Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2021 – Key figures

The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report has been published for over 20 years by Development Initiatives.

It provides a detailed picture of international humanitarian assistance, based on extensive and accurate data. You will find here a summary of 4 of the 5 chapters of this report, the last one being the methodology.

Enjoy your reading!






Find access to the PDF of the full Development Initiatives report here.

Summaries of 2018, 2019 and 2020 GHARs can be found on the Humanitarian Challenges website, in the “Studies” section.

Chapitre 1: People and crisis

This first chapter takes stock of the extent of global poverty in four points. The central message is that the pandemic has both exacerbated existing needs and fueled new crises in countries that did not need humanitarian assistance, increasing the total volume of aid needed.

People living in extreme poverty are increasingly concentrated in fragile countries at high risk from the impacts of Covid-19

Source: Development Initiatives based on World Bank  PovcalNet, national sources, INFORM Index for COVID Risk and OECD.

  • People living in extreme poverty are increasingly concentrated in countries that are fragile and at high risk from the impacts of Covid-19. In 2020, 66% of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.90/day) were also living in one of the 52 countries classified as fragile by the report, up from 40% in 2010. Poverty reduction is progressing overall but is very uneven and has increased by 8% in fragile states.


  • Acute food insecurity disproportionately affects the poorest and has been stimulated by the pandemic. The report estimates that more than 80% of people living in severely food insecure areas live below the international poverty line ($3.20/day).


  • The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbates humanitarian crises, with more people in more countries affected. The pandemic has exacerbated existing crises but has also been the main driver of humanitarian needs in some countries like Iran. The report estimates that 243.8 million people in 75 countries have been assessed as needing humanitarian assistance (224.9 million in 65 countries in 2019). High numbers of people in need remained concentrated in a small number of countries: more than half of those in need in 2021 lived in just nine countries.


  • The number of displaced people increased for the ninth consecutive year to 82.1 million (+3.4%). In 2020, 10 countries hosted 54% of IDPs, a similar proportion to 2019. Many IDPs are in situations of protracted displacement with no possibility of safe return to their homes.
    • 58% were forcibly displaced within the country;
    • 32% were refugees (26.3 million);
    • 5.1% were asylum seekers (4.2 million);
    • 4.4% (3.6 million) were Venezuelans displaced abroad.


20 countries with the largest forcibly displaced populations and risk of impacts from
Covid-19, 2019 and 2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on data from UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Index for Risk Management (INFORM) and Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC).

The report also makes two findings:

  • Women and girls in conflict zones are twice as likely to experience gender-based violence. This gap is likely to increase with the pandemic. The UN estimates that there will be 13 million early child marriages between 2020 and 2030 due to the pandemic.
  • The availability and delivery of covid vaccine has not been equitable, and countries experiencing a protracted crisis have some of the lowest single-dose vaccine coverage rates in the world (2.4% compared to 12.5% in other developing countries covered by COVAX).



Chapitre 2 : Humanitarian and wider crisis financing

In this chapter, the report highlights that in 2020 global humanitarian needs have increased faster than ever, while the growth of humanitarian aid has stalled. International humanitarian aid volumes had been growing steadily over the years 2012 to 2018 (12% per year on average), peaking in 2018 at $31.3 billion.

International humanitarian assistance, 2016–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service, UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and our unique dataset for private contributions.

Funding needs through UN-coordinated appeals were also following a steady increase (+90% compared to 2015). However, actual funding declined for the first time in 5 years. Of the $38.8 billion requested, $18.8 billion (including $5.7 billion related to covid) was not funded, compared to $11.1 billion in 2019.

Of the 55 calls in 2020, only 7 received 75% or more of the required funding. The number of calls with less than a quarter of the funding requirement met worsened significantly in 2020, with 17 calls receiving less than 25% coverage. In 2019, no calls were funded at less than 25%.


Funding and unmet requirements, UN-coordinated appeals, 2011–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS and UNHCR data

The UN-coordinated appeals do not represent all the needs, so significant funding is provided outside of the appeals. For example, in 2020, the needs of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) rose sharply to a record level of over 1 billion, while the funding gap continued to widen (58% coverage).

