STRENTHENING HUMANITARIAN REPONSE Building a Stronger, More Predictable Humanitarian Response System

Objective of the presentation To provide a general update on the main elements of the Humanitarian Reform Gain a better understanding of how the various elements interlink Its no longer a reform but rather ‘the way we do business’

Changing Environment: Demands for humanitarian relief are likely to grow Increase in diverse and fragmented range of humanitarian actors Finance- food- fuel

Challenges include : Capacity and coherence of action will need to increase Competitive funding environment Challenges in maintaining necessary humanitarian space and independence Increased public scrutiny of humanitarian action

Why did we need humanitarian reform? Findings from the 2005 Humanitarian Response Review Well-known, long-standing gaps Unpredictable capacity Ad-hoc responses Erratic coordination, weak partnerships Insufficient accountability among humanitarian agencies Donor policies inconsistent

STRENGTHENING HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE CAPACITY & PREDICTABAILITY Enhance humanitarian response capacity Predictability, Accountability and Partnership STRENGTHENING HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE FINANCING LEADERSHIP CAPACITY & PREDICTABAILITY The Humanitarian Reform Agenda aims to dramatically enhance humanitarian response capacity, predictability, accountability and partnership. It is an ambitious effort by the international humanitarian community to reach more beneficiaries, with more comprehensive, needs-based relief and protection, in a more effective and timely manner. The reform packages has four main objectives: Sufficient humanitarian reform capacity and enhanced leadership, accountability and predictability in 9 'gap' sectors/areas or response. (see Cluster Leadership Approach) Adequate, timely and flexible humanitarian financing. (see CERF) Improved humanitarian coordination and leadership. (IASC Principals Meeting of April 2006: approved Action Plan on Strengthening the Humanitarian Coordination System) More effective partnerships between UN and non-UN humanitarian actors. PARTNERSHIPS

Support to national authorities Humanitarian coordination in support of government leadership of response Strengthening preparedness and contingency planning Clusters structure in support of and partnership with government structures Dialogue and coordination at sectoral level with government counterparts Dialogue and coordination through RC or HC

The Way We Do Business… Way of working: National Authorities/ governments Preparedness Support to national capacity National Authorities/ governments sectors Support to Coordination Clusters Inter cluster coordination Support to Coordination Roll out HCT Guidelines development to ensue broad representation and substantive discussion Humanitarian Country Team HCT Guidelines HC strengthening Resident Coordinator Humanitarian Coordinator Principles of Partnership

Strengthening Partnerships and Support to Coordination

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Whose reform? Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Composed of NGO consortia, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, IOM, World Bank and UN agencies Why Partnership? Humanitarian agencies acknowledge that no single agency can cover all humanitarian needs A recognition that IASC led reform needed broader support from all partners

Based on what Principles? Partnership is the foundation of the Humanitarian Reform Equality Transparency Results Oriented Approach Responsibility Complementarity Humanitarian agencies acknowledge that no single agency can cover all humanitarian needs and that, as such, because of interdependence, collaboration is an essential element of humanitarian response. The idea for the GHP came up as a ‘reaction’ to the UN-led humanitarian reform process. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), as the major body for humanitarian coordination, was (is) too UN-centric.

A ‘Process’: To create change in the way we do ‘business’, Moving away from contractual relationships Understanding what are our commonalities and differences? What expectations do we have of each other? Not only UN vis à vis non-UN Raising awareness within individual organisations including integration into policies and administrative procedures Guidance on application of the principles to be developed by each organization Dissemination of the principles to partners that are not directly represented within the WLG or the SC Application of the principles in a practical manner in order for partnership, structures and mechanisms to be adapted. Final objective being more effective humanitarian action

How to improve partnerships? Preparedness HC selection and appraisal HCT Clusters CERF/ Humanitarian Financing

Strengthening Leadership: the Humanitarian Coordination System Effective leadership and coordination in humanitarian emergencies

