1 | P a g e

Working Paper

A REVIEW OF UNICEF’s APPROACH TO LOCALIZATION

IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION

Humanitarian Policy Section

Office of Emergency Programmes

UNICEF

July 2019

2 | P a g e

Acknowledgements This working paper was commissioned by UNICEF Humanitarian Policy Section in the Office of Emergency

Programmes and delivered by Badreddine Serrokh as a consultant.

The assignment was supervised by Philimon Majwa, Humanitarian Policy Specialist, UNICEF, and supported by

members of the technical reference group namely: Marija Adrianna de Wijn (Policy specialist, Social Policy and

inclusion, Programme Division, UNICEF); Frankie Chen (Implementing Partner Management Specialist, Field Results

Group, UNICEF); and Michael Copland, (Global Coordinator, Child Protection Area of Responsibility).

The review team would like to acknowledge support from UNICEF country team members, national partners and

international partners in Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan who provided support with the logistics and a wealth

of information on localization.

Gratitude to the Governments of Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan for the face-to-face interview with their

personnel in the humanitarian sector and to Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia,

Myanmar, Nigeria for taking part in the online survey.

Working Paper – A Review of UNICEF’s Approach to Localization in Humanitarian Action © United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), New York, July 2019 For further information, please contact: Humanitarian Policy Section Office of Emergency Programmes UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017, USA Tel: (1) 212-326-7000, Fax: (1) 212- 326-7037

3 | P a g e

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 8

1.1. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION OF LOCALIZATION 8

1.2. TYPOLOGY OF LOCAL ACTORS 9

1.3. RATIONALE: WHY LOCALIZATION? 11

2. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 12

2.1. OBJECTIVES 12

2.2. SCOPE 12

2.3. METHODOLOGY 13

2.4. LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES 13

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW 13

4. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS 17

4.1. REVIEW OF UNICEF POLICIES LINKED TO LOCALIZATION 17

4.2. PARTNERSHIPS 19

4.3. CAPACITY STRENGTHENING 22

4.4. FUNDING 25

4.5. COORDINATION 28

4.6. VISIBILITY 29

4.7. POLICY 30

4.8. PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 31

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32

5.1. CONCLUSION 32

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS 33

4 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United Nations made its localization agenda a priority 48 years ago, when it issued the call to complement national systems in natural disasters. In UNICEF, the Strategic Plan, 2018–2021, the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action (2010), Gender equality and the empowerment of women (2010), Guidance on preparedness for emergency response (2016), Civil Society Organizations Procedure (2019) and other policies underscore the need to work closely with local actors. The World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain commitments emphasized the importance of providing more support and funding tools for local and national responders and to make humanitarian action as local as possible, as international as necessary. Respecting, supporting and strengthening local leadership and capacity in humanitarian action by reinforcing rather than replacing national and local systems are therefore key priorities for UNICEF and all humanitarian organizations. The objective of the review was to develop a conceptual framework for localization in UNICEF’s humanitarian action, taking stock of UNICEF’s current strategies and practices that enable UNICEF to contribute to the localization agenda in humanitarian action, and to provide recommendations on how UNICEF could further advance its localization commitments. This review focused on a conceptual framework building upon the following seven dimensions of localization:

The review primarily draws on an analysis of UNICEF’s current approach in Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan, and done through individual interviews and focus-group discussions held with UNICEF staff and local actors – including civil society organizations (CSOs) and government authorities – during country visit. The results were complemented by an online survey targeting 10 additional countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ukraine), a desk review of available documents both internal and external to UNICEF and key informant interviews at UNICEF headquarters in New York and Geneva. Observations and findings 1. UNICEF has a strong partnership with governments and with national and subnational CSOs,

either directly or indirectly through international non-governmental organization (INGOs), and is committed to find ways to work more with national and subnational CSOs and with governments at subnational level. However, the capacity of UNICEF to establish direct partnerships with local governments and local CSOs at subnational level is dependent upon country dynamics, where the decentralization of government structures and authority/strength of UNICEF field offices and subnational CSOs have a major influence. While local actors acknowledged UNICEF’s role in supporting them, they advocated for a shift in the quality of the relationship, asking to be

Partnerships

•Respectful and equitable

•Reciprocal transparency and accountability

•Decision-making and not just 'implementing partners'

Participation

•Deeper participation of at-risk and affected populatons in what relief is provided to them and how (accountabulity to affected population)

Funding

•Quality: flexible, long-term, covering core costs, maintaining cash flows

•Quantity: at least 25% of funding reaching local actors as directly as possible

Capacity strengthening

•Sustainable organisations and collaborative capacities: more effective support for strong and sustainable institutional capacities

•Stop undermining capacities

Coordination

•National governmental and non-governmental actors have greater presence and influence in coordination mechanisms such as clusters and leading such structures

Visibility

•Greater public recognition and visibility for the role, effort, contribution, innovation and achievements of local actors

Policy

•Local and national actors greater presence and influence in international policy debates; greater accounting of their views and proposals

5 | P a g e

considered more as ‘decision-making partners’ and less as ‘implementing partners’ or ‘subcontractors’. Establishing qualitative and principled partnerships with local actors requires an emotional intelligence competency and interpersonal skills among UNICEF staff. It also needs regular face-to-face interactions and substantial presence in the field for monitoring and capacity strengthening purposes. CSOs called for more decision-making power in the designing, targeting or implementing of programmes, and more flexibility to adapt programmes if required.

2. Strengthening local actors’ capacity is key to localization, especially through alternative modalities such as coaching and mentoring, ideally given priority as part of preparedness strategy. UNICEF implements a wide range of technical capacity development programmes targeting both CSOs and governments. There is evidence to show that some CSOs became strong humanitarian organizations with excellent emergency sectoral expertise through UNICEF partnerships. Government authorities in Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan – such as ministries of humanitarian action, national disaster management agencies and technical line authorities acknowledged the role played by UNICEF for them to take lead in emergency response. Investment in local actors’ capacity strengthening during preparedness has shown to be more successful than in-crisis capacity strengthening. While UNICEF invests hugely in technical capacity building, there was a general sense that the institutional capacity building part should be prioritized and that capacity building programmes should be implemented through modalities such as coaching and mentoring instead of stand-alone trainings or spot checks.

3. UNICEF provides substantial funding to national and subnational CSOs and to governments, and CSOs interviewed advocated for further engagement of UNICEF in funding their overhead support costs, providing more opportunities for multi-year partnership modalities and lightening administrative processes. When several CSOs were interviewed, it became evident that UNICEF was the main funding source, which puts CSO operations at risk in the long run, once UNICEF funding ends. UNICEF’s approach towards national/local CSOs emphasize cycles of project-based approaches which, in turn, can confine the CSOs in a rather short-term programming. CSOs called for further engagement with UNICEF in funding their overhead support costs to strengthen their institutional capacity. The 7 per cent of headquarter support costs provided to INGOs and not to national NGOs was perceived as a discriminatory measure. Local actors called for access to the percentage to build their institutional capacity. Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and Programme Document (PD) procedures were generally perceived as relatively heavy for CSOs, especially community-based organizations CBOs with limited capacity. However, the good collaboration and proximity of UNICEF sections/staffs and field offices with partners, in some cases, mitigated the delays in the process and accelerated the PD development time. UNICEF short duration of the PD (often a year) appeared as a major constraint for CSOs. Innovative approaches to long-term multi-year PDs were noted in South Sudan, though no multi-year funding was provided to support them.

4. Local actors appeared to be involved in Humanitarian Coordination Structures led by UNICEF with a good participation of national NGOs in coordination platforms, showing the need to further support governments to take on full co-leadership. The inclusion of national NGOs in all Strategic Advisory Groups (SAG) of UNICEF-led (sub) clusters, like in South Sudan, is a good initiative to promote local actors’ influence and inclusion in cluster decision-making process. Governments co-lead several clusters/subclusters and still need to be supported to take on full co-leadership, like in the Niger. Local civil society organizations should also be supported to take on cluster co-leadership, where relevant.

6 | P a g e

5. The roles, work, risks and contribution of local actors are often made visible or acknowledged in the sampled UNICEF country offices. Local actors generally face a double constraint: first, they are not generally visible when they are direct partners of UNICEF – and even less when they are ‘subcontracted’ by an INGO partnering with UNICEF. Developing specific visibility strategies aimed at showcasing the work of local actors in UNICEF communication products and cluster-related products would help advancing localization. Local actors themselves should try to be more proactive in communicating about their achievements.

6. There was a general sense that national and subnational CSOs wield little influence on UNICEF and governmental policies and plans as well as on international policy debates on humanitarian action. In regards to programme design and implementation, national and subnational CSOs appeared to not often have influence on UNICEF and government humanitarian action priorities locally. Better institutionalizing of a localization agenda into global, regional and country office strategies is recommended to address the influence imbalance.

7. While UNICEF is implementing several interesting initiatives within its AAP framework, there is a need to strengthen community engagement and accountability mechanisms. Systematically engaging communities in a meaningful way increases resilience among the populations at risk of or affected by crisis, and represents one of the main purposes of localization. Actively and proactively involving the intended beneficiaries into UNICEF and its partners’ decision-making processes is crucial but remains challenging for UNICEF, especially in emergencies where the capacities of affected local communities can easily be overlooked.

Recommendations For UNICEF 1. Prioritize and scale up institutional capacity building component to enable local actors to move

from short-term project-based approach to long-term sustainability by building up capacity such as finance, logistics, administration, fundraising and reporting.

2. Shift UNICEF capacity strengthening model to focus more on coaching, mentoring and secondment of key staff to local actors instead of focusing on stand-alone trainings, and develop appropriate guidance to support UNICEF regional and country offices in that regard.

3. Allocate more funds to national and subnational CSOs to cover their overhead/support costs in order to strengthen their institutional capacity. Providing in that sense an additional per cent of the total Programme Document budget (similarly to what UNICEF is already providing to INGOs to cover their headquarter support costs) would be helpful.

4. Shift from heavy administrative procedures towards lighter administrative processes to reduce access barriers for national/subnational CSOs (quicker PDs) and minimize their cash-flow related risks (quicker cash disbursements).

5. Focus UNICEF preparedness strategy at regional and country levels on investing in pre-crisis capacity strengthening of local actors

6. Provide more authority and capacities to UNICEF field offices to engage in partnership processes with local actors and to strengthen field monitoring, supervision and coaching of local actors in their respective geographical areas

7. Scale up the development of multi-year Programme Documents ideally along with multi-year funding to enable for a longer-term and more strategic partnership with CSOs and better humanitarian-development linkages. Where long-term funding is not available, UNICEF should

7 | P a g e

develop and encourage multi-year partnership models that focus on non-financial commitments (such as ongoing technical support and joint monitoring).

