REVIEW OF HRP/HNO PROCESS 2016/2017 - Humanitarian ...

United Nations Development Programme ∙ 11-13 Ch. des Anémones ∙ 1219 Châtelaine ∙ Geneva, Switzerland

REVIEW OF HRP/HNO PROCESS 2016/2017 Early Recovery Coordination Experts, April 2016

Page | 1

Contents

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2

II. Survey Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2

III. Survey Highlights ......................................................................................................................... 3

A. What are the three top challenges in HRP/HNO planning processes? ........................... 4

B. What are the three top opportunities in HRP/HNO planning processes? ......................... 6

C. Do you think that the HRP/HNO process made a difference & to what extent does it

bring operational value? ...................................................................................................................... 8

Highlights ............................................................................................................................................... 8

D. Have you included activities of preparedness and/or early action in your Flash

Appeals and/or HRPs? ....................................................................................................................... 10

E. Has your Cluster had any joint programming? ..................................................................... 11

F. Is there any coordination platform that brings together humanitarian, development

and peace building actors? ................................................................................................................ 13

G. Do local and national actors in your country contribute to HRP/HNO processes?.... 14

H. Would a multiyear plan be useful & would your country government be interested

in a multiyear plan? ............................................................................................................................ 16

V. Proposed ways forward.............................................................................................................. 18

VI. ANNEX .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Page | 2

I. Introduction

In the last years OCHA and partners have worked to lighten humanitarian planning processes and improve inter-cluster coordination and joint analysis. Yet, the heaviness of the planning process and the operational value of Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) continue to be among the major concerns of humanitarian actors. In order to better shape and guide the future work of the Early Recovery (ER) clusters, inspired by the agenda of the World Humanitarian Summit and the Secretary General Report One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, we take stock of lessons learned from the past year to guide our thinking and support in the years to come.

The Global Cluster for Early Recovery (GCER) launched a mini survey in mid-March 2016 aimed at gauging the perception of Early Recovery (ER) Coordination Experts1 with regards to challenges and opportunities associated with the current HRP coordination and planning processes at country level while also seeking their views on how planning could be improved in the future. The thoughts and ideas of ER coordination experts are key to informing global processes and work of the Global Cluster.

The report summarizes the findings and general conclusions on the following topics:

The value added and strengths and weaknesses of the HRP planning process.

Strengthening preparedness/early action in Flash Appeals and HRPs.

Possibilities for joint programming around collective outcomes.

Linkages between humanitarian plans and development/peacebuilding frameworks.

Role of national and local actors in the planning process, including engagement with the civil society.

Multi-year planning opportunities.

GCER extends its sincere thanks to all respondents for their candid and constructive answers.

II. Survey Methodology

The questionnaire was shared with current ER coordination Experts including four individuals who were deployed in an ER capacity until January 2016. Respondents were kept anonymous.

1 By Early Recovery Experts, we refer to Early Recovery Advisors, Early Recovery Cluster Coordinators, Early Recovery Information Management Officers and any UNDP contract holders who act as Early Recovery focal persons in their country of assignment. GCER deploys UN personnel to activated Early Recovery Clusters on the basis of country needs and requests. As of March 2016 ER Experts are deployed in 23 countries.

Page | 3

The survey gathered information from 21 former and current ER coordination experts out of 312 currently deployed, namely seven from Eastern, Southern, Western and Central Africa, six from Asia, Central Asia and Europe and eight from Arab states. For a breakdown of respondents by region, see Figure 1 below:

Countries by region3 Participating countries Respondents by region

Africa Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Nigeria

7

Arab States Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Yemen

8

Asia, Central Asia and Europe

Myanmar, Nepal

6

Figure 1

The questionnaire presents a set of 16 questions comprising multiple choice questions as well as open and closed questions. It includes a mix of quantitative questions (measurable ranking) and qualitative questions allowing for explanation and concrete examples. The full questionnaire is available in Annex.