In addition, the role of the broader development community is increasingly important and countries in crisis now receive far more development funds than humanitarian funds.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) received by countries in crisis has thus increased from 47% of total ODA in 2010 ($51 billion) to 65% in 2019 ($94 billion). The proportion of ODA reported as humanitarian aid has doubled from 15% in 2010 ($7.6 billion) to 29% in 2019 ($27.2 billion).


ODA from multilateral development banks to the 20 largest recipients of humanitarian
assistance, 2010–2019

Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC CRS

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) have become increasingly active in crisis contexts, providing increasing volumes of ODA to countries in crisis.

MDB disbursements to the 20 largest recipients of humanitarian assistance have doubled since 2014, from $5.4 billion to more than $10.7 billion in 2019. However, the share of disbursements in the form of grants has decreased significantly in favor of loans.

For the epidemic response, total MDB financing reached $120 billion in April 2021, 95% of which was in the form of loans. The IMF has been the largest contributor, committing $50.4 billion to date.

Finally, the total volume of ODA with disaster risk reduction as its primary objective has increased from $1.4 billion in 2018 to $1.9 billion in 2019.


Chapitre 3 : donors and recipients of humanitarian and wider crisis financing

This third chapter makes the key finding that most government donors increased their contributions in 2020, but significant reductions by a few key donors caused overall aid to stagnate.

The volume of international humanitarian aid from the top 20 government donors in 2020 stabilized at $23.1 billion. As in previous years, the top 20 public donors in 2020 contributed 96 percent of total international humanitarian aid allocations. The top three donors (US, Germany, and the UK) accounted for 61% of total donor contributions.


20 largest public donors of humanitarian assistance in 2020 and percentage change
from 2019

Source: Development Initiatives based on OCED Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service and UN Central Emergency Response Fund data

The largest donors to Covid-19 were the United States, Germany, and Japan.

It should also be noted that many donor countries also hosted exiles and that most government spending within their own borders is not accounted for. In the previous year, three countries accounted for nearly two-thirds of all in-country refugee spending: Germany (29 percent), the United States (21 percent), and France (13 percent).

Another important indicator highlighted in this chapter is the proportion of gross national income (GNI) devoted to international humanitarian assistance because it reflects the importance of humanitarian spending relative to the size of a country’s economy. Within this framework, five donors provided more than 0.1 percent of GNI as international humanitarian assistance in 2020, as shown in the following infographic.


20 donors providing the most humanitarian assistance as a percentage of GNI, 2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD DAC, UN OCHA FTS, UN CERF, World Bank World Development Indicators and International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook data

The proportion of total private funding from individuals continues to grow. For example, in 2019, international humanitarian aid from private donors increased by 9%, from US$6.2 billion in 2018 to a record $6.8 billion in 2019.

Sources of private international humanitarian assistance, 2015–2019

Source: Development Initiatives based on GHA’s unique dataset of private contributions.

While total international humanitarian aid stagnated, 112 countries received more than $5 million in humanitarian aid compared to 69 countries in 2019. One explanation is that the top 10 recipients received 57% of all funding or $13.3 billion (-11%) in 2020 compared to 66% ($15 billion) in 2019.

In addition, with $1.3 billion provided in response to the pandemic, these countries actually received $12.0 billion for other pre-existing or emerging humanitarian needs in 2020, $3.0 billion less than in 2019.

Overall, countries outside of the top 10 recipients received more funding in 2020 than in 2019, but less if those for Covid-19 are removed.

10 largest recipients of international humanitarian assistance, 2019–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Financial Tracking Service (FTS) data.


CHAPITRE 4 : funding for effectiveness and efficiency

According to this chapter, international humanitarian assistance would have been provided broadly in the same way in 2019 as in previous years: multilateral organizations received most of their funding from public donors, and NGOs from private donors.

Channels of delivery of international humanitarian assistance, 2019

Source: Development Initiatives based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) data and Development Initiatives’ unique dataset for private contributions.