8. Develop a global localization policy/strategy and localization strategies in regional/country offices. This will enable UNICEF to better institutionalize localization, setting benchmarks, monitoring and documenting its advancement on localization.

9. Raise awareness and sensitize UNICEF staff on the principles of partnership, especially in relation with local actors.

For donors:

10. Adapt funding modalities by providing more multi-year funding and ensuring grant flexibility with the possibility to further support institutional capacity strengthening; and incentivize collaborative and principled partnership approaches, rather than subgranting.

8 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1. Background and definition of localization The need to work with and strengthen the capacity of local actors (national and subnational) has been

on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly and dates to Resolution 2816 (XXVI)1 of

14 December 1971, which called for the international community to provide assistance without

prejudicing individual country programmes. The need for strengthening national capacity in disaster

prevention and mitigation, engagement of local administrations and the recognition of the contribution

of local actors to speed up and increase the efficiency of humanitarian action are documented in

Resolution 46/182;2 Resolution 44/236;3 and Resolution 45/100.4

After the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and as part of ‘The Grand Bargain’ (an agreement between 59 humanitarian donors and agencies), the agenda has had increased visibility within the humanitarian policy discourse as a prerequisite to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian action. One of the Grand Bargain commitments was to provide “more support and funding tools for local and national responders” 5 and to make humanitarian action “as local as possible, as international as necessary”. The summit on the other hand further emphasized the importance of respecting, supporting and strengthening local leadership and capacity in crises, by reinforcing rather than replacing national and local systems. The localization agenda emerged from a concern over the ‘financing gap’ between rapidly growing humanitarian needs and a slower increase in available humanitarian funding, but also from a self-critique of the current international humanitarian system.6 Other initiatives have framed the need to advance localization agenda as ‘strengthening local capacities’; ‘working in solidarity’; and ‘partnership with local organizations’.7 The Sphere Standards highlights the need for aid agencies to “support local capacity by identifying community groups and social networks at the earliest opportunity and build on community-based and self-help initiatives.8 The humanitarian policies of various donors and aid organizations refer to similar aspects.” The Red Cross and INGO Code of Conduct commit its adherents to “attempt to build disaster response on local capacities”.9

Most definitions of localization, in literature and in practice, refer to the need to recognize, respect, strengthen, rebalance, recalibrate, reinforce or return some type of ownership or place to local and national actors.10 In the Pacific, local actors define localization as “a process of recognizing, respecting and strengthening the independence of leadership and decision making by national actors in

1 General Assembly Resolution 2816 ( XXVI): Assistance in cases of natural disasters and other disaster situations ( 17th December 1971) accessed from http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/UNGA/1971/50.pdf on 9th May 2019 2 General Assembly Resolution 46/182: Strengthening the Coordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance of the United Nations ( 19th December 1991) accessed from https://undocs.org/A/RES/46/182 on 9th May 2019 3 General Assembly resolution 44/236: International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (22nd December 1989) accessed from https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r236.htm on 9th May 2019 4 General Assembly Resolution 45/100: Humanitarian assistance to victims of natural disasters and similar emergency situations (14th December 1990) accessed from https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r100.htm on 9th May 2019 5 See workstream number 2 of the Grand Bargain, https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/more-support-and-funding-tools-local-and-national-responders 6 K. Van Brabant and S. Patel, Understanding the Localization Debate, Global Mentoring Initiative, July 2017 7 Ibid 8 Sphere Association. The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, fourth edition, Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. www.spherestandards.org/handbook 9 Ibid 10 Wall, I. and Hedlund, K. (2016) Localisation and locally-led crisis response: a literature review (May); Local to Global Protection; De Geoffroy, V., Grunewald, F. and Ni Cheilleachair, R. (2017) ‘More than the money – localisation in practice’, 1–8 ; Featherstone, A. (2017) Time to move on: national perspectives on transforming surge capacity. AFOD, Christian Aid, Tearfund and Islamic Relief Worldwide; Humanitarian Advisory Group, Centre for Humanitarian Leadership and Fiji National University (2017) Localising the research process: walking the talk insight series – quoted in V. Barbelet, As local as possible, as international as necessary: Understanding capacity and complementarity in humanitarian action”, Humanitarian Policy Group, November 2018

9 | P a g e

humanitarian action, in order to better address the needs of affected populations”.11 Some have criticized the term ‘localization’ principally because it puts the international humanitarian system at the centre of the process, as opposed to refocusing the system on local actors.12 The term ‘local humanitarian action’, widely used in the literature, highlights a localization agenda that is about recognizing the existing contributions of local actors. The term ‘local humanitarian leadership’ is also used, often alongside ‘locally-led humanitarian action’, emphasizing the importance, not just of recognizing or respecting local humanitarian action, but also that humanitarian action needs to be owned and led from the ground up.13

1.2. Typology of local actors There is consensus within the humanitarian community that local actors are those actors who have presence at the national and subnational levels. These actors include governments, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, NGOs/CSOs and the private sector.14 UNICEF defines civil society organizations as non-profit, non-governmental entities designed to advance collective interests and ideas. UNICEF differentiates CSOs based on four broad categories: a) international NGO (INGO) (i.e., an NGO that has offices in more than one country); b) national NGO (i.e., an NGO established in only one country); c) community-based organization (i.e., a grassroots association); and d) academic institutional degree conferring institution.

Typology

Definition

Government National and subnational authorities in aid recipient countries

National government agencies, authorities, line ministries and state-owned institutions in recipient countries [e.g., National Disaster Management Agencies (NDMA)]. This category can also include federal or regional government authorities in countries where they exist. Subnational government entities in aid recipient countries exercising some degree of devolved authority over a specifically defined geographic constituency [e.g., local and municipal authorities].

Red Cross and Red Crescent

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

national societies that are based in and operating within their own aid recipient countries. National societies are independent auxiliaries of national governments in the humanitarian field.

11 Australian Red Cross, Going Local: Achieving a more appropriate and fit-for-purpose humanitarian ecosystem in the Pacific, https://www.redcross.org.au/getmedia/fa37f8eb-51e7-4ecd-ba2f-d1587574d6d5/ARCLocalisation-report-Electronic-301017.pdf.aspx, October 2017 12 Jayawickrama, J. and Rehman, B. (2018) ‘Before defining what is local, let’s build the capacities of humanitarian agencies’. Blog. Refugee Hosts (https://refugeehosts.org/2018/04/10/before-defining-whatis-local-lets-build-the-capacities-of-humanitarian-agencies/) 13 Gingerich, T.R., Moore, D.L. and Beriont, C. (2017), Local humanitarian leadership and religious literacy: engaging with religion, faith, and faith actors (https://doi.org/10.21201/2017.9422) 14 OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, available on https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf,

10 | P a g e

NGOs/CSOs15

National non-governmental organizations (NGOs/Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) operating in the aid recipient country in which they are headquartered, working in multiple subnational regions, and not affiliated to an international NGO. This category can also include national faith-based organizations and community-based organizations (CBOs)

Subnational NGO/CSO

National NGOs/CSOs operating in a specific, geographically defined, subnational area of an aid recipient country, without affiliation to an international NGO/CSO. This category can also include community-based organizations and faith-based organizations.

Private sector

Subnational and national private sector organizations

Organizations run by private individuals or groups as a means of enterprise for profit, that are based in and operating within their own aid recipient countries and not affiliated to an international private sector organization.

Table 1: Representation of typologies of local actors adapted from IASC Humanitarian Financing Task Team Working Groups and OECD, 2017

15 In UNICEF internal terminology, CSOs is used to englobe organizations such as NGOs, faith-based organizations and CBOS

11 | P a g e

1.3. Rationale: why localization? Local actors are always the first responders to arrive on the scene when a crisis occurs and they are present before, during and after a crisis compared to international actors. In 2015, we saw local people and organizations at the centre of operations rescuing thousands trapped in the rubble after the earthquake in Nepal, setting up evacuation centres in the wake of Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, and on the frontline of the protracted conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic.16 While this is true, it might not be valid when the crisis overwhelms local capacities, as it was seen during the influx of Syrian refugees in the neighbouring countries, the Ebola epidemics in West Africa or the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Local actors tend to understand much better the context and the cultural sensitivities, speak the local language(s) and are better able to navigate the local environment.17 Engagement with local actors also strengthens inclusion of, accountability to, and acceptance by affected populations.18 This may also provide a fertile ground for innovation to find new ways of addressing increasing needs. Local humanitarian responders have also the capacity to respond to small-scale crises that are under the threshold of international intervention –a landslide in a remote rural area or a small-scale population displacement across a border can have a direct impact on the affected population but may well stay under the radar screen of the international humanitarian community. In such cases, local governments, the local Red Cross and Red Crescent branch or a local civil society organization working on a development project may be the only organizations able to respond immediately to emergency needs.19 Evidence shows that advancing localization lowers the cost of delivery of humanitarian action through the reduction of transactional costs20 hence the call to recognize local actors as equal partners in humanitarian action, and their contribution in ensuring the speed21 in the delivery of humanitarian response. 22 Localization enables a more cost-effective intervention as local actors are cheaper than

16 S. El Taraboulsi, J. Schell and R. Gorgeu, Localization in Humanitarian Practice, Humanitarian Policy Group and ICVA, May 2016 17 Ibid 18 ICVA, Localization examined: an ICVA briefing paper, September 2018 19 OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, available on https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf 20 For additional details on this, see the Report of the High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/hlp_report_too_important_to_failgcoaddressing_ the_humanitarian_financing_gap.pdf 21 ICVA, op. cit. 22 K. Van Brabant and S. Patel, op. cit.

Box 1: Some of the concerns of humanitarian actors on working with the local actors • Time constraints: There is not enough time to build quality relationships or

assess and strengthen the capacities of national and local agencies. Counter-observation – local/national actors are often the ‘first responders’ but also the ones who remain on the ground when most international actors have left.

• Efficiency: international organizations will often be more efficient than national/local ones due to organizational capacities. Counter-observation – If international organizations retain control over financial resources, their capacities will always be superior to national ones.

• Capacity constraints: National authorities, even if willing and able to respond, are too slow and, like many NGOs, don’t have the capacity to rapidly scale up. They may also lack certain thematic or technical expertise such as monitoring and evaluation or may not be able to uphold standards (e.g., Sphere standards).

• Counter-observation – There is a generalized assumption that national/local actors have less capacity than international ones, which might be a prejudice, rather than a statement of fact.

• Fiduciary risks: National actors do not always have the systems in place to provide the financial accountability required by international donors. Counter-observation: The fiduciary tests and due diligence standards imposed on national and subnational actors are sometimes higher than for international actors.