III. Survey Highlights

This section presents the answers and key findings to each of the questions in the survey. Thoughts and ideas as expressed by the coordinators have been included to qualify the answers. A summary of the main points is provided at the end of each section.

In order to ensure confidentiality of answers, responses are classified by region, instead of by country.

2 It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this report 18 countries have active cluster systems. Out of 18, seven countries have an ER cluster, eight an ER sector and seven countries either have a network or a platform and/or a latent ER coordination mechanism. A total of 22 ER coordination mechanisms whether in the form of a sector/cluster/network are in place in Q1 of 2016

3 For the list of countries, GCER has used the categorization of countries by region of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG)

Page | 4

A. What are the three top challenges in HRP/HNO planning processes?

Highlights

Participants were asked to select three main challenges from a list of options (see Annex for the list) and then to elaborate in a few words their responses. Among the list, the option ‘other’ was included to allow respondents to further complement the list.

One fifth of respondents consider the scarcity of available quality data and systematically collected data as the top challenge to a meaningful HRP/HNO planning process. Due to lack of proper assessments and reliable data some also highlight that the HRP process rests on guesswork. The tight HRP deadlines and management of the planning calendar do not allow enough time to carry out in depth assessments.

In some countries the discussions and disagreements with government regarding the numbers of affected population lead to significant delays in the planning and unreliable planning figures. Some argue that the contexts within which they work are complex with different types of emergencies and different data requirements, and that the simplicity or rigidity of the HRP/HNO planning process does not fit well.

16% and 11% of respondents find availability of funding and advocacy the two major challenges, respectively. The ER cluster often gets caught in (donor driven) discussions around whether the interventions of the cluster are life-saving or not, and this may have an adverse impact on funding.

Advocacy for your cluster

11%

Analysis of data5%

Availability of quality data and

information /evidence

20%

Available funding for the cluster

16%

Cluster field presence

3%

Coordination set-up/architecture

10%

Government engagement

8%

Other8%

Partner capacities5%

Time pressure7%

Visionary humanitarian

leadership7%

F

i

g

u

r

e

2

Page | 5

Selected quotes from some of the countries are presented below.

CHALLENGES

Availability of quality data and information evidence:

Africa:

“Data collection and analysis must be done in a coordinated way: more efforts should be made to develop systematic data collection and analysis systems of the same data for the benefit of the entire humanitarian community in order to inform the planning and generate a coordinated humanitarian response. This approach is not pursued currently leading to delays and less effective humanitarian aid.”

Asia, Central Asia and Europe:

“A weak preparatory process of the HRP resulted in lack of time in gathering, consolidating,

and ‘qualifying’ data. Last minute manipulations of ‘unqualified’ data resulted in the

rejection of HRP/HNO by the government.”

Available funding for your cluster


“The coordination set-up poses a serious challenge to the way ER is mainstreamed and coordinated. The lack of ER indicators in the HRP leaves ER only as a cosmetic approach resulting in limited funding and advocacy for the cluster. Donors also perceive ER to be outside of the humanitarian realm.”

Arab States:

“2016 HNO is still pending approval from the government and we have extended the 2015

HRP. Sector members have been very focused on CHF funding and have not done enough to

start coordinating also other sources of relevant funding. To improve this, we are developing

an integrated and multisector approach to link humanitarian and recovery response in areas

of return and reintegration. The model will be initially piloted with 2016 CHF funding.”



“Discussions and facilitation are centered on the delivery of core (life-saving) humanitarian interventions. It is therefore challenging to advocate for mainstreaming ER, especially when senior UN officials strongly caution participants to focus on purely life-saving "as what the donors want" and HCT does not unanimously endorse ER mainstreaming.”

Arab States:

“The 2016 HNO and HRP have required continuous efforts to give relevance and space to ER interventions. Government engagement was close to nil in the planning process. Few partners are willing to invest in an ER assessment aside the lead agency and without quality data the formulation of a plan is reduced to guesswork to a large extent.

