How much funding is the Camp Coordination and Camp Management sector forecast to receive in 2023?
Funding to the Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) sector is forecast to be between $103m and $174m in 2023. Our central estimate is $132m. For reference, the CCCM sector received $55m in 2021, and $67m in 2022.
This forecast is based on our 95% probability range. In other words, we are 95% sure that funding will be between $103m and $174m. Below are the other forecast ranges for the CCCM sector. As we become less sure about our forecast, the range narrows. So for example, we think there’s a 50% probability that funding will be between $121m and $145m.
But we need to put this into context. What does the forecast mean in terms of reaching the funding that is required for the sector (also known as the funding requirement)? The total funding requirement globally is determined by how much is needed in each context. If you hover over the donut below you’ll be able to see the chances of reaching 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the funding that is required.
As the donut shows, we think that it’s highly likely that the CCCM sector will receive 25% of the funding that is required, but there’s only a remote chance of receiving 50% of the funding requirement. As a reference point, the CCCM received only 22% of the funding required last year.
How does the 2023 forecast compare to previous years?
Funding received reached a peak of $114m in 2019, but fell to $83m in 2020, dipped in 2021, and levelled off at $67m in 2022. Our forecast puts the CCCM sector somewhere between 23% and 39% of the projected funding required in 2023. This would put it somewhere around the 2019 level, and the sector could potentially go beyond this figure.
The amount of funding required for Camp Coordination and Camp Management has increased year-on-year since 2017, and now stands at $459m. Compare that to 2017 when the funding required was around $104m. Yet, even with increasing requirements, the funding recorded for CCCM interventions has remained relatively stable.
What this means is that there is an increasing funding gap for CCCM year-on-year. A funding gap of $64m in 2017 has ballooned to a funding gap of $323m in 2022.
We’ve come up with a way of looking at whether funding required is increasing faster than the funding received. In this story, we’ve defined a real humanitarian recession as an increasing funding gap for two consecutive years. CCCM has experienced a closing funding gap in the past year.
We think it’s almost certain there will be real growth (closing the funding gap) this year, and there’s only a remote chance that the sector will continue its real recession (continuing the growing funding gap trend).
How does the 2023 forecast compare to other sectors?
CCCM is set to be ranked as the second least funded sector in 2023, just behind Agriculture. It should also be said that there are other sectors which are not included here because we are not making forecasts for them. These include Agriculture, and Housing Land and Property.
The current state of things
Funding to CCCM so far in 2023 is outpacing the trajectory of previous years. By the end of September 2023, $73m has already been received, compared to $23m at the same point last year.
Turning our attention to previous years of funding, it’s noticeable that the shape of how funding came in through the year tracked close together across the 2018-2022 period. Apart from a stray spike in funding in ‘post-year’ 2019, funding was relatively stable throughout the years – although it is noticeable that funding doesn’t appear to pick up any pace until May in each year.
Features of the CCCM Sector in 2022
The average (median/middle value) percentage of the funding requirement met for CCCM sectors in 2022 was 18% – the average plan being Burkina Faso. This is the third lowest average across all sectors. The context with the greatest proportion of their requirement met was Honduras (62%), followed by Nigeria (33%) and Somalia (33%). It is noticeable that of the 15 contexts that had a CCCM funding requirement, only three (yes…only three) received over 25% of their funding requirement. 6 of the 15 contexts didn’t even receive 10% of funding – although we sincerely hope this is due to a lack of reporting.
The CCCM donor pool has become more dependent on the US Government in the last year. Whereas in 2021 the sector received 16% of its funding from the US, this has now risen to 47% of all funding. Other donors include the UK Government (10%), ECHO (9%), the Nigeria pooled fund (6%), and the Central Emergency Response Fund (5%).
The greater reliance on one donor means that the sector is more concentrated. We can calculate the market concentration using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index. On a scale of 0 to 10,000, a sector is highly unconcentrated with a score over 2,500, and moderately concentrated with a score between 1,500 and 2,500. The CCCM Sector has a score of 2491, indicating it is on the border of moderate and high concentration.
On other hand, though, the pool of organisations receiving CCCM funding is actually more diverse. IOM took 33% of all CCCM funding in 2022, followed by Other (12%), ACTED (8%), and UNHCR (8%). A quick peruse of other sector pages shows that it is not necessarily uncommon for UN agencies and INGOs to vacuum up funding. Yet, in reality, there may be ‘second tier’ recipients of this funding from the likes of IOM, and funding through alternative channels may not be captured here.
The usual health warning: FTS doesn’t capture everything. It is a platform that relies on voluntary reporting by organisations. But it is the most comprehensive source of data for humanitarian funding.
To find out methodology and sources for other things on this page which aren’t the forecast, click here.
Note: Numbers in ‘The current state of things’ graph may differ from elsewhere on the page as the data was extracted on a different date (8th July 2023) than other numbers that also show how much was received (i.e. the column chart).