• Humanitarian principles: In situations of conflict, it is harder for national and subnational actors to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles, notably neutrality, impartiality and independence. Counter-observation: it must not be overstated: It can happen to international aid agencies too, or their staff, to take sides in conflict or express sympathy for one side against the other.

Source: Adapted from the start fund, start network, and localization: Current situations and future directions (2017)

12 | P a g e

international ones. Localization therefore adds value by improving efficiency due to reduction of costs related to implementation, staffing and management through all stages of humanitarian preparedness, response and recovery.23 As a matter of principle, subnational and national actors should not be treated as subordinates and should be placed on an equitable partnership as they often do significant parts of the work, sometimes at high risk.24 Engagement with local actors do increase the support they provide to the affected population, reinforcing and scaling local efforts. It may help them to be better prepared to respond to future crises without triggering international assistance.

Localization can also increase resilience through linking preparedness, response and recovery efforts. This is valid in countries facing regular disasters and population displacements, where strengthened local and national actors can help lead the response and build more resilience communities. For example, when donors help a national government build a social safety net that can absorb shocks in case of a natural disaster, development cooperation goals are aligned with humanitarian preparedness.25 Local actors also remain after the international actors have gone and can play a key role in both recovery and longer-term achievement of key sustainable development goals as noted from the phasing out of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan leaving the Afghan Red Crescent Society.26

2. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

2.1. Objectives The objectives of the review were to: develop a conceptual framework for localization in UNICEF’s humanitarian action; conduct a stocktaking of UNICEF’s current strategies and practices that enable UNICEF to fully contribute to the localization agenda in humanitarian action; and provide recommendations on how UNICEF could further advance its localization commitments in humanitarian action.

2.2. Scope This review focused on seven dimensions of localization as commonly agreed and specified below in the conceptual framework (see chapter 3): partnerships, capacity development, funding, coordination, visibility, policy and participation/community engagement. It primarily draws on an analysis of UNICEF’s current approach in three Humanitarian Action for Children countries (Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Niger and South Sudan)27 complemented by online surveys targeting additional countries, including Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and Ukraine.28 Country-level analysis included a review of UNICEF’s approach with regard to these seven dimensions capturing good practices and identifying areas for improvement. The review also looked at the extent to which UNICEF’s institutional frameworks contributed to the delivery of localization commitments at the global level.

23 ICVA, op. cit. 24 The Red Cross and INGO Code of Conduct, the Common Humanitarian Standard, reports from the ‘Missed Opportunities’ group of British NGOs,

and the Charter for Change signed up to by a wider group of INGOs, appear more motivated by principle. 25 OECD, op.cit. 26 IFRC, Localization: what it means and how to achieve it, IFRC Policy Brief, May 2018 27 Country selection aimed to be broadly representative of UNICEF’s humanitarian action and was determined in consultation with the review team and UNICEF regional Offices. 28 Pakistan was also targeted but answers could not be collected

13 | P a g e

2.3. Methodology The analytical framework for the review was developed based on a common understanding of what localization should look like in UNICEF according to existing policies and frameworks such as the civil society organizations procedure, the Principles of Partnership adopted by the Global Humanitarian Platform and other relevant formal commitments made by UNICEF (such as the Grand Bargain). The review process was led by the Humanitarian Policy Section (EMOPS) through an independent consultant, with the support of a technical advisory team drawn from the Field Results Group, Programme Division – Social Inclusion and Global Cluster Coordination Unit (EMOPS Geneva). A desk review of available documents both internal and external to UNICEF, key informant interviews with 50 UNICEF staff and 40 UNICEF partners in three countries (Lebanon, Niger and South Sudan) identified through a consultative process with UNICEF regional and country offices were also conducted. An online survey was administered to 9 country offices with a total of 69 staff from UNICEF, 19 from CSOs and 16 from selected government counterparts (14 at the national level and 2 at the subnational level) responding to the survey. At New York and Geneva headquarters, key informant interviews were held with 14 UNICEF staff in Programme Division, Emergency programme and global clusters and with key stakeholders involved in localization such as the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Global Mentoring Initiative. Country visits were organized to Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan for a total of three weeks in which detailed key informant discussions with in-country stakeholders were held through individual interviews and focus group discussions. More specifically, discussions were held with selected government and CSO partners at national level and with UNICEF country office sections and field offices. In total, the review team met with around 110 people in the three countries visited.

2.4. Limitations and challenges The review team was only able to conduct interviews in capital cities and not at the regional and decentralized levels due to the limited duration of each mission. It was therefore not possible to meet government authorities and CSOs operating at subnational level, except in Lebanon where the team was able to meet with one municipality in Beirut. This therefore limited the review of the role of local actors at the subnational level, especially local governments. The review was limited by the relative low participation in the online survey especially from CSOs (19 answers received from 5 countries) and government authorities (16 answers received from 6 countries, with only 2 answers received from subnational level). Some UNICEF country offices had a limited participation too, with 6 countries out of 9 accounting for only 27 per cent of the total UNICEF answers. The review was also not able to explore the role of the local private sector in advancing the localization commitments.

3. Conceptual framework for the review This paper adopts a conceptual framework that draws mainly upon the Global Mentoring Initiative29 and the Humanitarian Advisory Group framework as a basis to structure the review, and ensure a holistic and inclusive approach. The proposed conceptual framework is structured around the following seven dimensions of localization as follows:

29 Smruti Patel & Koenraad Van Brabant, The Start Fund, Start Network and Localisation: current situation and future directions, Global Mentoring Initiative, April 2017, https://start-network.app.box.com/s/3hs0 9ryakami7n8hjliaruaaw9ycir4r

14 | P a g e

• Partnerships: Discussion of quality of partnerships between national and international actors is central to localization.30 The Principles of Partnership endorsed in 2007 by the Global Humanitarian Platform aim at ensuring that partnerships are based on a set of five principles: equality, complementarity, transparency, results-orientation and responsibility. They guarantee that UNICEF moves towards more genuine and equitable partnerships where the relationship is based on joint design and implementation with joint responsibility and mutual accountability and less subcontracting.31 The United Nations General Assembly defines partnerships as “voluntary and collaborative relationships among various parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits”.32

• Participation/community engagement: The ultimate purpose of localization is not only to have strong national and local intermediaries, but also more resilience among the populations that are at risk of, or affected by, crisis. Acknowledging the participation revolution commitment when discussing localization also signals that while we may want to give more decision-making power to national and local organizations, these organizations need to actively and proactively involve the intended beneficiaries into their decision-making.33

When aid is provided by local humanitarian responders who are well rooted in society, affected populations are often more vigilant, asking for better quality goods and services, be they national NGOs and/or local government, which can increase accountability.34

• Funding: For local actors, the quality of funding is as important as its quantity. A focus on quantity can result in international agencies transferring funds to local actors to pay for their direct implementation costs only, perpetuating the structural weakness of local actors and establishing contracts on terms heavily determined by the international agency.35 Ensuring qualitative funding which is flexible, covering core costs and enabling local actors to maintain cash flow are therefore essential.

• Capacity strengthening has an important role in the localization of humanitarian action. Several policy commitments in the humanitarian sectors call for more dedicated resources to strengthen the capacity of local actors. Principle 8 of the Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles commits humanitarian donors to ‘strengthen the capacity of affected countries and local communities to prevent, prepare for, mitigate and respond to humanitarian crises, with the goal of ensuring that governments and local communities are better able to meet their responsibilities and co-ordinate effectively with humanitarian partners’. Standard 3 of the Core Humanitarian Standards aims to achieve ‘strengthened local capacities and avoidance of negative effects.’ Several concerns are raised by humanitarian actors though. Some argue that humanitarian action should focus on responding to needs and not long-term sustainability such as capacity strengthening of local

30 ICVA, Localization examined: an ICVA briefing paper, September 2018 31 S. Patel and K. Van Brabant, The Start Fund, Start Network and Localisation: current situation and future directions, GMI, April 2017 32 “Towards global partnerships”, General Assembly resolution 66/223, adopted on 22 December 2011. Originally endorsed by the General Assembly in 2000, this definition has been reaffirmed every two years since 2001 and used in UNICEF report on the implementation of the strategic framework for partnerships and collaborative relationships, ECOSOC, 2012 33 K. Van Brabant and S. Patel, Localization in Practice: emerging indicators and practical recommendations, Global Mentoring Initiative, June 2018 34OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, available on https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf, 35 K. Van Brabant and S. Patel, Understanding the Localization Debate, Global Mentoring Initiative, July 2017

15 | P a g e

actors,36 others contend that there is a trade-off between the principle of humanity, which calls for quickly saving lives during emergencies, and capacity strengthening which takes time.37 Short-term funding cycles have also not facilitated the longer-term investment needed for capacity strengthening and cannot be addressed through humanitarian financing streams alone.38 The Humanitarian Policy Group highlights that there is consensus in the literature that active learning rather than classroom-style training is a better way to strengthen capacity and underlines two approaches that are prominent in the literature:39 a) Deploying more peer-to-peer approaches, where local organizations work with other local organizations to strengthen their capacities. Seconding staff to national NGOs has successfully addressed capacity gaps such as during Typhoon Winston in Fiji where INGO staff worked within a national NGO to deliver a joint response; b) Deploying expertise through seconded staff during emergencies could be a more complementary approach to addressing capacity gaps than sidelining or substituting capacity by having an internationally-led response or through bilateral partnerships, where local organizations become implementing partners (and too often do not get to address their capacity gaps). Developing alternatives to training is therefore essential through the secondment of coaches and mentors to the local partner organization to allow the CSO to benefit from real time support, empower the local organization to find their own solutions and ultimately, provide for more sustainable institutional learning and growth.40

• Coordination: Engaging local actors in coordination is essential in promoting a flexible humanitarian ecosystem which is inclusive of a broad range of actors and strength. Greater localization in coordination enables national actors to have greater presence and influence and be in the driver’s seat of humanitarian action.

