For more details on Methodology click here. For more details on terminology click here.
All graphs on this page are interactive, hover over them to see more.
Last Updated 6th January 2024.

How much funding is the Emergency Shelter and Non Food Items (NFI) Sector forecast to receive in 2023?

Funding to the Emergency Shelter and NFI sector is forecast to be between $1.5bn and $2.0bn in 2023. Our central estimate is $1.7bn. For reference, the Emergency Shelter and NFI sector received $1.1bn last year.

This forecast is based on our 95% probability range. In other words, we are 95% sure that funding will be in this range. Below are the other forecast ranges for the Emergency Shelter and NFI 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 $1.6bn and $1.8bn.

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.

We think that it’s almost certain that the Emergency Shelter and NFI sector will reach 25% of the funding required in 2022, but only a remote chance of reaching 50%.

How does the 2023 forecast compare to previous years?

Our forecast is that the Emergency Shelter and NFI will receive between 38% and 49% of the funding requirement. But our central estimate is that there will be $1.7bn of funding for the sector.

This would be a huge uplift since 2021, when the sector received $477m. In particular, this leap would be a huge departure from the steadiness of the sector in previous years. Funding fluctuated between $427m and $477m between 2016 and 2021.

The forecasted increase in funding is also reflected in how much funding is needed to the sector. $4bn is needed in 2023, compared to only $1.8bn in 2020.

And despite the uplift in both funding needed and funding received in 2022, the funding gap to the sector is quite stable. The percentage of funding requirement met between 2016 and 2022 fluctuates between the narrow range of 19% and 32%.

In this story, we’ve defined a real humanitarian recession as two consecutive years of a growing funding gap. Currently, the Emergency Shelter and NFI sector has experienced one year of real growth, in other words: a narrowing funding gap. So what are the odds of the sector that the sector will continue on this trajectory?

We think that it’s almost certain that the sector will experience real growth (closing the funding gap) again in 2023, whilst there’s a remote chance that the sector will experience real negative growth (a growing funding gap).

How does the 2023 forecast compare to other sectors?

Compared to other sectors, we think that the Emergency Shelter and NFI will rank at 5th of 17 sectors. The central estimate is $1.7bn, just ahead of Nutrition in 6th place.

The current state of things

The Emergency Shelter and NFI sector recorded $1.4bn by the end of the 2023 calendar year – more than the total amount received in 2022 ($1.1bn)

This reflects the year-on-year trend in the growth of sector funding. At the end of 2022, funding to the sector reached over double the same point in previous years ($1.1bn in 2022 vs $463m in 2021).

Looking at how funding has flowed to the sector, we can see how similar it is each year – except the most recent two. This is slightly unusual when compared to other sectors, and reflects the previous stability of the sector as noted previously.

Features of the Emergency Shelter and NFI Sector in 2022

The average funding requirement was only 25% met in 2022. This isn’t great, but it is the average when compared to other sectors (the median is 25% across sectors). Within the sector, there are some success stories. The Ukraine Flash Appeal (72%), Chad (61%), CAR (55%), Mali (54%). Nigeria (54%), Mozambique (53%), and oPt (51%) all received over 50% of their requirement.

However, the number of success stories is outweighed by the number of sectors without adequate funding. Most contexts didn’t even receive 25% of what they asked for. One question this raises is: why is there such inequity in funding across contexts? What factors influence whether a country receives less or more funding? We will soon be producing an inequity index to measure this. Perhaps a context receives a small amount of funding for the sector only because the overall appeal isn’t well-funded. Alternatively, perhaps the inequity reflects the size of the funding requirement, with smaller funding requirements likely to be more funded due to the smaller overall amounts required? We’ll go into further detail on this in the Stories section in the future.

The Emergency Shelter and NFI sector is a very diverse sector in terms of funding: no one donor contributed more than 14% of the sector’s overall funding. The top donors to the sector in 2022 included the US Government (39%), ECHO (10%), the German Government (6%), and the Central Emergency Response Fund (5%). These donors contribute 60% of the sector’s funding in total. There are also another 59donors contributing around 40% of funding to the sector.

We can try to calculate just how diverse the sector is using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index. On a scale of 0 to 10,000, a sector is unconcentrated and competitive with a score under 1,000 or 1,500. The Emergency Shelter and NFI Sector has a score of 1890, indicating a moderately concenrated sector.

Previously, the sector had a lower score, indicating a greater diversity of funding sources. However, the higher score reflects the fact that US funding balooned from $65m in 2021, to $471m in 2022. Therefore, the lack of diversity of funding is actually a good news story in that it reflects more funding coming online in particular from one donor. However, this does carry the risk that the sector could become too dependent on the US Government.

On the recipient side of things, two UN agencies dominate: IOM and UNHCR. More than 50% goes to these two UN agencies, followed by ‘Other’ (in other words we cannot tell exactly where that funding went), the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and UNRWA.


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.

For forecast methodology, click here. We’ll be keeping a record of all our forecasts and success over time, which you can find here.

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).