Background Note for NGOs,
in preparation for UN and Non-UN Dialogue on
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action, 12-13 July 2006

A Brief Overview of the Humanitarian Reforms

10 July 2006

The meeting on 12 and 13 July 2006 between the heads of a number of NGOs and the heads of the IASC (Enhancing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action) will touch on many issues related to reforms that have been taking place in the humanitarian system, and particularly in the UN system, over the last year. This note, drafted by the ICVA Secretariat, aims to briefly describe the background to the humanitarian reforms, to which reference is made in many UN documents and in the agenda for the 12-13 July meeting, namely the clusters, the strengthening of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) system, the CERF, and the most recently added one: relationships between UN and non-UN actors.

While these are considered the main "pillars" of the humanitarian reform process, there are also other issues that have been on the humanitarian reform agenda, but which have been given lesser attention, such as benchmarking (led by now by WHO and UNICEF) and the need for building on regional, national, and local capacity-building (initiated by IFRC).

Humanitarian Response Review
Many of the reform issues find their roots in the recommendations of the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR)¹ . The HRR was commissioned by the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC), Jan Egeland, towards the end of 2004. He felt that the slowness and inadequacy of the response in Darfur, Sudan by the humanitarian community signalled weaknesses that needed to be fixed. Four consultants were hired to map the capacity of the humanitarian community at the global level and to suggest changes that would help to ensure a more predictable response to future humanitarian crises.

One of the issues raised at the time of the commissioning of the HRR was its focus on the global level, leaving out national and local capacity in responding to humanitarian crises.

The HRR's recommendations covered a number of issues, including human resources, common humanitarian services, the Humanitarian Coordination function, and the idea of creating "clusters" in order to provide greater predictability in the humanitarian response and accountability.

Clusters
At the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Working Group (WG) ad hoc meeting in July 2005, the HRR and its recommendations were to be discussed. Without holding a substantive discussion on the HRR, the ERC announced at this meeting that the recommendation to create "clusters" would be taken forward. While the original focus of the clusters was on "gap-filling" in relation to the response to IDPs, the UN agencies decided to put into place nine clusters, including in areas of activity that are not IDP-specific or that are not known for being traditional gaps in response.² Different agencies leading each cluster were to be accountable, the "port of first call," and the "provider of last resort". Even though questions were raised, at that time and later, about these concepts, they still remain unclear a year later.

There are three "types" of clusters: service provision, relief and assistance to beneficiaries; and cross-cutting issues.³ Sectors and areas of activity where leadership and accountability were already seen as clear (by the UN) were not included among the clusters and cover the following: food, led by WFP; refugees, led by UNHCR; education, led by UNICEF; and agriculture, led by FAO.

There were questions raised, at that time, by the three NGO consortia and the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) movement about the lack of a substantive discussion of the HRR's conclusions and recommendations and questions about whether or not the clusters were the greatest priority, given that there were (and still are) a number of other areas of concern regarding the humanitarian response.

Strengthening the Humanitarian Coordinator System
One of the major weaknesses in the humanitarian system that is often cited is the lack of coordination that takes place in humanitarian response and the lack of leadership from the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). While the HC position is technically supposed to serve the broader humanitarian community (i.e. beyond the UN), the process of selection and appointment of HCs has been a UN one. Until recently, a profile description did not even exist for the arguably most senior humanitarian coordination function in the field.

In September 2005, in an attempt achieve some changes in the HC system, a discussion paper was prepared by the ICVA Secretariat for the IASC WG outlining many of the concerns that NGOs had been consistently raising over the years. ⁴ These concerns included the appointment process (which has often seen Resident Coordinators (RCs) also given the hat of HC, even if the person had little or no humanitarian experience); the recruitment and selection process of HCs; the possibility of separating the functions of RC and HC; and the accountability of the HC. At the same time, OCHA prepared a paper outlining a process to try and bring in non-UN actors into the HC system and to create a pool of "pre-approved" HCs that could be sent out on short notice.

As a result of these efforts, a number of NGOs put candidates forward for the HC pool, some of which have been accepted. At the moment, a training system for HCs is being put in place and an HC job profile is being developed in an effort to define clear qualifications for the position.