• Visibility: Greater public recognition and visibility for the role, effort, contribution, innovation and achievements of local actors is essential. Localization through visibility implies that all external communications (to donors and to the wider public) correctly acknowledge the roles and contributions of local actors, which are named and, where applicable, have their logos included. UNICEF reports to donors or the wider public should give due credit to the work, roles played and contribution of local actors. The visibility of local actors could be supported through three different channels: a) Visibility in reports and documents (e.g., developing short articles or podcasts about the work of specific local partners); b) Visibility at national forums: promoting the local actors’ role and raising their profile in national forums (e.g., participation in Joint Needs Assessments, in (sub)cluster meetings, etc.); c) Visibility in global forums: support the local actors’ participation in global forums to raise their profile.41

36 Telford, J. (2001) Evaluation of UNHCR’s role in strengthening national NGOs. Geneva: UNHCR; Pouligny, B. (2009) Supporting local ownership in humanitarian action, GPPi policy paper; Schenkenberg, E. (2016) The challenges of localized humanitarian aid in armed conflict. MSF Emergency Gap Series 03 (November) – referred in V. Barbelet, op.cit 37 Christoplos, I., Institutional capacity building amid humanitarian action, 2005 in ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action, London, ODI – referred in V. Barbelet, op.cit 38 Christoplos, I., Institutional capacity building amid humanitarian action, 2005 in ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action, London, ODI; Poole, L., Funding at the sharp end: investing in national NGO response capacity, CAFOD, 2014, referred in V. Barbelet, op.cit 39 V. Barbelet, As local as possible, as international as necessary: Understanding capacity and complementarity in humanitarian action”, Humanitarian Policy Group, November 2018 40 GPC, op. cit. 41 K. Van Brabant and S. Patel, Localization in Practice: emerging indicators and practical recommendations, Global Mentoring Initiative, June 2018

16 | P a g e

• Policy: The policy dimension of localization implies that local actors can effectively provide inputs into government policy and planning, share their views early on local and national government policies, preparedness and action plans that are intended for their benefit. It also looks at whether local actors influence international policy debates on humanitarian action and efforts to develop or evolve standards. It finally ensures that individual participants from local actors’ agencies that participate in national, regional and international policy, planning and standards debates are truly ‘representative’ and accountable – consulting with and communicating their views to a wider audience such as an NGO forum in country.

The following figure provides an overview of the localization conceptual framework showing how UNICEF’s existing partnership and implementation models with governments, CSOs and the private sector, built on UNICEF’s commitments as reflected in the Core Commitments for Children, should be channelled through the seven dimensions described previously to enable a localized response to save children’s lives.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the review of localization in UNICEF humanitarian action

17 | P a g e

4. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

4.1. Review of UNICEF policies linked to localization Strategic Plan 2018–2021 reinforces the need to deliver humanitarian action wherever possible, by engaging and supporting local first responders while strengthening partnerships with governments for at-scale results for girls and boys. System strengthening efforts include support to national coordination, effective strategies and capacities for rapid scale-up of life-saving and protection services in humanitarian situations. The plan notes that humanitarian response need to systematically include community engagement and accountability to affected people and communities, including through communication for development, platforms for adolescent participation, and wherever possible, engage and support national and local first responders. Core Commitment for Children in Humanitarian Action (2010) does not specifically mention ‘localization’ per se but refers to the importance of partnerships with host governments, civil society organizations and NGOs (including national organizations)42 and the need to strengthen the capacities of state authorities and non-governmental and community organizations as an essential strategy for joint and effective humanitarian action. It is worth mentioning that the CCCs are currently being revised and that discussions are underway to see how to better include localization in the updated global framework. Procedure for country and regional office civil society organizations implementing partnerships (2019) outlines requirements and framework governing relationships between UNICEF and CSOs where there is a transfer of resources from UNICEF.43 Partnering with a CSO is necessary when there is a comparative advantage for UNICEF and the CSO to jointly deliver the desired result and the CSO brings resources (financial, intellectual or in-kind). Comparative advantage is demonstrated by an organization when it is the most suitable to support achievement of results and value for money based on its mandate, capacity to act and position to act compared to others.44 The analysis therefore can be used to advance localization agenda depending on the criteria used at the country office level (i.e., if criteria include elements such as access to insecure areas, local experience, community relations or cost-effectiveness). It might be disadvantageous for local organizations if criteria such as contribution of financial resources are given more weight – as international CSOs might have more financial resources than national CSOs. However, offices determine locally whether there are minimum cash or supply contributions expected from CSO partners.45 The procedure outlines the need for partnership reviews that should be organized between UNICEF and the CSO at the conclusion of partnerships or the need to organize capacity assessments. Additionally, the procedure recognizes that all CSOs ̶ local and international alike – incur “effective and efficient programme management costs” in the country of programme implementation, including “in-country management and support costs,” “operational costs” and “planning, monitoring, evaluation and communication costs’, with INGOs incurring costs outside of the country of programme implementation, and thus are eligible for an additional 7 per cent headquarters support costs. These 7 per cent of headquarters support costs can be paid to national NGOs/CSOs on a case-by-case basis though.46 Capacity development for the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action technical note (2010) aims to strengthen the capabilities of individuals, organizations, communities and nations to

42 UNICEF Core Commitments for Children, 2010, Section 1.2 page 3 43 UNICEF, procedure for country and regional office CSO implementing partnerships, 2019, page 7 44 Ibid 45 Ibid, page 21 46 CSO Procedures, Guidance on Budgeting and Financial Management, 2019, page 5

18 | P a g e

ensure the achievement of the CCC benchmarks. The note defines capacity development as a process through which individuals, organizations, communities and nations strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives, defined within norms of human rights and gender equality.47 Some of the four capacities highlighted as critical for capacity development process relevant for humanitarian actions include:

1. Capacity to plan, budget, manage and deliver services and supplies 2. Capacity to coordinate with stakeholders 3. Capacity for evidence-based decision and policy making 4. Capacity to monitor and evaluate.

Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts (2018) details UNICEF’s increased efforts to bridge short-term humanitarian action and long-term development programming, and emphasizes, as one of its priorities, the necessity to consolidate long-term partnerships with national NGOs, local CBOs and local private sector business.48 The policy acknowledges national NGOs and local CBOs as a critical capacity for achieving results in fragile contexts, which is often underutilized and sometimes even undermined in fragile contexts, especially where there is pressure to achieve results quickly and to scale.49 It calls on UNICEF to establish a deliberate and accountable strategy to work through national and local organizations by putting in place longer-term commitments and resources to strengthen the capacity of national NGOs that can potentially deliver to scale in a principled manner and potentially contribute to greater accountability between state and communities in the longer term.50 The policy further recommends enhancing the performance of decentralized local governance for achieving results in social services that lead to strengthened social cohesion and accountability; strengthening national institutions and local structures to be equitable and inclusive and to deliver results; and exploring and consolidating partnerships that bolster efforts to strengthen governance and institutions to improve performance in service delivery.51 This policy finally touches upon the importance of engaging youth in the delivery of programmes.52

Strategic Framework for Partnership and Collaborative Relationships (2009) emphasizes the importance of partnering with CSOs by engaging them at the national, regional and global levels more closely in policy and programme development, implementation and review, and in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as by acknowledging the contribution of all partners to achieved outcomes. It also calls for increasing collaboration with various civil society actors, especially children, young people and community-based organizations. 53 Accountability to affected population framework: Putting People at the Centre of Humanitarian Action (2018) synthesizes UNICEF's internal accountabilities to affected populations in both humanitarian and development programming, as well as the reflection of the accountabilities in UNICEF's engagement with external partners, including UNICEF's role as Cluster Lead Agency for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), Nutrition and Education, and the Child Protection Areas of Responsibility (AoR). It highlights UNICEF’s accountability to global norms and standards including

47 UNICEF Capacity Development CCCs Technical Note, page 2 48 UNICEF Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts, Priority 3, action 3.3, page 54 49 Ibid 50 Ibid, page 55 51 Ibid, see actions 2.5, 2.6 and 3.1 52 Ibid, page 56 53 UNICEF Strategic Framework for partnerships and collaborative relationships ( 2009) accessed from https://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/N0928210.pdf on 9th May 2019

19 | P a g e

international human rights law, human rights principles, international humanitarian law, humanitarian principles and established humanitarian performance standards (e.g., humanitarian evaluation criteria, Core Humanitarian Standards, Sphere standards, etc.), and to the affected populations themselves.54 The AAP Framework identifies “Strengthening Local Capacity” and prioritizing the use of local knowledge, capacities and resources to respond to crises by working with and through local first responder, supporting national coordination mechanisms, and increasing allocations of funding and resources to them. Guidance on risk-informed programming highlights the importance of local actors (CSOs, line ministries, local authorities) and local communities in the analysis of risks at the country level and the assessment of capacities.55 Guidance on preparedness for emergency response (2016) underlines that emergency preparedness consists of mechanisms and systems put in place in advance to enable an effective and timely emergency response to humanitarian crisis, based on analysis of the risks in a particular context, taking into account national and regional capacities and UNIC EF’s comparative advantage.56 Policy on gender equality and empowerment of women (2010) emphasizes that through mutually-agreed programmes of cooperation, governments and UNICEF collaborate in the preparation of national and/or local development plans that fully reflect the various rights, interests, needs and contributions of women and men, girls and boys. UNICEF also promotes these priorities in all inter-agency planning instruments, such as the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF).57 Inter-Agency Standing Committee gives UNICEF a mandate to coordinate nutrition, child protection, education, and WASH services, most of which are delivered by or in partnership with local actors. The UNICEF-led Child Protection Area of Responsibility is guiding coordinated localization efforts for the Protection and Education Clusters and producing some internal reviews.

4.2. Partnerships Partnerships are at the heart of UNICEF’s mandate and are central to all its humanitarian interventions. Partnerships enhance coverage and improve efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian action. UNICEF’s core belief is that partnerships across sectors and societies are essential to achieving equitable and sustainable results for children in a global challenging context58.

