Interviewees in both Jordan and Lebanon quoted efficiency gains in grant management and staff retention through multi-year funding. As with other research on the topic (Levine, et al., 2019; NRC, FAO and OCHA, 2017), these cost savings could not be quantified, but shared views and experiences by donors and implementers were reported.

Both donors and implementers reported that longer funding time frames often ease the administrative burden by simply reducing the number of grant agreements. This in turn reduces the number of contracts to be negotiated, opened, managed and closed. Implementers also noted that this frees up fundraising capacity to focus on securing grants from other donors instead of having to renegotiate with the same donor in the future. Specifically in Jordan, where the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC) needs to approve every project that is funded from international sources, these time savings are even more substantial given the potentially lengthy approval process of up to several months. For a multi-year project, it is possible, though not always the case, to only go through this detailed approval at the outset, avoiding delays faced each year by annually funded activities. Still, most reporting processes are driven by demands through internal accountability processes and therefore marginally influenced by the time frame of grants. There was a consensus that the reporting burden is much more strongly affected by differing requirements across donors. In terms of softly or unearmarked multi-year funds, it came through strongly that certain donors feel they might lose visibility of where and how their funds are directed, making it difficult to be accountable to their parliaments. However, heavy reporting requirements on this funding can in turn limit its utility. One interviewee noted that if a donor of unearmarked funds requires exact numbers of people reached in the reporting, there is no choice but to direct the funds to a specific activity, limiting its value to be spread across programming where gaps arise.

Both donors and implementers noted that MYHFP led to higher staff retention through longer contracts and thereby more internal capacity building. The benefits of greater retention of expertise spilled over into improving effectiveness, though again only anecdotal evidence is available to support this.

Interviewees cited anecdotal evidence for a range of potential and experienced effectiveness gains unlocked by flexible MYHFP. These perspectives from actors in Jordan and Lebanon reflect the established finding that effectiveness gains through MYHFP are not automatic but need to be carefully managed (NRC, FAO and OCHA, 2017; Levine, et al., 2019).

Multi-year programming reportedly enables a continued presence geographically and with a target population. This helps to build trust with affected communities. Implementers note this to be generally beneficial to the response but of particular importance for protection and participatory activities. It was also perceived to benefit processes around accountability to affected populations. A continued presence was also cited to improve the relationships with downstream partners (see Box 3) and responsible government ministries.

A longer time frame of funding and programming also allows for a longer start-up phase, if necessary, with better baselines of the target population’s needs and wider stakeholder consultations. Implementers reported that this improved targeting and coordination with other implementing partners. Long-term programmes might also justify higher start-up costs of logistical infrastructure as returns on those investments are more predictable. This was cited to improve value for money, potentially beyond the duration of the programme for future funding. One donor noted that longer start-up phases to realise the benefits listed above are especially relevant for new approaches, as in a protracted crisis there usually are a range of existing programmes with short start-up phases to support.

Flexible multi-year funding that can be shifted between budget lines and years allowed implementers to adapt programmes based on learning or changing need. In terms of learning processes, respondents found that with a longer time frame of implementation it is feasible to obtain deeper insights through monitoring and evaluation of longitudinal outcome indicators. Several implementers also noted that their large-scale and long-term humanitarian programmes are much more likely to include parallel research or third-party monitoring processes, providing in-depth validation and learning.

There is an opportunity in relatively stable crisis contexts for long-term humanitarian funding to facilitate a transition to a development response where possible. This, however, requires a wider and context-specific discussion with traditional development actors on division of labour. This is to avoid scarce humanitarian resources being increasingly diverted into grey areas of the nexus, while shortfalls in immediate humanitarian need might still be present. Development funding and activities should also extend into this grey area so that the transition of response from humanitarian to development is a process shared by humanitarian and development actors. There is a distinction to be made between MYHF for purely humanitarian activities and MYHF that also targets development outcomes. In some instances, certain humanitarian needs can be addressed more sustainably by a long-term humanitarian response that also tackles their root causes. MYHF then incentivises the design of durable solutions through the predictability it provides.

Most of the evidence provided on perceived or potential improvements in effectiveness through MYHFP is anecdotal. Multiple donors and implementing agencies referenced that they see more meaningful reporting and better results for longer term activities, though these documents tend to remain undisclosed between the two parties.

Some of these aspects (e.g. prevention and policy activities) come back to the question of what the ambition of humanitarian funding is: to respond only to immediate need or to also address its root causes.