In terms of splitting the positions of RC and HC, a number of NGOs have advocated for a separation of these functions. There has been some acknowledgement from UN agencies that, in certain situations, a separate RC and HC may be required.

CERF
The Central Emergency Response Fund is a pool of money that is meant to be disbursed on short notice or to neglected humanitarian crises requiring funds. The CERF grew out of the previously existing Central Emergency Revolving Fund, which largely provided loans to UN agencies when they needed money for a humanitarian response. The new CERF is meant to provide grants and is governed by a CERF board.

Grants from the CERF are only available to UN agencies and IOM. While the idea was that the CERF should be around $500 million, there are questions around how much of the money that has been put into the CERF is "new" money and how much is money that has been moved from other programmes to contribute to the CERF.

NGO-UN relations
A recently introduced "pillar" to the humanitarian reform process, has been what the ERC has described as "relations between the UN and NGOs." The tenure of the ERC has seen changing perspectives as to how he views NGOs. When he first came in, he focused on the importance of NGOs, particularly of national and local NGOs, saying that the "Western" footprint of humanitarian action had to be "lightened" so as not to override or undermine the capacity of national and local NGOs.

After the introduction of the clusters, there was much more focus on the part of the ERC on the "big international NGOs." He made several comments about wanting to get the "10 biggest NGOs" around the table with the heads of the UN. He also has questioned the "representation" ability of the NGO consortia (ICVA, InterAction, SCHR) on the IASC. When asked why he feels that the consortia do not provide that representation, he has described them as "structures of the '90s." In his view, the consortia did not expand from the size they were in the 1990s. In this context, he pointed to the need for the consortia to become much larger in order to be able to coordinate the thousands of NGOs that exist, "like the Federation [of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies] with 200-300 staff or like OCHA with 700 staff".

It now seems that the ERC is starting to return to some of his earlier views with regards to the need to focus on national and local capacities. In a recent informal meeting, he also indicated that there are things that need to be changed with regards to the clusters to ensure that NGOs are better involved, but that the involvement needs to come with NGO coordination. There are indications from his side that indicate that coordination at the field level should have better representation of NGOs in decision-making bodies. At the same time, he does not want to have the large numbers of NGOs recently seen at the coordination tables in the response to the earthquake in South Asia, for example.

Final Note
The 12-13 July 2006 meeting is an attempt to improve the dialogue between the UN and non-UN. The reform process has been seen by many non-UN actors as a UN-centric one: decisions were taken by the UN with an unspoken expectation that the non-UN would join the process, with many concerns and questions raised by the non-UN at the beginning not adequately addressed. The meeting on 12-13 July is an opportunity for NGOs to raise their views, in particular with regards to future UN engagement with NGOs. As they are leaders in operational humanitarian response, it is clear that NGOs should be more pro-active in setting the humanitarian reform agenda.

For many years, NGOs have been leading on humanitarian policies and standards relating to the identity, quality, and accountability of humanitarian action and actors. NGOs have much to offer with regards to making suggestions and proposals on ways to improve the architecture of the response. From an NGO perspective, it is essential that this architecture is based on the concept of the diversity and complementarity of humanitarian agencies, instead of a centralised approach, governed and managed by a single body or entity.

In this respect, the meeting on 12/13 July should address issues around partnership, collaboration, and coordination - issues related to the broader humanitarian response, but not necessarily addressed by the reform process, per se.

* * *

APPENDIX 1

Taken from the Preliminary Guidance Note on Implementation of the Cluster Leadership Approach (15 June 2006).

The nine clusters and their leads are as follows:

** UNHCR is the global lead for the Protection Cluster. However, at the country level in natural disaster situations or in complex emergencies without significant displacement, the three core protection-mandated agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF and OHCHR) will consult closely and, under the overall leadership of the HC/RC, agree which of the three would assume the role of Cluster Lead for protection either on the basis of existing arrangements or after conducting a common assessment to determine the required operational capacity. This option would enable the HC/RC to rely on one protection agency to lead the response for the cluster.

Notes

1.

Back>

2. The HRR identified gaps in four sectors or areas of activity: water and sanitation, shelter, camp management, and protection.

Back>

3. See Annex 1 for the list of clusters and their leads.

Back>

4. See for the paper, The Humanitarian Coordinator System: Issues for Discussion.

Back>