UNICEF is recognized as a partner for governments and CSOs. UNICEF has strong partnerships with governments and with national and subnational CSOs, either directly or indirectly through INGOs, and is committed to finding ways to work more with national and subnational CSOs and with governments at the decentralized level. UNICEF Lebanon made a shift in 2014–2015 to be more proactive in supporting CSOs at the most decentralized level, such as CBOs and is moving towards “Local Governance and Systems Strengthening” approach to support local service delivery with local

54 UNICEF AAP Framework, Putting People at the Centre of Humanitarian Action, Integrating Accountability to Affected People, June 2017 55 Guidance on risk-informed programming, UNICEF, April 2018 56 Preparedness for Emergency response in UNICEF , 2016 accessed from https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_Note_29_Dec__2016_.pdf 57 Working for equal future: UNICEF policy on Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women, 2010 https://www.unicef.org/gender/files/Working_for_an_Equal_Future_UNICEF_Gender_Policy_2010.pdf 58 UNICEF report on the implementation of the strategic framework for partnerships and collaborative relationships, ECOSOC, 2012

20 | P a g e

governments/municipalities. In South Sudan, UNICEF has signed agreements with national NGOs to deliver 75 out 138 of its 2018 Programme Documents. The ability to acknowledge and consider local actors’ constraints and challenges in the partnership, to provide space for local actors to raise concerns or disagreements with UNICEF and to establish partnership based on consultation, mutual respect and complementarity represent key indicators of partnership quality. This was reinforced by the online survey results where 58 per cent of UNICEF respondents (40 out of 69) and 84 per cent of CSOs respondents (16 out of 19) noted that CSOs constraints and challenges were acknowledged and considered in UNICEF partnership most of the time, and 64 per cent of UNICEF respondents (44 out of 69) and 50 per cent of Government respondents (8 out of 16) estimated that governments constraints and challenges were acknowledged in the partnership most of the time. Local actors appeared to be comfortable in raising concerns or disagreements with UNICEF. Up to 58 per cent of UNICEF staff (40 out of 69) and 79 per cent of CSOs (15 out of 19) highlighted that national and/or subnational NGOs/CSOs were (very) comfortable in raising concerns or disagreements with UNICEF. At the government level, 74 per cent of UNICEF staff (51 out of 69) and 81 per cent of governments respondents (13 out of 19) highlighted that governments were (very) comfortable in raising concerns or disagreements with UNICEF. Finally, partnership between UNICEF and national and/or subnational NGOs/CSOs is most of the time consultative, based on mutual respect and on complementarity according to 67 per cent of UNICEF staff (46 out of 69) and 89 per cent of CSOs surveyed (17 out of 19).59 National CSOs acknowledge UNICEF’s role in supporting them and are looking to UNICEF to be more of a partner. If the local humanitarian responder has no decision in the programme design, targeting or implementation, the programme cannot be considered as a partnership.60 Discussion with national CSOs indicated that there is recognition of them as ‘partners’ and not as ‘subcontractors’. They would like to see more genuine and equitable partnerships where they are taking part in the ‘decision-making’ processes and not just in the implementation of programmes. UNICEF too often is perceived by CSOs as a donor operating in a top-down approach with limited face-to-face interactions and regular changes of focal points occurring in sections, as highlighted by CSOs in South Sudan.

UNICEF field offices play a critical role in engaging with local CSOs and government authorities at the most decentralized level especially in identifying, monitoring and evaluating their performance but also in strengthening their capacity albeit this is dependent on country dynamics. UNICEF South Sudan Country Office 2018 PD development process ensured that field offices signed off the PDs, which appeared to be an excellent practice in ensuring local ownership of the PD process by UNICEF field offices and CSOs at the decentralized level. Similarly, in Lebanon, UNICEF developed specific Field Standard Operating procedures (SOPs) for the Project Review Committee (PRC) related to the PCA/PDs development and approval. This good practice sets clear procedures for the involvement of UNICEF zonal offices in PDs procedures and enables a better integration of field perspective and an increased consideration and inclusion of subnational CSOs as noted by Lebanon CSOs. In the Niger, the lack of financial resources to establish bigger and more field offices was a challenge in terms of field programme monitoring and close engagement with local actors – understaffed field offices covering

59 UNICEF staff (46 out of 69) distributed as such: Afghanistan: 2 out of 3; Bangladesh: 1 out of 1; India: 2 out of 5; Indonesia: 7 out of 9; Myanmar:

8 out of 12; Nigeria: 2 out of 3; Sudan: 3 out of 4; Ukraine: 3 out of 3; DRC : 18 out of 29. CSOs (17 out of 69) distributed as such: Afghanistan: 2

out of 2; Myanmar : 0 out of 1; India : 2 out of 2; Sudan : 9 out of 9; Indonesia : 1 out of 1; DRC: 3 out of 4 60 OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf. UNICEF CSO Procedure acknowledges that CSO partners contribute in all aspects of programme document/SSFA design and determine in collaboration with UNICEF the contribution or resources, financial and non-financial for achievement of the jointly planned results.

21 | P a g e

very large geographical areas was a major constraint (e.g., field office of Agadez covering Agadez and Tahoua; Field office of Maradi covering Maradi and Zinder).

The capacity of UNICEF to establish direct partnerships with local governments and local CSOs at the decentralized level is dependent on country dynamics. The centralization of power at the capital level by governments, UNICEF and CSOs structures (from a strategic and financial perspectives) is a barrier to subnational actors’ decision-making and strategic engagement. This is especially the case when it comes to governments: The more centralized they are, the more challenging it is to engage with them strategically at the local level, due to the limited decision-making power and decisions on budgets of local government structures – hence contributing to a bias towards UNICEF forming partnerships with governments at the national rather than subnational level. Even if there are some partnerships at the subnational level, they often, ‘stop’ at the regional level. However, decentralization initiatives led by governments appeared to present opportunities for UNICEF to engage more directly at the decentralized level as noted in the Niger where the government has adopted a national strategy to decentralize Health, WASH, and Education sectors starting with Agadez, Diffa, Maradi, Tillabéry and Zinder regions, which have the greatest number of children who are multidimensionally deprived.61 Developing multi-year PDs is an excellent strategy to enable longer-term partnerships with CSOs and ensure the implementation of programmes aimed at strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus. Too often, PDs timeframes are developed to match grant expirations, rather than the timeframe required to deliver an agreed outcome.62 Relationships between UNICEF and local actors are too often contractual based on a short-duration linked to a specific project grant rather than a committed accompaniment. The South Sudan Country Office is working on an innovative approach to develop multi-year PDs, containing both funded elements and as-yet unfunded elements, with the latter becoming activated only upon the receipt of additional funds, especially in Nutrition and Education (e.g., Nutrition has 40 PDs with a three-year timeframe and Education has 10 PDs with a two-year timeframe). This was praised by NGOs as an excellent practice to improve predictability and continuity in response delivery and build longer-term and stronger partnerships with them. UNICEF programme officers are playing a vital role in establishing and maintaining principled partnership with CSOs making UNICEF staff attitude and interpersonal skills critical. CSOs highlighted that UNICEF staff should demonstrate emotional intelligence skills, which can play a role in building equitable partnerships as noted in Lebanon and the Niger where UNICEF staff supported local actors to develop PDs and offered technical support during project implementation.

61 See for example “Communes de convergence”, “Plan de soutien aux populations vulnérables” and the “3N” initiative (Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens). 62 This finding was also highlighted by the Global Protection Cluster, see GPC CP AoR Learning Paper, Localization in Protection Coordination, December 2018

Box 2: Barriers to partnership with local actors

• Armed conflict and instability within a government

limits engagement as noted in South Sudan.

• CSOs profiles, capacities and attitudes play a vital role

in enabling the partnership dimension of localization.

• Current partnership review mechanisms are mainly

being viewed as a compliance tool.

• Establishing a qualitative and real partnership

requires good information and data sharing from

both parties.

22 | P a g e

From the perspective of CSOs, enabling a respectful, equitable and transparent reciprocal partnership requires an easy access to UNICEF premises and staff if needed, and a good knowledge of UNICEF partnership modalities. Several CSOs that do not have PDs with UNICEF underscored the lack of transparency linked to the selection of partners (generally done through direct selection instead of using transparent call for proposals) and the difficulties to understand the partnership opportunities and modalities with UNICEF. In Lebanon, access to UNICEF is simplified both in Beirut and in the field while in South Sudan, UNICEF has initiated a system to improve its relationship with local NGOs. In the Niger, national NGOs are looking for additional opportunities to learn more about UNICEF partnership modalities and get an easier access to UNICEF. Partnering with local organizations with grassroots networks such as the Red Cross is a key strategy to move forward the localization agenda. Discussion with IFRC revealed that UNICEF has partnerships with more than 70 national societies worldwide and is reinforcing its partnership with IFRC at the global level to further strengthen national societies. The IFRC brings a mandate to coordinate and support the development and strengthening of the global network of 191 Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies in their development and humanitarian work. National societies bring a strong understanding of their operational and cultural context and a wealth of connections to local communities and local authorities through their network of community-based volunteers, members, staff and branches. This network provides proximity to and acceptance from communities throughout the country. National societies also have a unique status since they are legally recognized as auxiliaries to their governments on humanitarian assistance.63 In Lebanon for example, the Lebanese Red Cross has a very strong network of 6,000 volunteers and 7 branches across the country focusing on Health, Youth Development, WASH, Child Protection, cash assistance and disaster management. In the Niger, in a context where the Government is initiating the decentralization process, UNICEF partnerships with local NGOs and CBOs remain quite limited, and where UNICEF field offices do not have all the capacity to monitor activities in the field, partnering with the Nigerian Red Cross could help in reinforcing the links at the community level and moving forward with the localization agenda. The Nigerian Red Cross has a very strong network nationwide and has access in all parts of the country, including the most insecure areas, and is willing to partner more with UNICEF.

4.3. Capacity strengthening UNICEF implements a wide range of technical capacity development programmes targeting both CSOs and governments. For CSOs, UNICEF was able to build capacity of several national and subnational CSOs, some of which became well-known and recognized for the quality of their humanitarian work such as Mouvement Social and LebRelief in Lebanon. In South Sudan, CBOs became, in less than two years, strong national NGOs active in emergency response supported by UNICEF capacity development programmes (implemented either through Small Scale Funding Agreement or integrated into the PDs). In the Niger, although UNICEF was able to build the capacity of some national NGOs such as ANTD who became a key actor in child protection in emergencies, only a few national NGOs are intervening in emergency response and have an expertise in humanitarian-development linkage. For governments, the Government of the Niger acknowledged the great role of UNICEF in developing their capacities and supporting them to take more lead in emergency response. UNICEF provided

63 Concept Note: UNICEF-IFRC and RCRC National Societies Partnership

Commented [CR1]: Same comment as above.

23 | P a g e

support to the Civil Defense (Direction Générale de la Protection Civile) in preparing for and responding to floods with an excellent return on investment. UNICEF supported the Ministry of Humanitarian Action, created by the government in 2016, in strengthening its coordination capacity for humanitarian action. UNICEF Niger has also decided to shift strategically in the new Country Programme Document (2019–2021) from predominantly service-delivery mode to more important investments in systems strengthening and capacity building.64 In Lebanon, UNICEF is strengthening the capacity of the government, both at the national and subnational levels. With the Ministry of Water and Energy, UNICEF is supporting the capacity of local authorities at the subnational level in five locations to strengthen water infrastructure network at municipalities level. The 2019 inter-agency Lebanon Crisis Response Plan (equivalent of the Humanitarian Response Plan) has also a clear strategic objective aimed at strengthening national and local capacities to meet the increasingly overwhelming service-related needs and to reinforce confidence in the equitable access to and quality of public services for vulnerable populations.

