available at: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php 11 Continuously updated funding information is available at: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php 12 Contributions inside the 3RP appeal are sourced from UNHCR data. Contributions inside the Syria HRP and outside appeals are sourced from FTS. 13 See note 9. 14 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/217/4/ pdf/syriaconf217-pledging-statement_pdf/ 15 The IASC is the primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination of humanitarian assistance involving key UN and non-un humanitarian partners.