Building a Stronger, More Predictable Humanitarian Response System

1
Building a Stronger, More Predictable
Humanitarian Response System
Humanitarian Reform Support Unit, OCHA
2

Some Findings from the 2005 Humanitarian Response
Review

• Well-known, long-standing gaps
• Limited linkages between UN and non-UN actors
• Coordination erratic and dependent on
  personalities
• Insufficient accountability (particularly for
  IDPs)
• Donor policies inconsistent

3
Changing Environment for humanitarian operations

• Proliferation of humanitarian actors
• Changing role of the UN (less direct
  implementation, more standard-setting and
  facilitation)
• Competitive funding environment
• Increased public scrutiny of humanitarian action

4
Humanitarian aid NGOs growing in terms of
expenditure
5

PILLARS OF REFORM
CLUSTER APPROACH Adequate capacity and
predictable leadership in all sectors
HUMANITARIAN COORDINATORS Effective leadership
and coordination in humanitarian emergencies
HUMANITARIAN FINANCING Adequate, timely and
flexible financing
PARTNERSHIP ( Cornerstone) Strong partnerships
between UN and non-UN actors
6

• Whose reform?
• Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
• Composed of NGO consortia, Red Cross and Red
  Crescent Movement, IOM, World bank and UN
  agencies

7
PILLAR 1
CLUSTER APPROACH Adequate capacity and
predictable leadership in all sectors

8

Framework for Sector Reform
June 2006 IASC issued Preliminary Guidance Note
(invited comments from all stakeholders) Nov
2006 IASC Interim Self-Assessment of
Implementation of the Cluster Approach in
the Field Dec 2006 IASC issued revised and
endorsed Guidance Note
9
AIM of the cluster approach

• High standards of predictability, accountability
  and partnership in all sectors or areas of
  activity
• More strategic responses
• Better prioritization of available resources

10
The Interim Self-Assessment of the implementation
of the Cluster Approach

• Purpose
• - Progress Report
• How was it conducted?
• - Desk Review
• - In-country Self Assessment / Workshops

11
Findings

• Potential to improve overall effectiveness of
  humanitarian response.
• Helps focus attention on long-standing gaps,
  creating a more predictable response trigger
  (deployment of capacity to address unmet needs)
• Creates a greater spirit of working together

12
Predictable Leadership and gap filling

• More predictable response through triggering
  designated leads
• LEBANON responsible leads for long standing gap
  areas,
• DARFUR lack of leads lead to lengthy
  discussions, delay in response and ad hoc
  solutions
• Challenge
• Reconciling cluster responsibilities with
  agency loyalties.

13
Predictable Leadership and gap filling

• Previously identified gaps in roll-out
  countries are being addressed.
• DRC Water and Sanitation, programme has grown
  from US1 million in 2005 to US13 million in
  2006.
• UGANDA Protection, UNHCR expanding presence in
  the north. DRC, new officers have been deployed.
  MONUC troops protect civilians at request of
  cluster.
• Challenges
• Uncertainty as to how to ensure effective early
  recovery planning
• Well functioning IM critical for gap
  identification and filling
• Lack of guidance lead to improvisation and
  perception of UN centric approach.
• Need for dedicated sector leads, especially in
  new emergencies.

14
Partnership

• Catalyst for frank discussions and senior level
  dialogue.

• Uganda/Somalia NGOs unaware of extent to which
  their HQs are involved in discussions on the
  reform.
• Challenges
• Cluster Approach raised expectations but provided
  few feasible practical recommendations.
• Can individual NGOs represent a unified NGO
  perspective?
• Call for greater clarity on role of organizations
  participating in a cluster.
• Issues of visibility and competition for funding
  an impediment. Donor responsibility to fund
  according to need.
• Role of Governments is key. National authorities
  often overlooked as viable partners.

15
Accountability
Greater clarification now provided in the
Guidance Note

• Somalia/Uganda Still perceive that approach
  demands NGO accountablity to HC or UN.
• Potential for improvements through GHD, Sphere,
  and tools such as CAP, CHAP and HAP.
• Mutual accountability must be earned and built
  through trust.

• Challenges
• More needs to be done to ensure accountability to
  beneficiaries.
• Collective approach to needs assessments and
  analysis required.
• Greater monitoring of programme impact.

16
Strategic Coordination and Prioritization
Existing tools should be used more to strengthen
coordination, planning and prioritization

• DRC Improvements to the Action Plan with
  benchmarks, indicators and thus a more
  systematic approach to collaboration in clusters.
• Uganda NAF used by Food Security as an
  evidence-based foundation for the CHAP.
• Liberia Sector Leads are identifying benchmarks
  for the IASC CT to monitor progress.

• Challenges
• Inconsistent sector leadership, IM systems,
  confusion over difference between cluster and
  sector, two-tiered approach, integration of
  cross-cutting issues.
• Understanding of relationship between global and
  field levels.

