STRENTHENING HUMANITARIAN REPONSE

Building a Stronger, More Predictable Humanitarian

Response System

Objective of the presentation

• To provide a general update on the main elements of the Humanitarian Reform

• Gain a better understanding of how the various elements interlink

• Its no longer a reform but rather ‘the way we do business’

Changing Environment:

• Demands for humanitarian relief are likely to grow

• Increase in diverse and fragmented range of humanitarian actors

Challenges include :

• Capacity and coherence of action will need to increase

• Competitive funding environment

• Challenges in maintaining necessary humanitarian space and independence

• Increased public scrutiny of humanitarian action

Why did we need humanitarian reform?

Findings from the 2005 Humanitarian Response Review

• Well-known, long-standing gaps

• Unpredictable capacity

• Ad-hoc responses

• Erratic coordination, weak partnerships

• Insufficient accountability among humanitarian agencies

• Donor policies inconsistent

PARTNERSHIPS

CA

PA

CIT

Y

&

PR

ED

ICT

AB

AIL

ITY

FIN

AN

CIN

G

LE

AD

ER

SH

IP

STRENGTHENING HUMANITARIAN

RESPONSE

Enhance humanitarian response capacity Predictability, Accountability and Partnership

Support to national authorities• Humanitarian coordination in support of government

leadership of response

• Strengthening preparedness and contingency planning

• Clusters structure in support of and partnership with government structures

• Dialogue and coordination at sectoral level with government counterparts

• Dialogue and coordination through RC or HC

The Way We Do Business…

National Authorities/ governments sectors

Humanitarian Country Team

Clusters

Inter cluster coordination

Resident Coordinator

Humanitarian CoordinatorPrinciples of Partnership

Way of working:

National Authorities/ governments

Support to Coordination

Preparedness

Support to national capacity

Support to Coordination

HCT Guidelines

HC strengthening

Roll out

Strengthening Partnerships and Support to Coordination

Whose reform?Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)

Composed of NGO consortia, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, IOM, World Bank and UN agencies

Why Partnership?Humanitarian agencies acknowledge that no single agency can cover all humanitarian needs A recognition that IASC led reform needed broader support from all partners

Based on what Principles?Partnership is the foundation of the

Humanitarian Reform

Equality

Transparency

Results Oriented Approach

Responsibility

Complementarity

A ‘Process’:• To create change in the way we do ‘business’,

• Moving away from contractual relationships

• Understanding what are our commonalities and differences?

• What expectations do we have of each other?

• Not only UN vis à vis non-UN

How to improve partnerships?• Preparedness

• HC selection and appraisal

• HCT

• Clusters

• CERF/ Humanitarian Financing

Strengthening Leadership:the Humanitarian Coordination System

Effective leadership and coordination in humanitarian emergencies

Humanitarian Leadership

• Policy Development

• HC Selection

• Professional Development

• Knowledge Management

• Accountability

Predictable Humanitarian Financing

Adequate, timely and flexible financing

What is good humanitarian financing? • Plurality, diversity and complementarity of funding

mechanisms (majority of funds are bilateral grants)

• Predictable, impartial, equitable, timely

• Ensure UN and non- UN have equitable and transparent modalities to obtain funding

• Strategies and channels should not inhibit or be to the detriment of partnerships.

Humanitarian Financing components:

Demand (requirements):

Needs Analysis Framework

Consolidated and Flash Appeals

Financial Tracking System

Supply ($):

Bilateral Funding (project based + core funding)

Humanitarian Pooled Funds: CERF, Humanitarian Pooled Funds: CERF, ERFs, and CHFs

Emergency reserves for UN agencies, IOM and IFRC (DREF)

Emergency cash grant (OCHA) or TRAC 1.1.3 (UNDP)

Humanitarian Pooled Funds (HC managed):

CERF

Global

Target: $500m (both loan and grant elements)

CHFs

Country level

(Sudan, DRC and CAR)ERFs

Country level

(12 active funds)

Central Emergency Response Fund:

2 elements, 2 windows

1. Loan element ($50m)

1. Grant element ($450m): rapid response window (2/3)under-funded window (1/3)

Two year evaluation findings of the Fund:

proved itself as a valuable and impartial tool. made considerable progress towards improving the timeliness of

initial response to sudden-onset emergencies and correcting inequities of humanitarian funding of ‘neglected’ emergencies.

served as a catalyst for improved field-level coordination, and evidence-based prioritization.

Ensuring Capacity & Predictability:the Cluster Approach

Adequate capacity and predictable leadership in all sectors

Predictability, Accountability and Partnership• Better support to national-led response efforts

• Common standards and tools

• Predictable stockpiles and trained expertise

• Unified interface for Governments, donors & other actors

• “First port of call” and “provider of last resort”

• Mainstreaming Gender, HIV/AIDS, Environment

• Commitment to Monitoring & Evaluation

Quantitatively- Field Roll-Out• In total, the cluster approach has been used in more than 30

countries since 2006.

• In 2009, application of the cluster approach should be standard practice in all countries with HC and in all major new emergencies.

• Country level cluster leads may not opt out of certain provisions of the cluster approach, such as “accountability” or “partnerships” or “provider of last resort.”

• There is no such thing as a “cluster lite” approach. 

Qualitatively• Capacity of all sector/cluster lead agencies and

coordinators needs to be strengthened

• Increasingly effective leadership from RC and HCs

• Ensuring that IASC-agreed procedures are followed

• Focus often remains on UN Country Team rather than HCT

• Continued support and prioritize strengthened contingency planning is required

Global Capacity-Building• Two-year effort to build predictable and harmonised

response capacity (UN and non-UN) in eleven clusters:

• Common stockpiles,

• Trained deployable staff,

• Harmonised standards, guidelines & tools

• Vital but costly element of reform agenda

• Potential to have most impact in improving response standards/predictability

Cluster Approach: Impact

Stakeholder feedback to date:• Roles and responsibilities clearer• Partnerships and coherence has improved• Engagement with and support to national authorities

is better• Significant potential to enhance overall effectiveness

of humanitarian response• Still some confusion in implementation• Focus on operational impact needs to be

strengthened (Evaluation 2007-08)

The Way Forward…

for humanitarian response

The way forward…

• Roles and responsibilities clearer• Partnerships and coherence improved• Fewer response gaps• Engagement with national authorities • Convergence on definitions, guidelines, and

assessment methodologies • Shift towards a more programmatic, rather than

project-based, approach • ‘Significant potential to enhance overall

effectiveness of humanitarian response’

Work still to be done…

• Stronger in-country leadership

• Ensuring HCT are in place

• More and better funding

• Better coordination

• Greater accountability

• Sustained political commitment

• OCHA has to step up to the plate