|
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Date: 11 Jun 2004
Summary of 2004 Mid-Year Review of the Consolidated Appeals
Process (CAP)
INTRODUCTION
This document aims to highlight commonalities and trends in
humanitarian needs and response, drawing examples where
appropriate from specific situations where the Consolidated
Appeals Process (CAP) takes place. It is not meant to be a
condensed repetition of the 2004 CAP Mid-Year Reviews, each of
which tells its own story and is the result of broad,
inclusive, and intensive input from field offices and
headquarters of appealing organisations.
This summary comprises three sections. The first reviews
measures that have been taken over the past months to
strengthen humanitarian action to ensure that people in need
receive the best protection and assistance available, on time.
The second notes some continuing constraints on humanitarian
action and the third details the funding response to date to
the 2004 Consolidated Appeals (CA). Overall, this summary
makes the following points:
Prompt and equitable funding is needed. The percentages of
requirements funded in the 2004 CAPs ranges from 49.5% to
1.7%. Overall, the average stands at 23.6%. It would be useful
to receive feedback from donors as to why they do not fund
certain projects or activities.
The "CNN effect" has not influenced funding trends to date in
2004. Media prominence appears to make no consistent
difference to donor response. For example, the current
headline crisis, Darfur, remains significantly underfunded.
The extent to which host Governments, donors, UN agencies, the
Red Cross Movement, and NGOs are interacting with each other
within emergencies is increasing. Analysis shows that more
Member States of the United Nations (including countries
affected by crisis and donors) and NGOs are engaged in the CAP.
Financial analysis indicates that the CAP serves as an
advocacy tool in that it attracts funding to crises. A review
of the Somalia and Uganda CAPs indicates that the existence of
a CAP arguably attracted more financial resources for people
in need affected by both crises.
1. STRENGTHENING HUMANITARIAN ACTION
For details on the accomplishments of humanitarian action in
the various situations where CAPs exist, please see the Mid-
Year Review documents themselves. The following is an overview
of systemic accomplishments intended to improve the
effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of humanitarian
action.
1.1 Working Together
A major objective of the CAP is to continue including more
strategic inputs and reflecting activities of all stakeholders
in humanitarian action, especially those of NGOs.
With regard to NGOs, indicators of progress to date show that
there are often more participants from NGOs than UN agencies
attending CAP workshops. NGOs also increasingly chair sectoral
working groups at the field level. Further, more NGOs are now
appealing for funds in CAs. On the latter point, it is
important that CAs reflect the totality, or as much of it as
possible, of humanitarian action in crises. Doing so clarifies
how much money is needed to cover all needs, how much has been
provided, and the gaps and shortfalls. Therefore the Inter-
Agency Standing Committee's CAP Sub-working Group is
developing materials to outline how NGOs may better take
advantage of the CAP's potential for coordination, strategic
planning and programming, advocacy, and resource mobilisation.
In particular, there appears to be a common misperception that
NGOs registering project proposals in a CA cannot
simultaneously present them to their usual donors; as a
result, some NGOs only register in the CA those proposals that
they think are unlikely to be funded by their usual avenues.
To some extent, this makes NGO pessimism about CAs as a
resource mobilisation platform a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nonetheless, the inclusion of NGO project proposals in CAs has
been steadily increasing since 2000, as Figure 1 shows:
Figure 1: Number of CAs (blue); Number and Location of CAs
with NGO Projects (yellow)
Donor and NGO reporting on contributions to NGO projects
registered in CAs continues to be weak, resulting in an under-
estimation of funding of NGO projects registered in CAs. To
remedy this, the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) is
developing materials to disseminate to NGOs to assist
financial reporting, and (together with OCHA field offices) is
working with NGOs in the field to gain funding updates. It is
hoped that this effort will improve the reporting rate to the
point where financial tracking of CAs reflects a better
approximation of the totality of humanitarian requirements and
resources for their respective crises.
With regard to donors, the number of governmental donors to
CAs has been steadily increasing in recent years: 30 in 1999
and 2000; 43 in 2001; 51 in 2002; 57 in 2003; and, 32 so far
in 2004. Some of this increase may be due to improving
reporting relationships with the FTS, and this is an
encouraging trend. Non-Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) states represent the bulk of these new
donors.
1.2 Needs Assessment
In response to critiques about how the humanitarian system
assesses need (see, for example, According to Need? Overseas
Development Institute, 2003) and in particular about the
deficit of objective needs assessment data in formats that are
comparable across crises, the IASC CAP Sub-working Group
developed the Needs Assessment Framework and Matrix (NAFM)
which is now being piloted in Burundi and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC). In essence the NAFM is a way in
which to organise assessment data consistently and
transparently, and combine evidence and judgement about the
severity of a situation, thereby providing a common inter-
agency platform for analysis and prioritisation. Following
this pilot experience, modifications can be expected after
which the NAFM is to be used more widely. In the long run it
is planned that the NAFM becomes a standard tool for use in
CAP situations and improves the humanitarian community's
ability to advocate that resources be allocated in proportion
to need. Indeed, if the NAFM were applied in all contexts, the
extent to which need could be compared across contexts would
also be enhanced.
1.3 Strategic Monitoring
Strategic monitoring aims to determine the extent to which
humanitarian aid is saving lives and alleviating suffering. In
other words, is humanitarian aid making a difference? This
question is often difficult to answer in the absence of
baseline data and agreed sets of information to describe need.
Efforts are underway to strengthen strategic monitoring in the
CAP. As part of the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) pilot in
Burundi and DRC, monitoring frameworks (with related baseline
studies) are being established in both countries to better
measure progress towards achieving the goals of the Common
Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP). Further, the mid-year review
guidelines for the 2004 CAP focused more on evidence-based
analysis of impact, and the forthcoming revised CAP Technical
Guidelines will provide more explicit instructions on what is
to be monitored and how. In addition, the NAFM, which is being
piloted in Burundi and DRC, aims to standardise the kind of
data to describe needs in a crisis, and in so doing, could lay
the foundation for improved strategic monitoring.
1.4 Training
Humanitarian action is by its nature dynamic and training
aimed at improving it also has to be dynamic. CAP policies and
guidelines are constantly evolving to reflect good practice
from the field, lessons learned, and IASC consensus on key
issues. Consequently, the CAP training and facilitation
programme also continues to develop to ensure that the field
is equipped to make the best use of available tools and
guidance to improve overall humanitarian action. Between March
and September 2004, eighteen CAP workshops are scheduled to
take place in the field, and will be led by experienced inter-
agency facilitators from various agencies engaged in emergency
relief. The workshops aim primarily to help country teams
establish or strengthen inclusive strategic planning and
programming. Major developments in the CAP training and
facilitation tools this year are: an introduction to the NAFM;
increased focus on prioritisation and project peer reviews;
and renewed emphasis on strategic monitoring. (For a complete
list of CAP field workshops and to view the revised CAP
training and facilitation tools, visit www.reliefweb.int/cap.)
|