Humanitarian Leadership Policy Development HC Selection Professional Development Knowledge Management Accountability

Predictable Humanitarian Financing Adequate, timely and flexible financing

What is good humanitarian financing? Plurality, diversity and complementarity of funding mechanisms (majority of funds are bilateral grants) Predictable, impartial, equitable, timely Ensure UN and non- UN have equitable and transparent modalities to obtain funding Strategies and channels should not inhibit or be to the detriment of partnerships. Principles and good practices of humanitarian donorship form part of the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) initiative. CERF, ERF, CHF- pooled funds that are not earmarked and aim to improve predictability, equity and timely funding for humanitarian response. Country based funding tools are adaptable to different contexts. One size does not fit all…. Different actors, different types of response.

Humanitarian Financing components: Demand (requirements): Needs Analysis Framework Consolidated and Flash Appeals Financial Tracking System Supply ($): Bilateral Funding (project based + core funding) Humanitarian Pooled Funds: CERF, ERFs, and CHFs Emergency reserves for UN agencies, IOM and IFRC (DREF) Emergency cash grant (OCHA) or TRAC 1.1.3 (UNDP) Explain the demand vs supply side of humanitarian financing Successful interaction among the supply and demand sides depends on the degree of coordination, complementarity and strategic planning at the country level. In conjunction with humanitarian financing mechanisms managed by the HC, UN agencies (UNICEF – Emergency Programme Fund, FAO - Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities, UNHCR - Operational Reserve, WFP - Immediate Response Account) use their emergency reserves are used to finance initial needs in any given emergency operation in accordance with their mandates. These emergency reserves function as internal revolving loan mechanisms or they may provide emergency allocations at the onset of a new crisis. Oftentimes these internal reserves complement funding from pooled funds like CERF. The Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF) of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies allocates funds to smaller scale disasters for which international appeals are not launched.

Humanitarian Pooled Funds (HC managed): CERF Global Target: $500m (both loan and grant elements) CHFs Country level (Sudan, DRC and CAR) ERFs (12 active funds) See WORD document for notes.

Central Emergency Response Fund: 2 elements, 2 windows Loan element ($50m) Grant element ($450m): rapid response window (2/3) under-funded window (1/3) Two year evaluation findings of the Fund: proved itself as a valuable and impartial tool. made considerable progress towards improving the timeliness of initial response to sudden-onset emergencies and correcting inequities of humanitarian funding of ‘neglected’ emergencies. served as a catalyst for improved field-level coordination, and evidence-based prioritization. CERF is an integral part of the Humanitarian Reform as it contributes to: more timely and predictable humanitarian financing to ensure and enable a prompt response to new or rapidly deteriorating crises by providing stand-by funds reinforces the leadership role of the HC/RC reinforces cluster approach (project vetting/prioritization) Upgraded in 2006 (first established in 1992) through a General Assembly Resolution (A/RES/60/124) to ensure a predictable and timely response to humanitarian emergencies, based on demonstrable needs and on priorities identified by HC/RCs in consultation with humanitarian country teams. CERF loan: if funding is committed but not yet paid, or if other funding sources are immediately available or pledged. Loans may be provided for up to one year (loan procedures are posted on the CERF website). CERF grants: if no other funding source is immediately available, including agencies’ own unearmarked agency funds and earmarked donor grants. Grants are requested through the HC/RC and can be provided to UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies, as well as the IOM (as per GA Resolution). While NGOs cannot apply directly for CERF funds, they should participate in the project prioritization and selection process as part of the IASC/humanitarian CT and they can receive funds as partners of UN agencies and IOM. Objectives of the grant element: Promote early action and response to reduce loss of life [RR] Enhance response to time-critical requirements [RR] Strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in under-funded crisis. [UFE] [Close with two year evaluation findings]

Ensuring Capacity & Predictability: the Cluster Approach Adequate capacity and predictable leadership in all sectors

