Inter-Agency Standing Committee Principals Meeting

12 December 2006

ICVA Talking points

I. Opening statement by the ERC on the challenges the humanitarian community has faced since August 2003, and his vision and perspectives for the future.

On the 'new' security environment:

1.1 One of Jan Egeland's first welcome initiatives was to convene a 'Humanitarian Summit' on 31 March 2004, to discuss the changing security environment, especially given the attacks on humanitarian staff in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the NGOs (including ICVA members) expressed deep concern about the encroachment of the military in the humanitarian domain and about the increasing number of UN integrated missions at the meeting. NGOs view these developments as two of the reasons that have contributed to the blurring of identities between the military and political actors on the one hand, and humanitarian agencies, on the other hand. It was pointed out by NGOs that this confusion over identities has endangered our acceptance as humanitarian agencies and the safety of our (international and national) staff in some parts of the world.

1.2 Although the IASC has discussed the implications of integrated missions for humanitarian action and the relations between the UN and non-UN agencies on several occasions, we feel that we have had little impact in advocating for a clearer delineation between humanitarian action and the agendas pursued by other parts of UN missions. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the risk that integration brings, i.e. the subordination of humanitarian concerns to political frameworks, has been sufficiently addressed. The two gains that we got out of the discussion on integrated missions in 2005 (i.e. the integration of OCHA can take place at a later time; and the HC's role in vetting the hearts and minds campaigns of the military) do in our view not provide sufficient firewalls for separating humanitarian from other objectives. The 2007 IASC discussion on integrated missions, which has been proposed in the IASC Workplan, should also look at these issue of establishing the necessary firewalls.

1.3 Our concern is further fuelled by the high-level panel on system-wide coherence. The relative silence of the report on humanitarian issues must not be perceived as that the ('other') UN will not touch us and our principles of independence and impartiality. On the contrary, we are concerned that the lack of attention on humanitarian affairs may imply that, in the eyes of the panel, everything goes well in terms of integrating the humanitarian side into a framework dominated by bigger political goals. We are very disappointed that the high-level panel did not hold a meeting with the IASC, nor did it make the effort to seek the views of the NGO community on humanitarian issues.

1.4 Should the UN proceed with implementing the report's recommendations without further discussion with the non-UN agencies, we are concerned about the consequences this may have for our partnerships. When working in conflict situations, we simply may need to distance ourselves from a too close relationship with the UN / host government. As a minimum, we need to discuss what firewalls can be established to ensure that humanitarian action remains independent and not embedded in wider UN strategies to establish peace and security. (Our concerns on the Coherence Report can also be raised during the lunch, when reference can be made to the ICVA Conference on 2 February 2007, which will discuss the implications of the "one UN" for the partnership with NGOs.)

On the role of national and local NGOs:

1.5 The other message of the March 2004 meeting that came out strongly was the need to pay more attention to role of national and local staff and national/local NGOs and the perceptions of local communities of international agencies. The work of national and local NGOs is vital in immediate humanitarian response; most of those rescued after natural disasters are saved by local - not international - groups. And when security deteriorates and international staff are evacuated, local NGOs remain behind and try to carry on with their work.

1.6 The need for a lighter foot print was particularly emphasized at the meeting in March 2004. We are afraid that these critical issues have gone lost in the humanitarian reform debate. We were disappointed that the Humanitarian Response Review did not include the role and capacity of local and national actors in its report. We hope that a next review, to be undertaken by the next ERC, will look at the national level.

1.7 Unfortunately, local and national NGOs have also found it very difficult to engage with the clusters at the field level. As noted at the 12/13 July Meeting, the strengthening local capacity and role of national NGOs needs to be prioritised in our future discussions about humanitarian reform. We hope that this aspect will be an important element in the training package for the cluster leads, and that we will see real efforts to facilitate cooperation between national NGOs and the clusters. International NGOs also have a particular responsibility to make this a reality.

1.8 In this context, it must be said that while we have made repeated commitments to strengthening local capacities, too many evaluations and studies continue to report the weaknesses of international agencies to involve local actors (e.g. the TEC and the report issued by the NGO impact initiative). The real issue is, therefore, whether international agencies are prepared (or, whether they can afford) to change their way of working. Strengthening local capacities and supporting local actors is less visible than directly delivering assistance, which from a publicity, and fundraising point of view, is more appealing (or, more necessary) for them.

II. Discussion on progress and remaining challenges for the Humanitarian Reform Process:

ICVA's Views on the CERF:

2.1 ICVA would like to emphasise the CERF's value for "forgotten" or neglected crises. When CERF money is made available for countries such as the Central African Republic, where too few agencies, in particular, from the NGO community are present, NGOs need to be made aware of this potential funding in order to encourage them to become operational.

