Global Protection Cluster: protection funding study

Research parameters Literature review: companion studies Quantitative: FTS, DAC, Agency reports Surveys: 130 online respondents and 21 donor questionnaires 30 In depth interviews 4 Field visits: Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Sudan + Kenya/Somalia Workshops in Washington and Geneva Covers non-refugee protection Uses a narrow definition of protection

Some of the major findings (1): IDP protection funding (using broad methodology) is fairly steady despite overall humanitarian funding decline

Some of the major findings (2): But IDP protection is consistently underfunded in relation to protection requests in appeals: although this fluctuates

Some of the major findings (3): The typical IDP protection funding profile shows a peak in year two, then gradual decline

Some of the major findings (4) Mine action is not in competition for protection funding, and among the other AoRs Child Protection is strongest

The absence of a simple conceptual framework is problematic The technical definition of protection is not readily understandable by the public Protection at the same time the purpose of humanitarian action, and It is an approach within all sectors, and It also has its own domain (the activities of the protection cluster). Furthermore Programming can be protection-specific, integrated or mainstreamed

Donors do not make the main protection funding decisions Donors usually allocate on basis of countries and partners, not sectors Donors generally trust the main protection actors to set priorities When considering protection projects in CAPs, some donors have concerns about delivery capacity and results, and they would usually prefer fewer + larger proposals

Protection programmes need to show results “Success is measured in things that do not happen” (expert comment) Behavioural change is long-term The domain is fraught with political interests and access challenges Funding is short-term and fragmented Measuring protection results is a challenge, but it is possible with enough attention and active support

Pointers for cluster coordination Develop simple clear protection narratives (at global and country level) Advocate for protection to form the basis for analysis and planning of the whole Humanitarian Strategy Make sure protection cluster coordination is fully resourced in the top 10 complex emergencies Consider refining the concept of “foundational protection,” and managing it collectively

Pointers for protection cluster partners Advocate more for protection within your organisations Coordinate as well as you can, consider consortia that allow fewer/larger programmes that have critical mass to show results and include NNGOs as partners Work within the Humanitarian Strategy towards planning and reporting for outcome-level protection results

Pointers for donors Stay with the GHD agenda, and improve reporting to FTS Consider bold protection mainstreaming requirements, and fund multi-year whenever possible Keep working at joining the development side up, so that important gains achieved in humanitarian space can be sustained in national programmes

Related initiatives GBV and Child Protection funding handbook Child protection Minimum Standards Update of IASC GBV guidelines InterAction initiative to improve results-based protection Revisions to the reference module on the Humanitarian Program Cycle