Page | 6

Summary

o One fifth of respondents feel that there is need for collectively working on improving data collection, data quality and reliability.

o According to the respondents, the coordination of the HRP/HNO processes are not well planned, and the quality suffers from time pressure and tight deadlines.

o ER suffers from limited funding as the terminology does not fit the ‘life saving’ category. Donors tend to prioritize immediate emergency response.

o Respondents think that there is a need to better advocate for their cluster’s activities so as to raise awareness on the cluster’s mandate as well as resources.

o Respondents feel that local and national actors should be better involved in the coordination and planning processes as major actors for the success of any humanitarian response.

B. What are the three top opportunities in HRP/HNO planning processes?

Highlights

This question complements the previous and aims to identify major opportunities which respondents see in the HRP/HNO planning processes.

Figure 3 shows that 17% of respondents consider advocacy for the cluster a top opportunity in HRP planning process, whereas 13% and 12% of informants perceive the coordination architecture and government engagement as major opportunities, respectively, although these opportunities are not yet well exploited.


17%

Analysis of data8%

Availability of quality data and information

/evidence10%Available funding for

the cluster8%

Cluster field presence5%


13%


12%

Knowledge in the cluster team

5%

Other5%

Partner capacities5%

Relevant guidance available

3%

Time pressure2%

Visionary humanitarian leadership

7%

F

i

g

u

r

e

3

Page | 7

Respondents – particularly in protracted crisis - believe that the planning process provides a momentum to better link humanitarian and development needs and discuss durable solutions. It gives an opportunity to exercise coordination across sectors while also engaging the government to lead the process. Government ownership and leadership of the planning process is mentioned as key to have a sustainable plan. However, the current coordination ‘system’ is described too ‘weak’ and does not allow to embrace these opportunities.


OPPORTUNITIES



“It was very important to put ER cluster in the HNO/HRP as to clarify an exit strategy.”

“The cluster and coordination processes help facilitate data gathering and did open a window to advocate to partners. Without the HRP, the management of the cluster would have been done in isolation.”


Arab States:

“The HNO/HRP processes could be a great opportunity to create a shared inter-cluster vision on the challenges and opportunities of the humanitarian response - although strategic leadership and collective inter-cluster efforts are required. It is also an opportunity to test and re-evaluate the coordination architecture, to make sure that the humanitarian set up is adequate to conduct these strategic exercises in 2016. Unfortunately, the system revealed weaknesses in all fronts.”

“There is a momentum to link humanitarian to development as well as a need to better respond to the specific and recurring needs of the protracted caseload. This allows for a shift from pure lifesaving and the role that ER can play is significant. Discussions on a durable solutions strategy are ongoing and this will further positively contribute to shifting and reviewing the architecture to be able to better respond to these needs. The HRP is only one of the funding sources for partners, but the only one that bring together actors on a bigger scale. Yet, people do not cooperate well enough.”


Africa: “The HRP process is an opportunity to put forward leadership on humanitarian needs. The Government engagement is key in the process as both an advocacy process and ensuring a smooth relation for humanitarian partners in the country.”

Asia, Central Asia and Europe: “Government ownership is needed to make our interventions sustainable.”

Page | 8

Summary

The survey shows that:

o Respondents believe that a stronger focus on advocating for ER during the HRP/HNO planning could help determine an exit strategy for the humanitarians and better integrate ER as an approach to transition from emergency to relief.

o Respondents say that HRP coordination and planning mechanisms are critical to achieve collective outcomes. However, there is a need to ensure that national and local actors, including the civil society, are involved in the preparations.

o Respondents find that synergies between humanitarian and development interventions are essential to achieve durable solutions and that the HRP process could provide such as planning space.

C. Do you think that the HRP/HNO process made a difference & to what extent does

it bring operational value?