17
Strategic Coordination and Prioritization
Effective coordination mechanisms are critical
for the success of the cluster approach

• Designated leads assigned for major areas
• Not an extra layer of coordination, principles
  and standards used to raise performance
• How best to ensure valid participation of
  national and international NGOs
• Forum for integration of cross-cutting issues
• Coordination structures are rationalized to
  improve decision making
• Relief and early recovery are discussed in a
  single forum.

18
When do we use the cluster approach?
19
Major new emergencies

• In the event of a sudden major new emergency
  requiring a multi-sectoral response with the
  participation of a wide range of international
  humanitarian actors, the cluster approach should
  be used from the start in planning and organizing
  the international response.
• The Guidance Note

20
Activation for major new emergency

• Within the first 24 hours
• HC (or RC) consults relevant partners, proposes
  leads for each major area.
• HC sends proposal to ERC
• ERC shares proposal with Global Cluster Leads
• Within 24 hours of receiving proposal from HC
• ERC ensures agreement at global level
• ERC communicates agreement to HC and partners
• HC(or RC) informs host government and all
  partners

21
On-going emergencies
When

• A Humanitarian Coordinator has been appointed.
• Beyond Scope
• Multi-sector response
• Wide range of actors

22
Contingency Planning

• Contingency planning for disaster prone countries
  or for potential major new emergencies which
  involve multi-sectoral responses with the
  participation of a wide range of international
  humanitarian actors

23
What are the role and responsibilities of
Cluster Leads?
24
Terminology

• Each country to decide on appropriate
  terminology, based on the working languages and
  local preferences
• A cluster is essentially a sectoral group

25
Responsibilities of global cluster leads

• Normative
• Standard setting and consolidation of best
  practice
• Build response capacity
• Training and system development at local,
  regional and international levels
• Surge capacity and standby rosters
• Material stockpiles
• Operational Support
• Emergency preparedness
• Advocacy and resource mobilization

26
Global Capacity-Building

• Cluster/Sector Working Group
• Agriculture
• Camp Coordination Camp Mgmt
• Early Recovery
• Education
• Emergency Shelter
• Emergency Telecomms
• Health
• Logistics
• Nutrition
• Protection
• Water, Sanitation Hygiene

• Global Cluster Leads
• FAO
• UNHCR IOM
• UNDP
• UNICEF Save the Children
• UNHCR IFRC (Convenor)
• OCHA (UNICEF WFP)
• WHO
• WFP
• UNICEF
• UNHCR
• UNICEF

27
Global Cluster Appeal

• 2006 Appeal for US 39 million
• (US 27 million received)
• 2007 New Appeal in April
• (approx. US 60 million)

28
Terms of Reference for cluster/sector leads

• Inclusion of key humanitarian partners
• Appropriate coordination mechanisms
• Coordination with national/local authorities,
  local civil society etc.
• Participatory and community-based approaches
• Attention to priority cross-cutting issues (age,
  environment, gender, HIV/AIDS etc)
• Needs assessment and analysis

29

• Emergency preparedness
• Planning and strategy development
• Application of standards
• Monitoring and reporting
• Advocacy and resource mobilization
• Training and capacity building

30
Relationship between clusters at country and
global level

• Global cluster leads are accountable to the ERC
  for carrying out their TORs.
• Field cluster leads do not report to GCLs they
  report to the HC.
• Field clusters should use the GCLS as a resource.
• e.g. advice on global standards policies and
  best practice as well as for operational
  support general guidance and training
  programmes.

31
STICKY ISSUES
32
Accountability

• O How is the HC accountable to the ERC?
•    HC understands the IASCs ToR for HCs.
•  
• Key sectors/areas defined and sector/cluster lead
  agencies designated.
•  
• The designation of these leads is
  communicated to the ERC and all stakeholders.
•  
• Designated leads are specified in the CHAP/CAP
  and other common strategic planning documents.

33
Accountability
How are cluster/sector lead agencies accountable
to the HC?

• Appointment of sector/cluster coordinator
• Lead agency ensures cluster coordinator carries
  out tasks of TORs
• Keeping all informed
• Problems must be resolved by HC and country
  director
• Next level, HC may seek advice and support from
  the ERC

34
Accountability
Are participants in cluster/sector groups
accountable to the cluster/sector lead?

• The cluster approach itself does not require that
  humanitarian actors be held accountable to sector
  leads. Likewise, it does not demand
  accountability of non-UN actors to UN agencies.
• Individual humanitarian organizations can only be
  held accountable to sector leads in cases where
  they have made specific commitments to this
  effect.

35
AccountabilityAccountability to affected
populations

• New commitments to
• Participatory community-based approaches
• Common needs assessments and prioritization
• Enhanced standards
• Common monitoring and evaluation

36
Provider of Last Resort

• Represents commitment of sector leads to do their
  best to ensure adequate and appropriate response.
• As agreed by the IASC Principals, sector leads
  are responsible for acting as the provider of
  last resort (subject to access, security and
  availability of funding) to meet agreed priority
  needs and will be supported by the HC and the ERC
  in their resource mobilization efforts in this
  regard.
• If funds are not available the Cluster Lead
  CANNOT be expected to implement activities.