Local and national actors are often the first to respond to crises, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions on access. Commitments made at the Grand Bargain, an agreement among the largest donors and humanitarian agencies in 2016, included a global target of 25% of total international humanitarian aid transferred to local and national actors by 2020. Since then, while the absolute volumes of international humanitarian aid passed directly to local and national actors have increased, the scale of this aid falls far short of expectations.


Direct funding to local and national actors reporting to UN OCHA FTS, 2016–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA FTS data

Pooled funds are an increasingly important part of humanitarian funding because of their responsiveness and flexibility. They consist of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and the Country-based pooled fund (CBPF). Contributions to the UN pooled funds fell sharply in 2020 to $1.5 billion from a record $1.8 billion in 2019.

It should be noted, however, that the proportion of PBC funding to country organizations continues to grow despite the absolute decrease in CBPFs.




Total funding to UN-managed humanitarian pooled funds, 2011−2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on UN OCHA’s CBPF Grant Management System and UN CERF data.

Quality funds (multi-year, unearmarked funding as a proportion of total funding) are another option favored by the Grand Bargain. They should represent 30% of international humanitarian aid by 2020. While they have increased significantly in volume by 2020, as a proportion of total funding, they remain below 2016 levels.

Proportion of resources received by UN agencies reported as earmarked and unearmarked, 2016–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on data provided bilaterally by UN agencies.

Multi-year funding is, according to the Grand Bargain, funding that lasts 24 months or more from the start date of the initial funding agreement. This method of funding provides implementing agencies with predictable resource levels that can allow for efficiencies and effectiveness by allowing them to plan ahead.

15 donors, which provided 84% of total government humanitarian assistance in 2020, allocated 42% (US$6.5 billion) of their multi-year humanitarian funding in 2020 compared to 50% (US$7.3 billion) in 2019.

Finally, the volume of humanitarian cash and voucher assistance (CVA) continued to grow in 2020 across all types of organizations. This method that can be rapidly deployed in suitable areas was often the modality chosen to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic.


Total funding for humanitarian cash and voucher assistance, 2015–2020

Source: Development Initiatives based on data collected with the help of the Cash Learning Partnership from implementing partners and on UN OCHA FTS data

To summarize, here are the key 2020 trends to remember:

– Humanitarian needs are growing: 243.8 million people living in 75 countries have been assessed as needing humanitarian assistance. The Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating and creating humanitarian crises.

– While global humanitarian needs have grown faster than ever, the growth of humanitarian assistance has stalled. Appeal coverage rates are declining.

– Most government donors increased their contributions in 2020, but significant reductions from a small number of key donors have caused overall aid to stagnate. Overall, countries received less funding in 2020 than in 2019, particularly if those for Covid-19 are removed.

– The structure of international humanitarian assistance remains the same: Multilateral organizations received most of their funding from public donors, and NGOs from private donors. The funding commitments made at the Grand Bargain are far from being met.


Rodolphe Rouyer


Development for Peacebuilding: Four Years of Crisis and Conflict Response

After the explosion in the port of Beirut, emergency and long-term relief efforts are being organized. Credit: Ammar Abd Rabbo / AFD

The Minka Peace and Resilience Fund is France’s official development assistance tool dedicated to crisis situations, armed conflicts and the weakening of states and societies, with one objective: to contribute to the construction of a sustainable peace. Led by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) Group, it currently covers, via four Initiatives, the priority crisis areas for France’s foreign policy: the Sahel, the Lake Chad region, the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Middle East. Four years after its launch in 2017, it is time for us to look back at its 2020 results.


A change in mentality and timeframe. The Minka Fund marks a real internal revolution at AFD, with substantial financial resources (nearly 200 million euros per year) and increasingly well-trained teams.  The Agency can now remain operational in crisis and conflict zones and is even launching new projects there. The time seems long gone when AFD had to suspend its operations when a zone was in the red and had no dedicated resources. With the constant ambition of responding to the essential needs of populations, AFD wanted to have a more rapid response capacity, with rapidly visible results. The Minka Fund therefore aims to “achieve initial results in the field within three to six months of allocation”.  In 2020, nearly three quarters of the projects financed by Minka meet this objective.