Predictability, Accountability and Partnership Better support to national-led response efforts Common standards and tools Predictable stockpiles and trained expertise Unified interface for Governments, donors & other actors “First port of call” and “provider of last resort” Mainstreaming Gender, HIV/AIDS, Environment Commitment to Monitoring & Evaluation AIM - high standards of predictability, accountability and partnership in all sectors or areas of activity - more strategic responses - better prioritization of available resources Terminology: Each country to decide on appropriate terminology, based on the working languages and local preferences A “cluster” is essentially a “sectoral group” Responsibility of global cluster leads: Standard setting Building response capacity Providing operational support

Quantitatively- Field Roll-Out In total, the cluster approach has been used in more than 30 countries since 2006. In 2009, application of the cluster approach should be standard practice in all countries with HC and in all major new emergencies. Country level cluster leads may not opt out of certain provisions of the cluster approach, such as “accountability” or “partnerships” or “provider of last resort.” There is no such thing as a “cluster lite” approach.  

Qualitatively Capacity of all sector/cluster lead agencies and coordinators needs to be strengthened Increasingly effective leadership from RC and HCs Ensuring that IASC-agreed procedures are followed Focus often remains on UN Country Team rather than HCT Continued support and prioritize strengthened contingency planning is required Qualitatively, progress has also been made, but there is still a long way to go. It will take time to Training and capacity-building programmes are underway, both at the individual cluster level and at the inter-cluster level, and it will be important to continue to support and prioritize these.

Global Capacity-Building Two-year effort to build predictable and harmonised response capacity (UN and non-UN) in eleven clusters: Common stockpiles, Trained deployable staff, Harmonised standards, guidelines & tools Vital but costly element of reform agenda Potential to have most impact in improving response standards/predictability

Cluster Approach: Impact Stakeholder feedback to date: Roles and responsibilities clearer Partnerships and coherence has improved Engagement with and support to national authorities is better Significant potential to enhance overall effectiveness of humanitarian response Still some confusion in implementation Focus on operational impact needs to be strengthened (Evaluation 2007-08)

The Way Forward… for humanitarian response

The way forward… Roles and responsibilities clearer Partnerships and coherence improved Fewer response gaps Engagement with national authorities Convergence on definitions, guidelines, and assessment methodologies Shift towards a more programmatic, rather than project-based, approach ‘Significant potential to enhance overall effectiveness of humanitarian response’ Phase One of the reform was getting the 'management structure' or 'framework' in place for all humanitarian emergencies, i.e. clusters, good HCs, proper financing etc. Phase Two is ensuring that with better leadership, management and partnership, we deliver a better product. That means improving the effectiveness of our action. This is the real reform, not the management structure, which is simply a means to an end. To have more impact, we need to ensure that we build on local capacities and use humanitarian aid to contribute to the longer term development process. Early Recovery is fundamental to this.

Work still to be done… Stronger in-country leadership Ensuring HCT are in place More and better funding Better coordination Greater accountability Sustained political commitment OCHA has to step up to the plate But I also want to challenge anyone who thinks the task of reform is complete. It isn’t. Yes - we have come a long way. But we have much further to go. The scale of the humanitarian challenge we face today is greater than ever before. The number of reported disasters over the last ten years was 60% higher than the previous decade, and in 2006 alone there was a 40% increase in the number of severe floods and natural disasters compared with the average in previous years. Conflict, climate change, water shortages, scarce natural resources, and rising food prices are all putting increasing pressure on developing countries. And the poorest - always hit first and hardest – are the least able to protect themselves.

Clusters at country level The RC/HC consults the host government and national/international humanitarian actors to determine priority sectors for the emergency, taking account of national/local response structures. The RC/HC ensures that within the international humanitarian community, lead agencies are designated for all the key sectors. Where possible, lead agencies at the country level should mirror those at the global level. But this principle should be applied flexibly, taking into account the local context and capacities of agencies already on the ground