Highlights

After listing challenges and opportunities, the respondents were requested to assess the value

added of the planning mechanics of HRPs.

The survey shows that less than half of

the respondents believe that the HRP

planning processes makes/could make

a difference, whereas the remaining

perceive that they do not make a

difference or only fairly or a little.

Although respondents acknowledged the importance of having a common plan and going through a collective planning processes, they expressed mixed feelings and strong concerns with regards to time pressure, lengthy disputes over numbers and caseloads, rigid formats, simplistic methodologies for complex contexts, limited

consultations with and inclusion of national stakeholders in the course of the planning phase. Some termed the process as faulty.

Figure 4

A little9%

Not at all19%

Quite a lot48%

Fairly19%

A lot5%

F

i

g

u

r

e

4

Page | 9


Summary

o Respondents think that HRP/HNO planning processes is an opportunity for a multi-stakeholder platform that bring together governments, donors, local and international NGOs to address humanitarian needs and provide solutions in a well-coordinated fashion.

o However many consider that the value added of the current HRP planning processes is limited.

o Respondents are concerned with lengthy disputes over numbers and caseloads, rigid formats, simplistic methodologies for complex contexts and limited consultations with and inclusion of national stakeholders in the course of the planning phase. Some termed the process as faulty.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES


“I think it's essential. The data and figures will never be 100 % accurate, and the process is time-consuming, but it still provides the best picture of the status and needs -without which an appropriate response is not feasible to plan.”

“Government ownership is needed to make our interventions sustainable.”

Africa:

“It was not a planning process but rather a process to push the timeline and complete the document to meet global deadlines which was not to the benefit of the HRP process in country.”

Arab States:

“The HNO/HRP process creates the conditions for a response that is tailored to the needs on the ground, that is crafted by all clusters in partnership, and that really includes the beneficiaries in the planning stage. It also helps identifying common vulnerability criteria that support a prioritized response. However all this is conditional to having access on the ground, good data and of course the quality of staffing in the field and their willingness to go beyond cluster interests. I believe the process is sound. Application, at times, faulty.”

“Given the complexity of the situation on the ground and magnitude of needs, the HNO couldn’t play a role in operationalizing the response plans or inform programming at local level. However, it provided an overview of the situation which helped position and update donors. The transaction cost of a cumbersome multi-layered multi-stakeholders multi-hubs HNO defeats the purpose of emergency response and need for operationalization planning.”

“If communicated and implemented well it could help streamline the HRP and help make it a relevant document. Here, the burden of answering requests from OCHA all the time and with tight deadlines becomes an unnecessary administrative burden that consumes time and resources.”

Page | 10

D. Have you included activities of preparedness and/or early action in your Flash

Appeals and/or HRPs?

Highlights

Nearly 60% of the respondents expressed that they had not or hardly included preparedness and/or early action in their Flash appeals and HRPs.

Some coordinators mentioned that they have integrated preparedness into their plans, but the main concern is that the Flash Appeals and the HRPs are narrowly focused on immediate actions/life-saving rhetoric rather than looking forward with a longer term perspective, which would be valuable in terms of early advocacy e.g. focus on building back better.

Summary



“If I recall, I think our FA was very focused on immediate actions and this was encouraged by the leadership. Longer term preparedness issues would be built into response. I think the focus was on getting the donors to see the situation as urgent and that funding would have immediate affect (as opposed to focusing on building back better, preparedness etc.)”.

Arab States:

“Very little in terms of preparedness has gone in the 2016 HRP as the entire plan was dedicated to immediate response.”

“There are elements of preparedness within each sector and the HCT contingency plan is managed through the inter-sector structure based on the country framework.”

Africa:

“In comparison with the HRP 2015, the ER approach is further taken into account in sectorial responses as well as preparedness activities.”