37
Rationalizing meetings

• Small organizations have limited capacity to
  attend large numbers of individual sectoral
  meetings
• Meetings should be well managed and productive
• Primacy should be given to Humanitarian Country
  Team meetings (at both capital and provincial
  level)
• Some sectoral groups may
• decide to meet collectively
• No unnecessary meetings

38
PILLAR 2
HUMANITARIAN COORDINATORS Effective leadership
and coordination in humanitarian emergencies
39
Strengthening the HC System

• A comprehensive strategy for

• Identifying
• Selecting
• Training
• Mentoring and Support
• Holding Accountable
• individuals that can deliver
• effective leadership in
• humanitarian emergencies

40
Actions to strengthen the HC system

• Establish broad-based humanitarian country teams
• Greater inclusiveness, transparency, and
  ownership in the appointment of Humanitarian
  Coordinators
• RC/HC score card to be developed
• Training and Induction
• Support to HCs during emergencies and in
  transition

41
PILLAR 3
HUMANITARIAN FINANCING Adequate, timely and
flexible financing
42
Actions to improvehumanitarian financing

• Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) initiative
• (being piloted in Burundi and DRC)
• Establishment of CERF
• Other initiatives

43
CERF

• General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/124 decided
  to upgrade the CERF to US 500 million (US 50
  million Loan component plus US 450 million Grant
  component).
• March 06- April 07- Disbursed US 416.7 million
• Fully funded CERF represents 4 of global
  humanitarian funding

44
Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)

• Created to help ensure timely, adequate and
  flexible funding
• Two Windows
• Rapid Response
• Under-Funded Emergencies

45
CERF Criteria

• Funds will target core life-saving activities as
  per the assessment of the RC/HC

• Activities that remedy, mitigate or avert direct
  physical harm or threats to a population or major
  portion thereof
• Also common humanitarian services that are
  necessary to enable life-saving activities

46
CERF Allocations by country
47
Other financing mechanisms

• Emergency Response Funds
• Common Humanitarian Funds

48
The Cornerstone
PARTNERSHIP BUILDING Stronger partnerships
between UN and non-UN actors
49
No single humanitarian agency can cover all
humanitarian needs

• Collaboration is not an option, it is a necessity

50
Government/National Authorities

• The Government has primary role in organizing
  humanitarian assistance in a disaster (GA
  Resolution 46/182).
• Sector/Cluster Lead responsible for promoting
  close cooperation and linkages.
• Where appropriate, should promote training and
  capacity building.
• Influenced by political and security situation.

51
NGO Partnerships Why are they needed?
A changing environment

• Humanitarian response is coming under increasing
  public scrutiny.
• Emergence of new humanitarian actors, military,
  private companies,
• Proliferation of NGOs
• Humanitarian field is becoming increasingly
  crowded

52
The Global Humanitarian Platform

• What is the GHP?
• Forum of NGOs, Red Cross and Red Crescent
  Movement, UN and international organisations.
• Shared responsibility in enhancing the
  effectiveness of humanitarian action

53
The Global Humanitarian Platform

• What is the purpose of the GHP?
• Enhance effectiveness of humanitarian action
• The GHP aims at maximising complementarity based
  on different mandates and mission statements
• Based on the principle of diversity, the GHP does
  not seek to convince humanitarian agencies to
  pursue a single mode of action or work within a
  unique framework.

54
The Global Humanitarian Platform

• What will the GHP do?
• Developing Principles of Partnership, including
  principles such as diversity, mutual respect,
  responsibility, and transparency.
• Invest in implementing the POPs in a number of
  countries.
• Engage in dialogue on strategic issues of common
  concern, including accountability to populations,
  strengthening capacity of local actors, safety
  and security of staff, roles in transition.
• Meet annually.

55
The Global Humanitarian Platform
How will the GHP work?

• Three years
• Steering Committee Process and direction
• Working Level Group Implementation of activities

56
A new culture of partnership can only emerge if
the GHP is a broadly shared initiative that works
on the basis of the same values and principles at
all levels.

• .

57
Partnership Building
Some things to consider

• No right or wrong way to develop
• Respect
• Recognition
• Collaborative and inclusive process
• Avoid excessive unfocused meetings
• Sensitive to reporting
• Complimentarity amongst actors

58
PROGRESS

• IASC Country Teams now a requirement in all
  countries with Humanitarian Coordinators
• Ongoing UN/non-UN dialogue, began with Geneva
  meeting in July 2006

• Humanitarian Community Partnership Teams to be
  piloted in 3 countries

59
Humanitarian Reform Where to go for help?

• Key documents
• Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to
  Strengthen Humanitarian Response
• Specific cluster guidance, provided by global
  cluster leads
• For assistance
• Humanitarian Reform Support Unit hrsu_at_un.org
• CERF Secretariat cerf_at_un.org
• Reform Website www.humanitarianreform.org