While UNICEF invests hugely in technical capacity building, there is a general sense that the institutional capacity building part should be prioritized and scaled up. UNICEF has, most often, contributed in expanding the size of CSOs by establishing PDs and often channelling large funding, which contributed to the expansion of the CSOs, but without providing enough support to manage this expansion as noted in Lebanon after the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic. These CSOs had to often scale up to meet the demands of their communities and their international partners (including UNICEF), but without getting the required support to adjust their internal systems, including finance, human resources, administration and management. In Lebanon, some national and subnational CSOs noticed this situation and started to look for ways to develop their institutional capacity in areas such as financial management, accountability, leadership or human resources systems. Interestingly, some of these initiatives were supported by UNICEF through the ‘2 per cent support costs’ initiative in 2018. UNICEF requested CSOs to submit business plans to present what they would like to do with this amount. Several interesting initiatives emerged – for example, Mouvement Social recruiting an expert to review their financial sustainability model or Lebrelief engaging into PQASSO certification to help them attract more funds once they are certified. Although the initiative was highly appreciated by local CSOs, which were able to strengthen their institutional capacity, the amount remains very limited and the initiative very process oriented (while INGOs get 7 per cent with no process linked to that). In South Sudan, CSOs highlighted their need to get resources and expertise to develop their institutional capacity. This feedback on institutional capacity building was common to all three countries visited (South Sudan, Lebanon and the Niger). It was also reflected in the online survey where UNICEF staff, CSOs and government authorities identified the lack of institutional capacity as a main constraint and challenge in partnering with UNICEF as presented in the table 1. On the other hand, 42 per cent of UNICEF online respondents ranked UNICEF’s investment in building the capacity of local actors as very good or good, while 58 per cent ranked it as average or limited. Up to 68 per cent of CSOs rated UNICEF’s investment in building their capacity as very good or good, while 32 per cent rated it as being average or limited, and 75 per cent of government respondents estimated that UNICEF’s investment in building their capacity for humanitarian action was very good or good while 25 per cent estimated that it was average. However, there was a general sense that most capacity-building initiatives done by UNICEF were through standalone trainings or spot checks, and less through alternative modalities such as coaching and mentoring.

64 Niger CPD Summary Booklet 2019-2021, https://www.unicef.org/niger/reports/cpd-summary-booklet-2019-2021; Niger CPD 2019-2021, https://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2019-PL1-CPD_Niger-EN-ODS.pdf

24 | P a g e

Presentation of areas prioritized for capacity building based on respondents to the online survey

UNICEF respondents CSOs respondents Governments respondents

• Strengthen the technical and thematic expertise/abilities of local actors to deliver services in various sectors (48 out of 69 respondents)

• Strengthen the technical and thematic expertise/abilities of CSOs to deliver services in various sectors (10 out of 19 respondents)

• Strengthen the monitoring and evaluation skills of government agencies (12 out of 16 respondents)

•

• Strengthen the financial management systems of local actors (45 out of 69 respondents)

▪ Strengthen the financial management systems of CSOs (4 out of 19 respondents)

▪ Strengthen the financial management systems of Government agencies (11 out of 16 respondents)

▪

• Strengthen the local actors Monitoring & Evaluation skills (42 out of 69 respondents)

• Strengthen long-term planning of the CSOs (4 out of 19 respondents)

• Strengthen CSOs in communicating and publicizing their work (4 out of 19 respondents)

• Strengthen the long-term planning of the local actors of government agencies (9 out of 16 respondents

•

Table 2: Source: 2019 Online survey administered by the review team

The Harmonized Cash Transfer tools provide a range of options to assess the capacity of the CSOs and develop appropriate capacity development plans. This was captured in the online survey results where 59 per cent of UNICEF staff, 88 per cent of government respondents and 89 per cent of CSO respondents highlighted that country offices conducted capacity assessments of local actors as part of humanitarian programming (i.e., assessing the local actors’ strengths and weaknesses in terms of capacities. There was a general sense that the Harmonized Cash Transfer tools were viewed as a compliance tool and could be more used as a tool to inform capacity-building activities. UNICEF already conducts, as part of the Harmonized Cash Transfer framework, programmatic visits to programme implementation sites to provide feedback to partners and formulate action points for both UNICEF and partners. Conducting joint Programme Document review and programme field visits with local actors is a good opportunity for UNICEF to identify the capacity development needs of local actors.65

65 V. Barbelet, As local as possible, as international as necessary: Understanding capacity and complementarity in humanitarian action”, Humanitarian Policy Group, November 2018

25 | P a g e

Prioritizing pre-crisis capacity strengthening, as part of a preparedness strategy, is more successful than in-crisis capacity strengthening. As longer-term capacity development generates better outcomes than short-term capacity development linked to project implementation, there is a growing recognition that capacity strengthening should be integrated as a key pillar of preparedness strategies and actions implemented prior to a disaster.66 An interesting component is to look for ways to strengthen capacities of civil protection/disaster management agencies and key ministries involved in emergency preparedness and response such as ministries of humanitarian affairs, ministries of health or ministries of social affairs, and to strengthen capacities of governments at decentralized levels such as district administration and village committees (e.g., disaster management committees, village development committees, etc.).

4.4. Funding UNICEF provides substantial funding to national and subnational CSOs and to governments. A large portion of these funds is transferred to governments through direct cash transfers. For many CSOs, funds from UNICEF are the only source of humanitarian funding, which represents a risk for their viability in the long run. For some CSOs, UNICEF funds can represent 80 to 90 per cent of their funding structure, like it was noticed in Lebanon. In South Sudan, there has been a steady increase of funding to national non-governmental organizations (NNGOs) by UNICEF from $216,080.00 in 2008 to $45,701,144.00 in November 2018. Funding to Government authorities remains relatively limited due to ongoing instability – it was $189,097.00 in 2008, peaked to $9,293,556.00 in 2013 and decreased to $1,636,598.00 in November 2018. For 2018 in the Niger, UNICEF transferred around $12.8 million to the government through DCTs and $6.3 million to NGOs through PCAs/PDs. Out of the $6.3 million, national NGOs received around $1.2 million (i.e., 19 per cent). In Lebanon, UNICEF transferred around $158 million to the government through DCTs and $97 million to NGOs through PCAs/PDs. Out of the $97 million transferred to NGOs, national NGOs (including academic institutions) received around $49 million, which corresponds to around 20 per cent of the total funds transferred. The completion of programme documents, release of funds and timely communication with partners play a key role in determining the predictability of UNICEF as a partner. It was evident that NNGOs are more affected by such delays as they do not have the space to manoeuvre financially like INGOs. UNICEF staff surveyed highlighted for example how the disbursement of funds is perceived as quick and efficient in only 40 per cent of the cases. UNICEF’s substantial funding to local NGOs was provided through a burdensome administrative process; the PCA/PD procedures were generally perceived as relatively heavy for CSOs, especially CBOs with limited capacity. In most of the cases, the PCA/PD development process does not enable national/subnational NGOs/CSOs to establish quick partnerships with UNICEF for humanitarian response. A total of 68 per cent of UNICEF respondents shared this viewpoint while 32 per cent

66 Ibid

Box 3: Response from UNICEF staff on whether NNGO should access 7 per cent overhead cost

“All NGO partners – whether local or international – should be treated equally and get access to these funds. This will serve as an example of a non-discriminatory approach to working with partner organizations, and will also have a positive effect in the context of institutional support for the national implementing partner”

“Well-established local institutions can also have high running costs – as international NGOs do – and providing these 7 per cent will stimulate “South development” and reinforce local NGOs” “These 7 per cent can develop the NGO partner, build up local expertise and strengthen local ownership. With time this will reduce the dependency on international NGOs” “For localization to be effective, 7 per cent or a bit lower should be paid to local NGOs regardless of their HQ location. They need it more than others as they have more funds limitations”

26 | P a g e

estimated that it did enable UNICEF to establish quick partnerships. In Lebanon some CSOs shared their frustration while developing a PCA/PD with UNICEF due to its perceived heavy administrative burden. In South Sudan, it took an average of three months to develop PDs, far too long for CSOs with limited staff and the need to devote a lot of time in back-to-back communication and exchanges with UNICEF. The delay has been attributed to the frequency with which UNICEF focal points change within sections and some slowness by sections in providing quick feedback to NGOs after they submit a revised version of the PD. Another key issue is related to the reporting requirements. In large scale or protracted crises, these NGOs might most probably receive funding from various United Nations agencies and donors. When each donor has its own reporting requirements, the administrative burden on the CSO can hamper its operational capability.67 Finally, this points out the necessity to put more emphasis on strengthening capacities of CSOs to handle this set of procedures – not only through standalone trainings, but by providing coaching and resources to recruit appropriate staff (e.g., Reporting Specialists).

The 7 per cent of headquarters support costs not provided to NNGOs is perceived as a discriminatory measure favouring INGOs and local actors call for getting access to these 7 per cent to build their institutional capacity. Indeed, UNICEF equally funds NNGOs and INGOs support costs under the Programme Output 4 of the PD (Effective and efficient programme management) prorated to their contribution to the programme. In addition, UNICEF provides 7 per cent of headquarter support costs to INGOs. These 7 per cent are not usually paid to national CSOs as they do not have costs incurred outside of the country of programme implementation however it has been paid to national NGOs/CSOs on a case-by-case basis though.68 Similarly, CSOs and UNICEF staff surveyed online ( 85 per cent) generally agreed that CSOs should get access to a percentage of support costs to build their capacity, on top of what is already provided to them as part of the Programme Document.

In a context where the humanitarian-development nexus is on top of the agenda, multi-year funding appeared as a top concern and the same shared by national and subnational CSOs who expressed frustration with the short duration of the PDs (generally one year) and were calling for multi-year PDs. In South Sudan, the country office is working on an innovative approach to develop multi-year PDs, especially for nutrition and education (e.g., nutrition has 40 PDs with a three-year timeframe and Education has 10 PDs with a two-year timeframe).69 However, although there are positive attempts to sign multi-year PDs, there is no corresponding multi-year funding to support the programme needs

67 See also OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf, 68 On a case-by-case basis, Headquarters Support Costs can be paid to national CSOs. Headquarters Support Costs is not usually paid to national CSOs which maintain headquarters in the capital city of the program country, since technical support from staff in these locations can be included as part of Program Costs, if required (CSO Procedures, Guidance on Budgeting and Financial Management, 2019, page 5) 69 See case study annexed

Box 4: In South Sudan, the introduction of a value for

money benchmark where NGOs are expected to

contribute financially at around 15 to 25 per cent of the

total PD amount is an interesting initiative to promote

leverage of financial resources between UNICEF and its

partners, and to internalize the Principles of Partnership.