F

i

g

u

r

e

5

A little28%

Fairly24%

Not at all29%

Quite a lot14%

A lot5%

Page | 11

o Almost 60% of respondents have little or no elements of preparedness/early action in Flash appeals.

o Most respondents find that HRPs are mainly focused on immediate actions and life-saving leaving no space to early action and preparedness.

o Respondents believe that the composition/structure of Flash appeals is too rigid to enable the integration of preparedness/early actions.

E. Has your Cluster had any joint programming?

Highlights

76 % of respondents have undertaken joint programming initiatives in their cluster. It appears however that the interpretation of joint programming varies a lot from joint programming activities, indirect project implementation (through implementing partners), integrated multisector approaches to inter-cluster coordination, analysis and planning and joint

programmes/projects.


No24%

Yes76%

Joint programming activities

Africa:

“That is what the entire ER&L SWG framework is all about. All programmes are fashioned either as joint programming or through implementing partners.”


“UNDP and IOM collaborated well on debris management.”

“Cluster members were encouraged to prepare joint proposals and action plans”

Indirect project implementation- through implementing partners:

Africa:

“Yes with INGOs but not with other UN agencies unfortunately.”

Integrated multisector approaches:

Arab States:

“We have developed an integrated multisector approach with all sectors to respond to issues of return and reintegration. The framework is being tested in one state and has been included in the Country Humanitarian Fund for all sectors to allocate funding for the framework.”

Page | 12

Summary

o 76 % of respondents are engaged or have been engaged in joint programming initiatives. o There are different interpretations of the term ‘joint programming’, which calls for more

clarity: joint programming, joint programmes/projects and inter-cluster coordination and planning.

Inter-cluster coordination, analysis and planning:


“Several joint programming activities at inception stage with WASH, Food and Social Protection (disability, GBV prevention) clusters. Several initiatives are also undertaken between ER cluster partners and other clusters partners.”

Arab States:

“In terms of inter-cluster planning, the ER and WASH clusters have jointly planned activities on solid waste management to ensure that WASH’s support is toward giving cleaning funds and strengthens ER in terms of fleets restoration and cleaning campaigns.”

Joint programmes/projects:

Africa:

“A joint UNDP/UNICEF/UNHCR project outside the cluster has been initiated in January 2016.”

Arab States:

“There are a few joint programmes within the sectors. For UNDP in particular there is now a new joint programme with ILO in livelihoods, a social stability one with UNHCR and perhaps forthcoming a UNICEF one on water/waste-water management.”

Page | 13

F. Is there any coordination platform that brings together humanitarian,

development and peace building actors?

Highlights

62 % of the respondents have existing coordination platforms that convene humanitarian, development and peace building actors.

Yet, some coordination platforms are either just being created or in the ‘idea stage’. Hence the positive expression could be interpreted as a strong wish for such multi-stakeholder platforms. This was evident in protracted crises.


No38%

Yes62%



“The ER Network and the expended ER Network serve as the only platform bringing humanitarian and development actors.”

“No. There is little connection between humanitarian and development actors and peacekeepers. The HCT deals with humanitarian action and coordinates recovery and development through the ER cluster, while the UNCT deals with the humanitarian community. The platforms should be strengthened.”

Arab States:

“Unfortunately coordination between the humanitarian and development actors is very weak as of now. In previous years attempts were made at humanitarian/development coordination through a resilience working group and a sustainable livelihoods working group. No examples are available for peace building actors.”

“The country in which I work is extremely complex, with divisions perpetuating all over: a) political division b) UNDAF not implemented across all country c) HRP mostly for one area and some for another; d) challenges differ from one region to another; e) One UN agency responsible for multiple operational environments and challenges; f) operating restrictions of the UN. Architecture requires re-evaluation and adjustment.”

“Our cluster brings these actors together”

“The crisis response plan is an integrated humanitarian and stabilization plan which brings together all actors responding to the regional crisis, including those actors who would traditionally work in development/peace building.”

Page | 14

Some view the ER cluster as a natural platform to bring the multiple stakeholders together.