2.2. The CERF, and other similar humanitarian pooled funding mechanisms, are however not functioning in the way they should. Funds are not dispersed quickly enough, because of systemic problems of the UN, and there is an insufficiently strategic approach to allocating funds. The money appears to be seen as a way to supplement ongoing operations of UN agencies. Money for NGO operations has been minimal, less than 15% of the total disbursed, based on some recent analysis, yet donors are encouraging NGOs to use the CERF as a primary funding channel. There has been a tendency in some cases for CERF funds to be equally spread across agencies in order to keep everyone satisfied, instead of a strategic analysis that takes into account the comparative advantages of specific UN or NGO operations.

2.3. Given that the NGO community implements most of the projects that are approved by the international donors, we expect to be drawn formally into the decision making process on allocations from the CERF. In this regard, we are encouraged by the new opportunity for NGOs to have access to the CERF inter-agency meetings as this will further improve the information flow and transparency on CERF decisions and allocations. We have also encouraged our three members who sit in the CERF advisory board to share more information on the discussions in this body.

2.4 In general, we are concerned about the use of the CERF and the pooled funds as coordination tools. NGOs may have good reasons to seek a greater distance from the UN (e.g. not wanting to be associated with an integrated mission). As some have the view that only NGOs that participate in the clusters are eligible for CERF or pooled funding, this would imply that those who seek greater independence do not have the same access.

ICVA's Views on the Clusters:

2.5 The positive elements of the clusters are more opportunities for dialogue and collaboration, better coordination, and more predictability in terms of mandates and presence. On the negative side, we are concerned that the clusters have become too process-oriented; that some of the confusion created at the time of the conceptualisation has still not been resolved; that the clusters may loose their initial focus of being a gap-filling mechanism in IDP situations; and that we have lost sight of the real issue: have the clusters made a difference in the lives of the local communities for and with whom we work? Although this question on the impact of the cluster on the ground is of crucial importance for assessing the impact of the clusters, we are concerned that the basis to carry out such an evaluation does not exist. We do not have baseline and indicators in order to understand whether we have become more effective in our work on the ground since the clusters have been put in place.

2.6 We are concerned that national and local NGOs find it still very difficult to understand the clusters and to engage with them. We are also concerned that when money for the cluster participants is channeled through the cluster lead-agency, these participating agencies are, de facto, becoming implementing partners, which risks negating one of the basic principles of the clusters: equal partnerships.

2.7 With regards to future roll-out of the clusters, we fully support the recommendations the interim self-assessment to ensure that future roll-out in an existing situation is carefully considered and planned. It should be preceded by a preparatory process, which takes into account the views of field-based staff; which includes an orientation process and dialogue on the added-value of the clusters; and which leaves enough flexibility for the agencies to make adjustments as they see fit. 2.8 With regards to the proposal to apply the cluster approach to the education sector, we are afraid that the cluster terminology and the different interpretations that continue to exist on what a cluster approach is or what it represents, have come in the way of moving forward. Education in emergencies should be prioritised as a service area, whether it is clusterised or not. And those who (earlier) said that they have a mandate in education in emergencies (UNICEF) must be held to account.

On the Humanitarian Coordinator:

2.9 ICVA believes that a stand-alone Humanitarian Coordinator provides a better basis for a successful humanitarian coordination process at the field level, than a combined hatting of the RC and HC functions. We are encouraged to see that there may be an opening for a first stand-alone HC from the NGO community (in Uganda), and hope that the UN system will be ready for this new development.

2.9.0. Priority must be placed on developing open and transparent process for determining when the criteria for separation apply. ICVA suggests the creation of a small committee that acts as an advisory mechanism for the ERC on this issue.

2.9.1. We are very surprised to see a new background document that discusses the strengthening of the Humanitarian CoordinatION system, while our discussions have focused on the strengthening of the Humanitarian CoordinatOR system. In this respect, we are grateful that the latest version of the paper that was discussed by the IASC WG (on the strengthening of the HC and the circumstances leading to separation of the RC and HC functions) has incorporated many of our comments. While we would like to endorse that paper, we do not believe that we should spent further time on discussing this new document here, since of its scope and the fact that has not been discussed by the IASC WG.

III. Progress on the Global Humanitarian Platform (GHP) (strategic dialogue among UN and non-UN organizations)

3.0 We are encouraging our members to invest seriously in this process, in order to ensure that the GHP becomes a process in which the UN, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and NGOs participate on an equal footing. It is essential that this process sees a better representation of the humanitarian community.

3.1 We must recognise that the GHP has emerged as a result of the weaknesses of the IASC in terms of its UN focus. It would be a mistake for the GHP, if it were to become a forum similar to the IASC, as this would create another bureaucratic layer. Depending what exists at the field level, the GHP can strengthen what exits, but it can also be a process through which we revisit our current structures and make bold proposals for new structures if what we have does not function properly.

3.2 For the GHP to be successful, it is critical that the principles that will guide our partnership are owned by our colleagues on the ground. This ownership can be achieved through a process of open discussion and honest dialogue, instead of top-down approach that leaves little space for the field to adapt the process to their own needs.