27 | P a g e

identified in the PDs. Multi-year funding also provides a strong basis for capacity building and allows the organization to retain staff, contributing to greater stability and quality of aid (OECD, 2016).70

The importance of Country-based Pooled Funds to support national CSOs is critical. The Global Protection Cluster highlighted that local partners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan acknowledged that the common humanitarian pooled funds remain one of the most reliable sources of direct funding for local partners. There is a general perception that they are empowered to operate as an integral part of the humanitarian response, delivering their own projects and not as subcontractors of international organizations. Many pooled funds are also reporting annual increases in the proportion of funding that is going to national actors.71 In Lebanon, the Lebanon Humanitarian Fund managed by OCHA provides substantive direct funds to national NGOs in line with the localization strategy adopted by the Fund. The strategy was mainly articulated around the necessity to reach affected populations in informal settlements scattered throughout the country. Using local NGOs close to these communities was a way to localize the response to these specific geographical areas and reach the population more quickly and efficiently. As such, localization was used as a humanitarian imperative. In 2017, the Lebanon Humanitarian Fund channelled over half of its funds to NNGOs, as part of a continued effort to support and empower them. In addition, 48 NNGO staff benefited from the Fund’s trainings throughout 2017, on topics ranging from pooled fund programme cycles to financial and operational rules and regulations. In 2018, 24 projects were funded through the fund (31.57 per cent). In South Sudan, there has been an increase of national partners featured in the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) and allocation of funding to NNGOs through the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund has considerably expanded over the past years from 7 per cent in 2013 to 23 per cent in 2017.72 UNICEF, through its clusters, is advocating for systematic funding of local actors through the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund. For example, suggesting ceilings for funding in WASH allows for more local partners to secure funds. In Education cluster, UNICEF has stopped applying for the South Sudan Humanitarian Fund with the intent that this space will be filled up by local actors.

Importance of dedicating more funds to national NGOs in the HRPs. In the Niger, in the HRP 2019 (under finalization) a preliminary analysis73 done by the child protection subcluster indicates that 60 per cent of funds were requested by INGOs to reach 36 per cent of the target population compared to 17 per cent of funds requested by national NGOs to reach 29 per cent of the target. This shows how LNGOs can have a higher value for money ratio. It is worth mentioning that out of the 21 projects in the HRP for the subcluster, 9 are from national NGOs – which represents a good ratio compared to other clusters. This was achieved thanks to the proactive involvement of the Protection cluster, especially the Child Protection subcluster, in reaching out to national NGOs and mentoring them to submit projects in the HRP.

The quality of funding matters as much as the quantity of funding. The Global Protection Cluster highlighted that many local partners have raised concerns that constraints about how money can be used (through earmarking or complicated reallocation approval processes) lead to poorly targeted interventions. Without core funding, these local organizations are stuck in a cycle of project-based approaches, experience high-staff turnover and often must accept funding for activities which fall

70OECD, Multiyear humanitarian funding, the commitment into action series, 2016, www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/multiyearfunding.pdf 71 GPC CP AoR Learning Paper, Localization in Protection Coordination, page 26, December 2018 72 Ibid 73 See “Child Protection sub-cluster HRP 2019, Dashboard Aperçu des projets, December 2018”

28 | P a g e

outside their areas of expertise.74 UNICEF’s global approach towards national/local CSOs favours cycles of project-based approaches which, in turn, stuck the CSOs in a rather short-term perspective. UNICEF may also tend to prioritize international partners due to their assumed emergency expertise who in turn, subcontract national organizations.

4.5. Coordination The inclusion of national NGOs in all Strategic Advisory Groups of UNICEF-led subclusters, like in South Sudan, is a good initiative to promote local actors influence and inclusion in cluster decision-making process. However, they do not always share equal weight with INGOs. In the Niger, for example, the WASH cluster SAG includes 1 national NGO, 4 INGOs and the government. In terms of membership, the WASH cluster includes 47 INGOs and 16 national NGOs. This disparity is mainly linked to the gap in emergency expertise of national NGOs.

Recognizing the value of localization in coordination, several specific initiatives are implemented through the global clusters. An advisory group composed of UNICEF (as lead agency for Child Protection and co-lead for Education), UNHCR (as Protection Cluster lead agency), UNFPA (as Gender-based Violence AoR lead agency), four NGOs (Save the Children, Street-Child UK, IRC and Plan International), and two country-level representatives has been set up to coordinate activities around localization in coordination mechanisms. The Global Cluster Coordination and its four Areas of Responsibility (AoRs) are seeking to meet the commitments made towards localization and ensure that protection response strategies and coordination mechanisms are guided by the principle “as local as possible, as international as necessary.” In this regard, the Child Protection AoR, the IRC and the protection clusters at the country level work to engage more local actors with protection coordination mechanisms (e.g., Child Protection Cluster, Gender-based Violence Sub-Clusters other relevant protection coordination mechanisms) and in the development and implementation of humanitarian strategies (e.g., cluster strategies, Humanitarian Needs Overview, HRP and Humanitarian Country Team Protection Strategy). They also support local actors in enhancing their access to humanitarian financing (e.g., direct funding and pooled fund mechanisms). The Child Protection (CP) AoR has established decentralized helpdesks in Arabic, English, French and Spanish in order to address the language barriers. Each helpdesk is housed by local NGOs to ensure contextualized guidance is provided and foster discussions and exchanges of good practices among local actors. They offer individually-tailored support, facilitate peer networking through a Facebook Community of Practice, and share newsletters about learning opportunities, resources, and global and country-level activities. The CP AoR has also established the first and only global cluster Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) that has national representation and that is chaired by a national actor. This is important both to model good practice; and to ensure that the global work plan remains informed by, and grounded in, local practice and local context. As a result, the way the CP AoR works in practice has changed, with more explicit focus on field support and country-level action. National actors of the SAG have received regular mentoring support from the CP AoR to both strengthen their involvement and influence in global decision-making; and to support them to develop local and regional networks and maximize their ability to play a representative role. The GBV AoR has set up a Localization Task Team to share and map promising practices and priority challenges in addressing localization of humanitarian GBV prevention, response and risk mitigation. This task team can be used as a space in which local civil

74 Issues surrounding good donorship and the structural challenges for international donors who want to shift to more direct funding models for national actors have been well documented by the Good Humanitarian Donor Group

29 | P a g e

society organizations can share their perspectives on how the GBV AoR and other relevant processes (e.g., Call to Action on Protection from GBV in Emergencies) can meaningfully engage with them, be influenced by them and support their work.

Local actors are involved in humanitarian coordination structures led by UNICEF with a good participation of national NGOs in coordination platforms. This was confirmed in the online survey results where 62 per cent of UNICEF respondents estimated that local actors are either very well or well represented in humanitarian coordination mechanisms such as clusters, subclusters and humanitarian sector working groups. However, they are not really leading and do not have much influence in the discussions and processes. Sixty per cent of UNICEF respondents highlighted that local actors are rarely leading humanitarian coordination and in the Niger local partners are not that much involved in the debates on issues in the Nutrition cluster.

Governments co-lead several clusters/subclusters but still need to be supported to take on full co-leadership, like in Lebanon, the Niger and South Sudan. Focusing on building national coordination systems would help.

The importance of supporting local CSOs in coordinating themselves through NGO networks/forums is paramount to enable localization. Civil society in developing countries are increasingly getting organized in national, regional and international networks that could be further supported.75 In the Niger, some local NGOs (LNGOS) highlighted the need to set up a coordination system where all actors can speak in the same voice. The systematic mapping of LNGOs at the country level could help get a clear overview of the LNGOs involved with UNICEF.76 This would help mobilize resources and bring advocacy with donors to a higher level, while also using these platforms to channel UNICEF key advocacy messages. In South Sudan, there is already a strong and well-organized NGO Forum and there are opportunities to assess partnership opportunities with this Forum (e.g., in capacity building).

The inter-agency role of OCHA in promoting localization is key. For example, in Lebanon, UN OCHA is piloting a localization project (with an assigned ‘localization officer’), which consists in: a) accompanying three local organizations to develop a proposal based on their regular programming; b) identifying a specific growth/empowerment objective per partner; c) familiarizing with institutional funding obligations through the funding of the project and the roll-out of the regular LHF performance monitoring. The final aim is to strengthen the capacities of national NGOs intervening in emergency or willing to do so. As such, OCHA is preparing a self-assessment exercise for these NGOs to help them identify their own needs in terms of capacity building. OCHA is also working with the Lebanon NGO Forum – created in 2014 and working mainly on the Syrian crisis – to strengthen the coordination among the NNGOs and with external stakeholders. The LHF is also financially supporting the process of formalization of the platform (through the recruitment of staff dedicated to it).

4.6. Visibility The roles, work, risks taken and contribution of local actors appeared to be not often rendered visible in UNICEF communication products according to 62 per cent of UNICEF respondents on the online survey and more often local partners appear in UNICEF communications as nameless with no logo and referred as generic ‘local partners’. Developing specific visibility strategies aimed at showcasing the work of local actors in UNICEF communication products and cluster-related products would help

75 OECD, Localizing the response, 2017, https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitarian-donors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf, 76 This is one of the benefits introduced by www.unpartnerportal.org

30 | P a g e

advancing localization. In the Niger, local NGOs are not very visible in the various mappings done at cluster or subcluster levels as they intervene mainly as partners of INGOs or United Nations agencies, hence the latest are the ones being visible. They were also not very visible in UNICEF communication products. In Lebanon, local NGOs appeared not to be specifically visible in OCHA Lebanon Humanitarian Fund communication products and in the various mappings done at the ‘cluster/sector’ level as they intervene mainly as partners of INGOs or United Nations agencies. Additional effort could help increase their visibility in some external communication and information management products (e.g., press releases, dashboards, 3W, etc.). Local actors themselves should try to be more proactive in communicating their achievements. In Lebanon, national and subnational CSOs manage to be publicly visible due to their involvement and recognition at the community level and their vocal nature. This demonstrates the importance and responsibility of local actors to be more proactive in communicating about their achievements. National NGO forums can also support local actors in communicating their work.

Local actors generally face a double constraint: first, they are not generally visible when they are direct partners of UNICEF – and even less when they are ‘subcontracted’ by an INGO partnering with UNICEF. In this last case, they might be put aside in the communication products of INGOs due to the crowded and competitive funding environment. Increasing the representation and visibility of national and local actors is a first step, but it needs to be accompanied with the elevation of the voice of national and local actors in shared forums. We should ensure equal participation in shared forums – 50 per cent participation by national actors – both in physical presence and allocated floor time. The use of local and national languages in coordination forums could be an asset. For example, in Lebanon, many sectoral coordination meetings are now held in Arabic (e.g., the Education Sector is holding all its meetings in Arabic since 2016) and several coordination meetings are held at the decentralized level where many CSOs are based/operate.

