Global Protection Cluster: protection funding study

julianmurrayconsulting@gmail.com

Research parameters

Literature review: companion studies Quantitative: FTS, DAC, Agency reports Surveys: 130 online respondents and 21 donor questionnaires 30 In depth interviews 4 Field visits: Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Sudan

+ Kenya/Somalia Workshops in Washington and Geneva

Covers non-refugee protection Uses a narrow definition of protection

Some of the major findings (1):

IDP protection funding (using broad methodology) is fairly steady despite overall humanitarian funding decline

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -

2,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

6,000,000,000

8,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

12,000,000,000

14,000,000,000

16,000,000,000

18,000,000,000

All Humanitarian funding and all pro-tection funding w/out Mine Action

ALL HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION x 10

Some of the major findings (2):

But IDP protection is consistently underfunded in relation to protection requests in appeals: although this fluctuates

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% Funding of Appeals vs % Funding of Protection in Appeals

% Appeals funded % Protection funded

Some of the major findings (3):

The typical IDP protection funding profile shows a peak in year two, then gradual decline

1 2 3 4 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

Protection Funding: Typical Profile From 20 Emergencies 2007-2012 (FTS)

Years elapsed since appeal launchedPerc

enta

ge o

f Pro

tecti

on r

eque

sts

fund

ed

A

B

C

Some of the major findings (4) Mine action is not in competition for protection funding,

and among the other AoRs Child Protection is strongest

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

600000000

Protection Funding within appeals (FTS), including Mine Action (LCMM)

General Protection GBV CPiE HLP Total w/out Mine Action Mine action

The absence of a simple conceptual framework is problematic

The technical definition of protection is not readily understandable by the public

Protection at the same time the purpose of humanitarian action, and

It is an approach within all sectors, and It also has its own domain (the activities

of the protection cluster). Furthermore Programming can be protection-specific,

integrated or mainstreamed

Donors do not make the main protection funding decisions

Donors usually allocate on basis of countries and partners, not sectors

Donors generally trust the main protection actors to set priorities

When considering protection projects in CAPs, some donors have concerns about delivery capacity and results, and they would usually prefer fewer + larger proposals

Protection programmes need to show results

“Success is measured in things that do not happen” (expert comment)

Behavioural change is long-term The domain is fraught with political

interests and access challenges Funding is short-term and fragmented Measuring protection results is a

challenge, but it is possible with enough attention and active support

Pointers for cluster coordination

Develop simple clear protection narratives (at global and country level)

Advocate for protection to form the basis for analysis and planning of the whole Humanitarian Strategy

Make sure protection cluster coordination is fully resourced in the top 10 complex emergencies

Consider refining the concept of “foundational protection,” and managing it collectively

Pointers for protection cluster partners

Advocate more for protection within your organisations

Coordinate as well as you can, consider consortia that allow fewer/larger programmes that have critical mass to show results and include NNGOs as partners

Work within the Humanitarian Strategy towards planning and reporting for outcome-level protection results

Pointers for donors

Stay with the GHD agenda, and improve reporting to FTS

Consider bold protection mainstreaming requirements, and fund multi-year whenever possible

Keep working at joining the development side up, so that important gains achieved in humanitarian space can be sustained in national programmes

Related initiatives

GBV and Child Protection funding handbook

Child protection Minimum Standards Update of IASC GBV guidelines InterAction initiative to improve

results-based protection Revisions to the reference module

on the Humanitarian Program Cycle