Summary

o 76% of respondents benefit/would benefit from a coordination platform that enables the convening and collective planning among humanitarian, development and peace building partners.

o The current divide between the humanitarian and development work is not seen as conducive for complex or protracted crisis, where the response is complex.

G. Do local and national actors in your country contribute to HRP/HNO processes?

Highlights

Respondents were asked to provide concrete examples of local and national actors’ involvement in the HRP planning process as well as to explain the challenges/limitations that they face.

48% of the respondents indicate a low or no engagement of national and local partners in HRP processes, whereas 19% think their involvement is fair.

The main reason called upon for low involvement is the lack of knowledge and awareness of the humanitarian architecture.

Africa:

“A Commission for the Rehabilitation of Post-Conflict Zones was created in 2013 but has been found to yield little results on the ground. OCHA is in the process of proposing the establishment of a platform dedicated to the transition from humanitarian to development. This would then, de facto, replace the Commission.”

“We would like to create one. As UNDP, I have been approached in that sense as well as OCHA. A request has been made during the STAIT mission. The intent would be to better articulate emergency response with recovery/development phases.”

“Not exactly yet. However there is a recovery and peacebuilding assessment process underway which we are hoping will lead to a common coordination platform for humanitarian, development and peacebuilding actors which is much needed here given the conflict situation in a middle income country.”

A little43%

A lot / Very much9%

Fairly24%

Quite a lot19%

Not at all5%

Page | 15

Some respondents explain that local actors feel alienated from a UN-centric humanitarian programme cycle process.


Summary

o Respondents think that national and local authorities, including the civil society, are not at all or marginally part of the HRP/HNP planning process.

o Limited involvement of national partners is due to a weak understanding and knowledge of HRP processes.

o In some countries the HRP process does not sufficiently consult NGOs – the process is perceived as UN-centric.

o Respondents feel that wide consultations are essential to ensure national ownership and required support, including financial, to the activities of the cluster.


Africa:

“Because of the lack of capacities local and national actor contribute a little only to the HRP/HNO planning processes.”

“The HRP is seen as an UN process and not very welcoming to INGO/NGOs. The process also failed in its first attempt (2015 SRP) because it did not include government at all.”


“Some feedback is received during HRP/HNO consultations. The awareness level of the humanitarian architecture is however very low among local and national stakeholders. Hence the feedback often is not shaping the humanitarian response. UN agencies and INGOs are driving the process.”

“Local actors do contribute to the process during the data gathering part and preliminary consultations.”

“The ER cluster was co-chaired by the Ministry of Local Development and UNDP.”

Arab States:

“Challenges are understanding of the process and quality of reporting.”

“Through area based planning and participation in local and national level programming and coordination mechanisms.”

Page | 16

H. Would a multiyear plan be useful & would your country government be interested in a multiyear plan?

Highlights

Two questions aimed at assessing the relevance and feasibility of multiyear plans and on the readiness of governments to engage in such plans.

It should be noted that questionnaire was not addressed to government counterparts hence it is difficult to determine whether country governments are keen to adopt multiyear planning.

81% of respondents – particularly those working in protracted crisis - believe that a multiyear plan would be useful. Protracted crises need to be addressed at their root causes requiring a more comprehensive response, while short term planning and programming would be more relevant where the local conditions are more dynamic and changing.

Those who find a multiyear plan useful:

Africa:

“Yes, especially as my country is now in a post-crisis situation having recently signed a peace and reconciliation agreement.”

“Yes especially because we are in a protracted crisis in some areas. To this end, ECHO has changed its approach in the country with a 3-year timeline.”

“Yes I think so. This will help bring more synergies, coherence, time management and efficiency to the implementation of the humanitarian response.”

“Without a doubt and our 2-year plan will be implemented starting next year.”

“Our country needs a multiyear plan. The humanitarian impact is not only a consequence of the present situation but also of a structural social economic result of previous crises. Durable solutions are needed to stabilize the country in which I work.”