4.7. Policy There is a general sense that national and local CSOs have little input into and influence on UNICEF and government policies and plans as well as international policy debates on humanitarian action. At the global level, it is unclear how UNICEF engages local actors in the development of various global policies that benefit or concern them, such as UNICEF CSO procedures. Local actors appeared to not often influence UNICEF and government humanitarian action priorities in-country including programme design and implementation, according to 61 per cent of UNICEF respondents. Only 39 per cent of UNICEF respondents judged that they do influence it most of the time. 56 per cent of the governments respondents estimated that they influenced UNICEF humanitarian priorities in-country, including programme design and implementation, only sometimes or rarely. Forty-four per cent of the government respondents estimated that it was the case most of the time. There are, however, some interesting examples of policy engagement with governments and CSOs at country levels. In the Niger, UNICEF engages in policy dialogue with the government to support sector-wide approaches, effective multisectoral coordination and the convergence of programmatic approaches. For example, UNICEF is supporting the Ministry of Humanitarian Action to elaborate on the National Humanitarian and Disaster Management Policy and its Action Plan (together with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and

31 | P a g e

Humanitarian Aid Operations, or ECHO, and Action Contre la Faim (as members of the HCT). However, it was unclear how local NGOs and CBOs had a voice in the development process of various strategic and operational plans done by the government. In Lebanon, UNICEF Youth Programme component supports the development and institutionalization of inclusive policies, services and learning opportunities for, and empowerment of, youth and adolescents. One of the expected outcomes of the Youth Section is to ensure that most disadvantaged youths (15 to 24 years of age) increasingly influence policies. In that context, UNICEF supported several local youth organizations such as MASAR – to get involved in the development of the National Youth Policy and its related three-year action plan. Several consultative workshops were organized for a year and a half at the national level where youth were invited and afforded the opportunity to provide inputs and feedback on the action plan development. The plan was finalized in December 2018 and will be officially launched soon. While the policy and the action plan are mainly focused on Lebanese youth, demographics and migration are a key themes of both, together with the interrelated topic of peacebuilding and stability (in a context where tensions may arise due to the presence of Syrian refugee youth). In South Sudan, UNICEF supported the government with the drafting of a protocol on non-subsidiary water use and a National Platform for Disaster Risk reduction. However, the finalization of some of these documents has been delayed for the past three years.

4.8. Participation and community engagement Only 35 per cent of UNICEF respondents estimated that beneficiaries/local communities have an early say in the design and planning phase of humanitarian response most of the time, while 65 per cent of respondents estimated that it was sometimes or rarely the case. Fifty-one per cent of UNICEF respondents highlighted that UNICEF rarely or sometimes established formal communication and feedback mechanisms in their office’s most recent humanitarian response to promote participation from the affected community (such as focus group discussions, information boards, telephone hotlines, participatory monitoring and evaluation etc.), while 49 per cent estimated that it happened most of the time. Several interesting initiatives are however implemented by various country offices. In the Niger, UNICEF has partnerships at the local level such as (e.g., the partnership with a network of community-based radios ‘Réseau des radios communautaires et rurales’) to channel key messages to the population. Several UNICEF sections structure their programmes around community mobilizers or community based-organizations. For example, in Child Protection, community mobilizers, youth committees, community leaders and youth CBOs are part of the child protection mechanisms. In Lebanon, a CSO partnering with UNICEF, ‘Mouvement Social’, has set up community centres where there is a direct contact and relationship with communities. Feedback from communities is also captured through KAP Studies, household studies and Sitans – and UNICEF Lebanon has established a complaint mechanism for beneficiaries, such as a hotline, with UNICEF- supported cash programme. In South Sudan, there are attempts to improve the involvement of affected populations through several Accountabilities to Affected Populations (AAP) initiatives implemented at the field level (e.g., community mobilization networks (Communication for Development), WASH community mobilization and community-user association processes or Parents Teacher Association in Education). There is considerable use of radio programmes to create awareness on immunization and cholera campaigns in various local languages (the number has increased from 3 to 9 languages). The community integrated mobilization activities being conducted by C4D is encouraging as a strategy to engage communities in humanitarian response albeit focusing on health-related interventions such as immunization and vaccination campaigns.

Commented [CR2]: Word missing.

32 | P a g e

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion There is no doubt that localization, referring to the need to recognize, respect, strengthen, rebalance, recalibrate, reinforce or return some type of ownership or place to national and subnational actors (governments, CSOs, Red Cross/Crescent and Private Sector) strengthens inclusion, efficiency and effectiveness in humanitarian assistance. Local actors are also the first responders on the scene and the ones who remain and help increase resilience by better linking preparedness, response and recovery efforts. From a conceptual perspective, the review highlighted that localization must be implemented from a multi-dimensional perspective to take on its full meaning. It should not only focus on capacity strengthening and funding but also on key dimensions such as principled partnership, participation of affected communities, localized coordination mechanisms, visibility and policy. UNICEF existing partnership and implementation models with governments, CSOs and the private sector, built on UNICEF commitments as reflected in the Core Commitments for Children (CCCs), should be channelled through these seven dimensions to enable a localized response. UNICEF is deeply committed to advancing its localization agenda as reflected in numerous internal policies and strategies such as the CCCs, the CSO Procedure, the Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts, the guidance on preparedness or the UNICEF Strategic Plan 2018–2021. UNICEF is a partner of choice for governments and CSOs, and implements a range of initiatives that contribute to localization in humanitarian action. UNICEF strengthens government systems for preparedness and response, develop capacities of national and subnational CSOs to become key humanitarian actors, and supports local service delivery through technical capacity building and funding of local actors. UNICEF also leads several key actions to improve the inclusion of local actors in humanitarian coordination mechanisms and to engage communities in the response. The effectiveness of localization is also a question of timing: prioritizing pre-crisis capacity strengthening, as part of preparedness strategy, tends to be more successful than in-crisis capacity strengthening. Establishing principled partnerships with local actors requires a paradigm shift where UNICEF could create an environment enabling local actors to be ‘decision-making partners’ and not only ‘implementing partners’. UNICEF burdensome partnership procedures and processes can be a major barrier to localization. The administrative burden could nonetheless be somehow mitigated when appropriate coaching and mentoring is delivered and when UNICEF staff demonstrate supportive attitude and adequate interpersonal skills. Enabling decentralized decision-making authority and capacity further contributes to better engage with local actors, opening the way for more regular face-to-face interactions and substantial presence in the field for monitoring and capacity strengthening purposes. As governments tend to be more and more committed in responding to disasters within their countries and providing relief and rehabilitation through domestic efforts, UNICEF needs to adapt quickly its modus operandi to advance on localization and save children’s lives, defend their rights and help them fulfil their potential. This also requires the support from donors to adapt their funding modalities by providing more multi-year funding and ensuring grant flexibility with the possibility to further support institutional capacity strengthening.

33 | P a g e

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS For UNICEF:

1. Prioritize and scale up institutional capacity building to enable local actors to move from short-term project-based approach to long-term sustainability by building up capacity such as finance, logistics, administration, fundraising and reporting, and make the link between partners’ institutional capacities and programme strategy (not just risk assessment) explicit in project/partnership design.

2. Shift UNICEF capacity strengthening model to focus more on coaching, mentoring and secondment of key staff to local actors and less on standalone trainings, and develop appropriate guidance to support UNICEF regional and country offices in that regard. Increase face-to-face working time between UNICEF and local actors.

3. Allocate more funds to national and subnational CSOs to cover their overhead/support costs in order to strengthen their institutional capacity. Providing in that sense an additional 7 per cent of the total Programme Document Budget would be helpful (similarly to what UNICEF is already providing to INGOs to cover their headquarter support costs).

4. Shift from heavy administrative procedures towards lighter administrative processes to reduce access barriers for national/subnational CSOs (quicker PDs) and minimize their cash-flow related risks (quicker cash disbursements).

5. Scale up the development of multi-year Programme Documents ideally along with multi-year funding to enable for a longer-term and more strategic partnership with CSOs and better humanitarian-development linkages. Where multi-year funding is not available, encourage non-financial multi-year commitments (for example, including technical assistance and joint monitoring).

6. Provide more authority and capacities to UNICEF field offices to engage in partnership processes with local actors and to strengthen field monitoring, supervision and coaching of local actors in their respective geographical areas. This will help increase local ownership (e.g., develop Field Offices SOPs for the PRC Committee, additional staffing to monitor and support partners work at field level…).

7. Raise awareness and sensitize UNICEF staff on the Principles of Partnership, especially in relation with local actors, and include these Principles in UNICEF agreements with partners (PCA/PD, MoU, SSFA, Workplan, etc.) and in clusters/subclusters ToRs and workplans.

8. Focus UNICEF preparedness strategy at the regional and country levels on investing in pre-crisis capacity strengthening of local actors (e.g., civil protection/national disaster management agencies, ministries of humanitarian action, etc.) and ensure that all PCAs/PDs include the scope for adaptation to emergency response (crisis modifiers).

9. Increase and systematize Information and data sharing from UNICEF to CSOs and governments and vice-versa. Assign Focal points/Helpdesks for CSOs in UNICEF country offices (to enquire about partnership modalities, to follow-up on the PDs development process status, etc.)

10. Tracking systematically key data at the country and regional levels and reporting on funding trends would help following up on UNICEF localization commitments from a funding perspective.

11. Develop a global localization policy/strategy and localization strategies in regional/country offices. This will enable UNICEF to better institutionalize localization, setting benchmarks, monitoring and documenting its advancement on localization (such as best practices).

12. Revisit the CCCs currently under revision to include ‘localization’ as an overarching commitment (if the draft version has already been finalized, update it by including an Addendum on localization)

13. Include national NGOs in all Strategic Advisory Groups of UNICEF-led (sub)clusters and put in place more flexible, contextualized, inclusive coordination mechanisms (use of local language, making

34 | P a g e

joint assessments) to promote local actors influence and inclusion in cluster decision-making process.

14. Support governments and local civil society to take on full co-leadership of UNICEF-led (sub)clusters.

15. Promote visibility of local actors in UNICEF reports and documents and raise their profiles in national and international forums.

16. Strengthen community engagement and accountability, and systematically engage communities in a meaningful way by ensuring they have an early say in the design and planning phase of the humanitarian response. Follow up and ensure adequate linkages between the AAP initiatives led by EMOPS GVA and the localization work led by EMOPS New York and the global clusters. Explore connections with localization in the AAP handbook and the AAP training module under development.

For donors:

11. Adapt funding modalities by providing more multi-year funding and ensuring grant flexibility with the possibility to further support institutional capacity strengthening; and incentivize collaborative and principled partnership approaches, rather than subgranting.

12. Support Country-based Pooled Funds to play a larger role in funding local actors.