How much funding is the Camp Coordination and Camp Management sector forecast to receive in 2022?
Funding to the Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) sector is forecast to be between $38m and $82m in 2022. Our central estimate is $69m. For reference, the CCCM sector received $81m in 2020 and (as of the time of writing) $58m in 2021.
This forecast is based on our 95% probability range. In other words, we are 95% sure that funding will be between $38m and $82m. 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 $59m and $76m.
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. Given that we don’t have the information yet we have projected the funding required for 2022 and compared that to the funding forecast. 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 there’s a remote chance that the CCCM sector will receive even 25% of the funding that is required, let alone anywhere near 50% of the funding requirement. For reference, at the time of writing, the CCCM received only 16% of the funding required last year.
How does the 2022 forecast compare to previous years?
Funding received reached a peak of $114m in 2019, but fell to $81m in 2020, and fell to $58m in 2021. Our forecast puts the CCCM sector somewhere between 10% and 21% of the projected funding required in 2022. This would put it somewhere between the 2020 and 2021 levels, but it is highly unlikely that the sector will reach the heady heights of 2019.
The amount of funding required for Camp Coordination and Camp Management has increased year-on-year since 2017. Our current projected funding requirement (based on the total funding needed in 2022 and CCCM’s ‘envelope’ last year is $390m. Compare that to 2017 when the funding required was approximately $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 $300m in 2021.
The increasing funding gap will have real implications for people receiving (or not receiving as the case may be) humanitarian assistance. According to the CCCM Cluster’s 2020 PIN figures, there were 14 million ‘People in Need’ in 2020. Taking this figure, and the $77m received in 2020, this is the equivalent of $5 received for every person in need. Yet, what was required was approximately $17 for every person in need. If this trend continues into the future, it will mean a widening gap between the amount required to deliver CCCM services, and the amount received in reality.
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 already experienced a growing funding gap in the last two years. Another year of this will keep CCCM in a humanitarian recession.
We think it’s likely there will be real growth (closing the funding gap) this year, and unlikely that the sector will continue its real recession (continuing the growing funding gap trend). This bar will likely shift over the course of the year as more data comes in and we have a better idea if 2022 is going to be a relatively good year for the CCCM sector.
How does the 2022 forecast compare to other sectors?
CCCM is set to be ranked as the third least funded sector in 2021. The sector currently has a 94% chance of being placed 14th. 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
So far in 2022, the sector seems to be doing better than the last two years at a similar point. The sector has received $27m by the end of June 2022, more than the $13m or $19m raised at the same point in the last two year.
2021 funding appears to have plateaued at around $58m. In the last quarter of 2021, CCCM received barely any additional funding. Yet prior to Q4 in 2021 CCCM was doing relatively okay compared to previous years. Sure, it was tracking below previous years since April, but it didn’t go in a different direction until relatively late in the 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 2018-2020 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 2021
The average (median/middle value) percentage of the funding requirement met for CCCM sectors in 2020 was 9% – the average plan being Yemen. The context with the greatest proportion of their requirement met was Zimbabwe (41%), followed by Syria (35%). It is noticeable that of the 19 contexts that had a CCCM funding requirement, only three (yes…only three) received over 25% of their funding requirement; the other context being Ethiopia. 4 of the 19 contexts didn’t even receive 1% of funding – although we sincerely hope this is due to a lack of reporting.
The 9% average requirement met doesn’t benchmark very well compared to other sectors. In fact, it is the fourth lowest average requirement met in 2021, behind only Early Recovery, Emergency Telecommunications and Agriculture.
The inequity in funding received between contexts also puts another figure into greater perspective. Earlier, we noted that on average, $5 was received for every person in need of CCCM assistance in 2020. In reality, given the inequity in where funding is received, this will be higher in some contexts, and lower in others.
The CCCM donor pool has become more diverse in the last year. The top five donors represent 65% of all funding (down from 75% of all funding). The top five donors are the Central Emergency Response Fund (19%), the US Government (16%), ECHO (13%), the Syria Cross Border Humanitarian Fund (10%), and the Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund (8%).
The wider spread of donors than last year means that the sector is less concentrated. We can calculate the market concentration using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index. On a scale of 0 to 10,000, a sector is unconcentrated with a score under 1,500, and moderately concentrated with a score between 1,500 and 2,500. The CCCM Sector has a score of 1086, indicating an unconcentrated sector (compared to a score in 2020 of 1,954 – in other words moving from moderately concentrated to unconcentrated).
On other hand, though, the pool of organisations receiving CCCM funding is somewhat less diverse. IOM take 58% of all CCCM funding, followed by UNHCR who received 6% of overall funding. A quick peruse of other sector pages shows that it is not necessarily uncommon for UN agencies 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. It should also be noted that UNHCR are a co-cluster lead agency along with IOM, so we suspect there may be some funding missing here on the UNHCR side.
Last year’s forecast can’t yet be judged against what the reality was as the 2021 numbers aren’t ‘final’ yet, despite it being 2022 already. It varies year-to-year, but there is still a non-trivial amount of funding that is logged after the end of the year. Therefore, we can’t really judge last year’s forecast until later in 2022. It’s at this point that we’ll do a post-mortem on our 2021 forecasts and see how well we did.
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.