This independent external review examines the Scottish Government’s humanitarian funding system, including the Humanitarian Emergency Fund (HEF) and other funding mechanisms, to assess how it can better respond to global humanitarian crises. It explores current challenges, emerging global trends, and opportunities to strengthen impact through localisation, feminist approaches, and more future-focused funding models.
A key theme of the review is the need for the Scottish Government to consider shifting more support toward pooled funds that are primarily managed by non-UN actors in the Global South. The review suggests this would better align with localisation goals by placing more decision-making power in the hands of organisations closest to affected communities. While such a shift may reduce direct visibility of results or communication opportunities for the government, the review argues these limitations are not substantially different from those in some existing funding streams.
The review highlights the NEAR Change Fund as a strong example of a locally led humanitarian financing mechanism. Established in 2022, the fund operates across 25 priority countries and has already managed more than $6 million, awarding 62 grants typically ranging from $150,000 to $250,000. It was created by the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) with support from the Hilton Foundation and core funding from the Government of Switzerland. Its purpose is to provide fast, efficient, and cost-effective funding directly to frontline local NGOs in the Global South responding to humanitarian emergencies.
The NEAR Change Fund is designed to localise aid by ensuring local organisations lead both the response and the funding decisions. It includes three grant windows: Emergency Response, Displacement, and Bridge Funding. Funding decisions are made by an Oversight Board made up of elected local organisations from NEAR’s membership, rather than by international donors or external actors. This peer-led governance model is intended to move away from top-down aid systems and ensure that funding is shaped by local knowledge, context, and priorities.
The review explains that the NEAR Change Fund uses transparent and demand-driven crisis declarations based on criteria developed by the Oversight Board. These include a country’s Human Development Index ranking, government response capacity, vulnerability to conflict or disasters, the scale of displacement or direct impact, and whether the crisis is receiving adequate international attention. Once a crisis is declared, any pre-qualified NEAR member in the affected country can apply, allowing rapid and context-sensitive access to funds.
The review also examines the Start Fund as another important pooled funding model. Since 2014, the Start Fund has responded to crises in 82 countries and disbursed £157 million. It provides rapid financing for small-to-medium scale underfunded emergencies, anticipated crises, and spikes in protracted crises. The fund is made up of 134 NGOs across six continents, including both international and local organisations, and is supported by donors such as the governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Jersey, and the IKEA Foundation.
The Start Fund is notable for its speed and member-led structure. It can allocate up to £300,000 per proposal and disburses funding within 72 hours after members raise a crisis alert. Although its secretariat is based in the UK, it includes a global network of staff and members, with a significant number of staff based in the Global South. The review notes that some HEF panel members are also part of the Start Network, making it a familiar and potentially relevant model for Scottish Government consideration.
In governance terms, the Start Fund operates through a multi-tiered structure that emphasizes democratic participation, accountability, and operational independence. Its Assembly, made up of all member organisations, serves as the highest governing body and gives equal voting rights to all members. A Board of Trustees provides legal oversight, while the Start Fund Committee is responsible for strategic management and operational funding decisions. Importantly, donors are excluded from direct project selection, helping preserve the independence of humanitarian allocations.
At the same time, the Start Fund includes a Start Network Council where donors participate in risk management and policy oversight rather than funding decisions. This creates a balance between operational independence and donor accountability. The review presents this as a strong example of how pooled funds can combine democratic governance with financial oversight, while still allowing humanitarian actors to respond quickly and impartially.
Beyond these two major examples, the review notes that a range of national and regional pooled humanitarian funds also exist, though they are not fully analysed in the report. These include Kenya’s ASAL Humanitarian Network, which brings together over 30 locally led organisations in arid and semi-arid regions, and the Aid Fund for Syria, which supports humanitarian action linked to rebuilding communities, governance, and social cohesion. These examples show that locally grounded pooled funding models are increasingly being used in different humanitarian contexts.
The review also points to emerging models such as the IFRC National Society Investment Alliance, which provides flexible multi-year funding to strengthen Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the Proximate Fund, a new African-led donor collaborative being developed by NEAR, the African Philanthropy Forum, and Adeso. The Proximate Fund is described as an effort to rethink philanthropy around justice, equity, trust, and decolonisation, though it remains in the design phase and is still seeking seed funding.
Overall, the review suggests that the Scottish Government has an opportunity to modernise its humanitarian funding by investing in more locally led, flexible, and equitable pooled funding mechanisms. By learning from models like the NEAR Change Fund and Start Fund, Scotland could strengthen its humanitarian impact while aligning more closely with global calls for localisation, power-sharing, and more inclusive approaches to crisis response.