No19%

Yes81%

Figure 9

Page | 17

Those who find a multiyear plan useful:


“If predictable funding could be associated with such a plan. If not, forget.”

“Of course but there should be the possibility for a revision either on a yearly or semestrial basis”

Arab States:

“Yes. Our crisis response plan is in fact already a two-year plan, with annual appeals attached: 2015-2016. Following on this there will be a 2017-2020 framework, presumably also with annual appeals extracted.”

“Very much so and it has been agreed that as of 2017 a multiyear HRP will be developed.”

Those who do not find a multiyear plan useful:


“No due to changing needs, but a multi-year trust-fund to support early recovery must be secured. One of the main reasons for emergency response not being able to push recovery is because Early Recovery Cluster is severely under-funded from the onset of emergency, and has not fully addressed the reality that donors do not always fund early recovery at the onset of emergencies, and/or life-saving actors are not always willing to find 'exit' strategies. So a link between humanitarian, recovery and development interventions should be established as to ensure when the humanitarian response is to phase out.”

Arab States:

“NO, the crisis situation changes from year to other which mainly links to military operation and effect on population in areas of conflict.”

Arab States:

”Given the dynamic situation in the country a one year purely humanitarian response plan is important. However, a two year resilience building plan was developed to be considered as the UNDAF. It should be noted that the coordination architecture in my country of assignment might be challenging for multi-year humanitarian plans given the dynamic and fluid security situation which impacts access to the delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

In response to the question about the willingness of country governments to adopt multiyear plans, respondents say:

Africa:

“The government is in the process of developing multiyear plans for the implementation of the peace and reconciliation agreement, including emergency and recovery aspects, the development of which UNDP is supporting.”

Page | 18

Summary

o 81% of respondents believe that a multi-year plan would be helpful in devising a comprehensive humanitarian response which would take into account addressing root causes and structural socio-economic issues and thereby embrace to recovery and development.

o In countries where the drivers of a protracted crisis are predictable and ‘internal’, a multiyear plan would help achieve sustained gains from the humanitarian response to ensure a smoother transition to recovery. In countries where the drivers of conflict are unpredictable and external e.g. political pressure from neighboring countries; civil wars a short term plan could be more helpful.

o Some of respondents feel that governments would be inclined to adopt multiyear planning to tackle humanitarian needs.

o Respondents indicate that a multiyear plan could increase predictability of funding and allow governments to have solid aid coordination structures for the implementation of the humanitarian response.

V. Proposed way forward

o Allow more time and strengthen collective capacity for quality data collection and analysis. o Develop stronger key advocacy messages explaining why ER is time critical. o Allow sufficient time and creativity for a consultative, meaningful and participatory HRP and

Flash Appeal planning, which looks into immediate needs and takes a longer term development perspective.

o Collectively discuss and define the scope, aim and methodologies of joint programming. o Support the establishment of coordination platforms which allow for humanitarian,

development and peacebuilding partners to plan together. o Ensure that there is sufficient time, communication and awareness raising with national

stakeholders (NGOs, Civil Society etc.) to allow for them to genuinely be part of the entire planning process in a meaningful way.

o Ensure governments’ participation in the HRP planning process by preparing them and raising their awareness of the HRP planning process.

o Advocate, where relevant, for multiyear plans.

Arab States:

“Quite likely so. They were supportive of the two-year 2014-2015 plan at the time of its creation.”

Arab States:

“Yes - however divisions, unpredictability, and lukewarm response of donors throws doubt on the feasibility.”

Page | 19

VI. ANNEX

Page | 20

Page | 21

Page | 22

Page | 23

Page | 24

[email protected]

REVIEW OF HRP/HNO PROCESS 2016/2017 - Humanitarian ...

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW OF HRP/HNO PROCESS 2016/2017 - Humanitarian ...