Under the Minka CAR Initiative, the SAMBBA project is an illustration of this new operating mode. Implemented in three months, it has made it possible to support access to food for marginalised populations and peri-urban market gardening in Berbérati and Bambari. 70% of households in the Bambari area have seen their access to food improve [1] and 79,653 animals have been vaccinated in order to strengthen the resilience of livestock owners with family farms in the region. In Mali and Burkina Faso, the mobilisation of appropriate instruments, such as the crisis intervention tools (OICC), supports this rapid approach with an average appraisal time of two months.

New topics. In this vein, AFD has taken on new issues such as prolonged forced displacement and psychosocial care. For example, in Lebanon, the PNSM project provides technical assistance to the national mental health program, a dedicated university degree and the strengthening of community mental health services. Implemented with the World Health Organisation (WHO), Médecins du Monde (MDM) and the Ecole Supérieure des Affaires (ESA), today 1,888 people have been able to access this care.

The same entrance. Minka projects are always identified as close to the field as possible via AFD’s field agencies and Regional Directorates (RDs). In order to benefit from the Fund, the project must be in line with the intervention logic of the Initiative in the crisis basin concerned. In the Sahel, it will contribute to preventing and curbing violent conflicts by strengthening the social link between communities and confidence between populations and their institutions; in the Lake Chad Basin, to curbing violence and strengthening social cohesion by mitigating the vulnerability factors linked to the Boko Haram crisis; in CAR, to accompany the exit from the crisis and support peace-building; and finally, in the Middle East, to mitigate the vulnerabilities generated by the displacement of populations and strengthen the resilience of host countries (to find out more about this initiative, discover its online photo exhibition).

A new way. Beyond these geographies, Minka is a tool for the future. Although the resource is protected for four defined basins, it has made it possible to export methods and procedures to other areas. AFD has developed financing through calls for “crisis and post-crisis” projects (APCC) applicable to any location that has suffered their consequences over the past 12 months. These modalities specifically target support to civil society organizations or non-profit entities.  Within this framework, a call for projects was won by CARE France for Colombia and Ecuador. These tools provide flexibility that was previously inconceivable for AFD – and which remains so for other donors: the possibility of modifying the budget on the basis of a simple no-objection notice from the Agency, or a “miscellaneous and unforeseen” line that is slightly larger than that of classic AFD projects. This approach aims to go beyond the funder/CSO relationship and move towards a partnership model where project co-instruction is the rule.

Projects, all evaluated, in an adapted manner. The Minka Fund places monitoring-evaluation and accountability at the heart of its identity, thanks to the systematic implementation of monitoring-evaluation mechanisms adapted to fragile or conflict-sensitive contexts. With the help of its partners, these systems allow AFD to adapt the frequency of data collection and analysis. They respond to the challenges of volatility: logical frameworks that are more sensitive to the context and dynamics of conflict and increased accountability to the final beneficiaries of projects. In 2020, the estimate is significant: 6 million additional people have seen their living conditions improve thanks to Minka funding.  Initiative-by-initiative accountability mechanisms are also strengthened. For example, in the Middle East, a platform has been developed to monitor the progress of projects with very precise indicators.

A dedicated team. Reporting to the Director of Operations, the Fragility, Crisis and Conflict Division (CCC) supports the technical, geographical and agency units in monitoring projects, using a multi-sectoral approach. As co-leader of the Minka Peace and Resilience Fund, its mission is to assist teams in appropriating methods specific to crisis zones and to encourage partnerships with actors specialising in these areas. But its mandate does not stop there. Crises, disasters, conflicts… all dimensions of fragility are dealt with by CCC and all geographies can call on it.

