State of the Humanitarian System 2022 | Briefing: COVID-19

A printer friendly PDF version of this briefing is available for you to download from the sidebar.

Summary 

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically increased humanitarian requirements, with more people in need of humanitarian support in more countries. Funding increased but was not sufficient to meet needs, and record requirements were met with record shortfalls. The humanitarian response was largely agile and effective, but the protection response was initially weak and there were missed opportunities to lastingly transform ways of working, particularly around localisation and coordination. 

The COVID-19 pandemic drove a steep rise in humanitarian needs 

• Global excess deaths (the difference between the expected number of deaths, given pre-existing parameters, and actual numbers of deaths) were estimated at 14.9 million between January 2020 and December 2021, with nearly 53% of these in lower-middle-income countries. 
• Gains in poverty reduction were reversed by the economic impacts of the pandemic, with an estimated 97 million people pushed below the extreme poverty line. 
• The humanitarian system was braced for a catastrophic level of transmission in crisis settings but in most cases this did not appear to happen, although data collection was unreliable in many vulnerable settings. 
• Humanitarian needs were often a consequence of the secondary impacts of the pandemic, rather than the direct health threat of the virus. In Venezuela, the coincidence of COVID-19, hyper-inflation and pre-existing food shortages drove a major increase in malnutrition throughout 2020. In the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh, lockdown measures meant that ‘non-essential’ activities were suspended and aid workers left, or were prevented from entering. 
• In some cases, including Yemen, COVID-19 restrictions were used as a pretext to limit humanitarian access. In others, including Syria, existing access constraints blocked health supplies. 

Funding rose but was insufficient  

• Requirements for humanitarian assistance rose to a record US$39.3 billion in 2020, including a US$9.5 billion global humanitarian response plan (GHRP) for the COVID-19 pandemic.   
• The humanitarian appeals sought to reach more people in more countries, and the COVID-19 response saw the number of appeals rise from 36 in 2019, to 56 in 2020. This included the GHRP, which in turn covered 63 countries. 
• Although donors increased their contributions to address the impacts of the pandemic, the rise was insufficient, creating a record low level of funding and placing pressure on other crises. For example, Yemen’s share of international humanitarian assistance nearly halved: having received 16.4% of humanitarian assistance funding in 2019, in 2020 it received 9.2%. 

The humanitarian system proved agile and responsive 

• The humanitarian system’s model of tight coordination and quick appeals mobilisation worked in its favour. Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) guidance and protocols were swiftly produced and actioned, large-scale logistics operations launched, and some agencies made rapid agreements to secure vaccines for vulnerable and marginalised communities. 
• The first ever agreement was signed between the IASC and the COVAX facility, aiming to secure vaccines for vulnerable and marginalised communities in humanitarian contexts. 
• Learning from the Ebola outbreak response, the system worked closely with the private sector and with religious leaders and institutions to reach communities with healthcare messaging and PPE. 
• Agencies scaled up cash responses and in many countries linked their cash programming to national social protection schemes, generating new connections and learning on shock-responsive social protection. 

The COVID-19 pandemic did not transform the humanitarian system 

• Lockdown measures triggered a surge in protection cases, but lessons from the Ebola outbreak went unheeded, and protection was not a central element of the COVID-19 response from the outset. For example, refugees left without protection and assistance in Bangladesh reported a significant increase in kidnappings, murders and rape. 
• Although the pandemic prompted a greater reliance on national staff, there was little evidence that it catalysed a transformative power shift to local actors. 
• Connectedness across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus in the COVID-19 response was patchy rather than strategic and explicit. Although there were positive examples of collaboration including around social protection, there was not a transformation of ways of working at the system level. 
• Donors responded with an adaptable approach to the use of funds, but although this demonstrated the potential for flexible funding, there was scepticism that it has changed funding models in the longer term. 
• There was a missed opportunity for coordination. Despite post-Ebola intentions for the WHO and UNOCHA to work more closely together in major health crises, two separate appeals were launched instead of a unified call for support. At the wider multilateral level, no coherent global leadership emerged to coordinate the response to COVID-19, exemplified by the failure of governments to share vaccines. 

About ALNAP’s State of the Humanitarian System report 

Humanitarian action can be a lifeline to people experiencing the worst that conflict and disaster can inflict. For over a decade, ALNAP’s State of the Humanitarian System report (SOHS) has provided a unique, evidence‑based understanding of the system and how well it works for affected people. Based on a huge body of evidence including exclusive research with crisis-affected people and practitioners, SOHS addresses key questions about performance and effectiveness in areas such as hunger and mortality reduction, as well as giving a comprehensive picture of funding, resource flows, staffing and organisations. Consultations with people affected by crises were central to the research from the outset, and shaped the focus of the report. This edition of the SOHS looks at the period from January 2018 to December 2021 - a period that encompassed the global COVID-19 pandemic as well as multiple armed conflicts - and draws comparisons with previous editions to take the long view on trends, accomplishments and challenges in the humanitarian system.