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

1
STRENTHENING HUMANITARIAN REPONSEBuilding a
Stronger, More Predictable Humanitarian Response
System
2
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

3
Changing Environment

• Demands for humanitarian relief are likely to
  grow
• Increase in diverse and fragmented range of
  humanitarian actors

4
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

5
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

6
Enhance humanitarian response capacity
Predictability, Accountability and Partnership
STRENGTHENING HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
CAPACITY PREDICTABAILITY
LEADERSHIP
FINANCING
PARTNERSHIPS
7
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

8
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
Humanitarian Country Team
HCT Guidelines HC strengthening
Resident Coordinator
Humanitarian Coordinator
Principles of Partnership
9
Strengthening Partnerships and Support to
Coordination
10
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
11
Based on what Principles?

• Partnership is the foundation of the Humanitarian
  Reform
• Equality
• Transparency
• Results Oriented Approach
• Responsibility
• Complementarity

12
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

13
How to improve partnerships?

• Preparedness
• HC selection and appraisal
• HCT
• Clusters
• CERF/ Humanitarian Financing

14
Strengthening Leadershipthe Humanitarian
Coordination SystemEffective leadership and
coordination in humanitarian emergencies
15
Humanitarian Leadership

• Policy Development
• HC Selection
• Professional Development
• Knowledge Management
• Accountability

16
Predictable Humanitarian FinancingAdequate,
timely and flexible financing
17
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.

18
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)

19
Humanitarian Pooled Funds (HC managed)
20
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.

21
Ensuring Capacity Predictabilitythe Cluster
ApproachAdequate capacity and predictable
leadership in all sectors
22
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

23
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.
•  

24
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

25
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

26
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)

27
The Way Forward for humanitarian response
28
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

29
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

30
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