SAMBBA project// Credit : Pierre Terdjman /AFD


In 2020, 460 million people will be living in extreme poverty in fragile countries, i.e. almost 80% of the world total.[2] AFD’s historical presence in many regions (more than 70 years in CAR, 60 years in Mali and Niger, 40 years in Haiti, 22 years in the Central African Republic and the Caribbean) means that it has had to adapt to act before, during and after crises and conflicts.

Prevent, mitigate and rebuild. The Minka Fund fits into this timeframe with one objective: to consolidate peace. Preventing a new outbreak of crises or its spread based on warning signs (such as the expansion of abuses by armed groups), mitigating the effects of conflict on vulnerable populations (such as the situation of protracted mass displacement) and rebuilding in a more sustainable and secure manner (after conflict-related destruction, for example). In Iraq, the PERMA project (’10 million), with Mercy Corps, Triangle Génération Humanitaire and Public Aid Organization, is helping to revive the rural and agricultural economy in the Nineveh Governorate. Today, 15,800 animals have been treated in mobile veterinary clinics and nearly 2,000 farmers will eventually be supported. The Minka projects therefore address both the determinants and the direct consequences of the crisis.

With humanitarian actors, of course. In four years, AFD has made the humanitarian-development nexus a major focus of its efforts. It is now central to Minka projects in volatile contexts and often with strong security issues. 43% of the Minka Fund’s commitments go to French, international and local civil society organisations (CSOs). [3] Humanitarian actors are unique partners in understanding and accessing these territories. This cooperation also allows humanitarian organisations to benefit from multi-year funding (three to four years), to go beyond the direct provision of goods and services, to be part of a long-term dynamic and to strengthen the capacities of local actors.

*Distribution of commitments by project owner over the period 2017-2020

  • French, international and locals OSC : 43%
  • Governments : 32% 
  • French and international operators : 11%
  • International Organisations and other funders : 6% 
  • Others : 4%
  • Private Sector : 2%


Continuous learning. AFD has learned a great deal from emergency actors, which has inspired the implementation of adapted procedures to allow for a more rapid appraisal. AFD and its Fragilities, Crises and Conflicts team evaluate these measures on an annual basis with a view to continuous improvement. The explosion in the port of Beirut in August 2020 is a perfect example of AFD’s reactive response capacity while at the same time being part of a development logic where, in the framework of the Minka Middle East Initiative, AFD mobilized an additional 13 million euros in a few weeks to help the city recover. Moreover, in line with the Humanitarian Emergency Fund’s actions, AFD’s first activities started four months after the disaster.[4] Beyond this major event, in Lebanon, AFD has for example taken over the post-flood emergency action of the Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) by financing a long-term component of a risk prevention project.

AFD platform. In the framework of Minka projects, AFD works in a Group format – alongside Expertise France and Proparco – and as a French team, hand in hand with diplomatic, defense, research, humanitarian and stabilization actors. The CDCS is a key partner: where AFD will have medium- to long-term tools to deal with the protracted consequences of crises and their underlying causes (feelings of marginalisation of certain socio-economic groups, exclusion of youth in a society in transition, etc.), the CDSC will be the actor best able to carry out emergency and stabilisation actions. The final beneficiaries and the funded actors may be similar, but the means and logics of intervention will be different, as they are complementary. Exchanges are regular, from the field to Paris, with the establishment of links between their projects. For example, in Irbid, Jordan, the CDCS financed the first phase of a drinking water programme and the AFD the second.


A capacity to adapt to any situation – even the COVID-19. Minka projects leave no one behind and systematically support actions that benefit the most vulnerable – marginalized groups, refugees, displaced persons and host populations. Strong attention is also paid to the specific needs of women in conflict contexts – 78% of Minka projects have a gender equality objective, making AFD one of the main contributors to the “Women, Peace and Security” agenda. The inclusion of youth is also central. For example, the MediaSahel project (nine million euros) in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, with the French Media Development Agency (CFI), has enabled 169 partner radio stations to broadcast 3 962 programmes in 10 languages to inform and encourage citizen debate. In response to Covid-19, 392 videos and programmes were also broadcast to combat the spread of the virus. The pandemic and the difficulties of accessing the field make inter-actor coordination even more important. Minka projects have taken this into consideration and have adapted. For example, the ADELAC project (10 million euros) in Chad, with the International Rescue Committee (IRC-UK[5]), raised awareness among 27,613 people about prevention measures in the face of the epidemic, in addition to gender-based violence, 79% of whom were women and children.

MediaSahel Project // Credit: Studio Tamani / Hirondelle Fundation

The HDP nexus. Studying ways to implement the humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus in the field, under the best conditions for each stakeholder, is also one of AFD’s challenges with the Minka Fund. In the framework of its actions to prevent conflicts, increase conflict sensitivity and strengthen social cohesion, far from positioning itself as a tool for defence, Minka projects ensure respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) and the constraints of its partners. The definition of this nexus does not always meet with consensus. AFD’s approach is more in line with a humanitarian-development nexus “enhanced” by a dimension of conflict sensitivity. Many examples of its Minka projects are part of this vision: WASH Menaka with the International Rescue Committee, DIZA with Concern & Caritas or RESILAC with Action Contre la Faim and CARE.


“In the absence of rapid, significant and solid measures, the combination of the VCT-19 pandemic and the weight of conflict and climate change will put the achievement of the MDGs and the end of poverty by 2030(1) out of reach.”

Geographically. As the main operator for implementing France’s development policy, AFD has a central role to play in preventing and limiting the consequences of crises and conflicts. The Pathways to Peace report[6]  and many other studies since then have shown how development actors must contribute to this. However, not at any cost: by learning from their partners who have been present in these areas for many years. 653 million allocated since its launch in 2017

Is this enough to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals? The question remains for MDG16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, ensure access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Without coordination, it is certain that we will not.  This is the meaning of AFD’s investment in the Sahel Alliance, its coordination as a French team, with other European and international donors. Minka is a significant means of creating leverage effects. In Lebanon, in addition to the 59 million euros from the Fund, nearly 100 million euros have been mobilized from the European Union.

In line with the CICID commitments, most of the Minka Fund goes to the Minka Sahel Initiative (almost half of its commitments over the 2017-2020 period, and African initiatives account for around two-thirds of commitments). While 2019 was an exceptional year, 2020 saw a decrease in funding, but on the Minka Sahel Initiative, it has been safeguarded. Continued support to continue development actions in this area where the number of internally displaced people has quadrupled since 2019, from 490,000 to more than 2 million, 80% of whom are women and children[7] ; where 8.9 million people have suffered from acute food insecurity; where access to essential social services has decreased: 3,891 schools and 150 health centres were closed[8], or non-functional, in the Liptako-Gourma region alone.

The last third of commitments is for the Minka Middle East Initiative in support of the Syrian and Iraqi crises where, in line with the position of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, AFD does not operate directly in Syria. The political conditions do not allow for effective development or recovery aid in line with the “do no harm” principle.

At the thematic level. Because the health situation catalyses the consequences of existing crises, particularly on the most vulnerable populations, in 2021 Minka will continue to support health and socio-economic inclusion projects for young people. Because actions in support of the protection of women, the consideration of their specific needs and their participation in peacebuilding projects must remain central, in 2021 Minka will continue to spearhead the “Women, Peace and Security” agenda.

Because 2021 is a key year for living together and for peace, the promotion of human rights and justice, and the achievement of the MDGs, the French Development Agency will be there with the Minka Peace and Resilience Fund, alongside its partners.

Jean-Bertrand Mothes, Head of the Fragility, Crisis and Conflict Division (CCC) of the French Development Agency


[1] Percentage calculated on the basis of their Food Consumption Score (FCS)

[2] OECD (2020), Fragile States

[3] These figures total AFD’s consortia lead partners. The share of funds channelled through French, and especially local, NGOs is underestimated.

[4] Main financial instrument of the CDCS

[5] IRC-UK is leading a consortium of NGOs formed with COOPI, I&D and PADIESE.

[6] 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433

[7] UNHCR (2021)

[8] OCHA (2020)