REVIEW OF HRP/HNO PROCESS
2016/2017
Early Recovery Coordination Experts, April 2016
United Nations Development Programme ∙ 11-13 Ch. des Anémones ∙ 1219 Châtelaine ∙ Geneva, Switzerland
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 | 1
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 | 2
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
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 Myanmar, Nepal
Europe
Respondents by region
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 | 3
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.
Time pressure
7%
Visionary
humanitarian
leadership
7%
Analysis of data
5%
Partner capacities
5%
Other
8%
Availability of
quality data and
information
/evidence
20%
Government
engagement
8%
Coordination setup/architecture
10%
Advocacy for your
cluster
11%
Cluster field
presence
3%
Available funding
for the cluster
16%
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.
Page | 4
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
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
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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.”
Advocacy for your cluster
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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 | 5
Summary
o
o
o
o
o
One fifth of respondents feel that there is need for collectively working on improving data
collection, data quality and reliability.
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.
ER suffers from limited funding as the terminology does not fit the ‘life saving’ category.
Donors tend to prioritize immediate emergency response.
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.
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.
Visionary humanitarian
leadership
Advocacy for your
7%
cluster
Time pressure
17%
Relevant guidance
2%
available
3%
Partner capacities
5%
Other
Analysis of data
8%
5%
Knowledge in
the cluster team
5%
Government
engagement
12%
Coordination setup/architecture
13%
Availability of quality
data and information
/evidence
10%
Available funding for
the cluster
8%
Cluster field presence
5%
F
i
g
u
Page | 6 r
e
3
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.
Selected quotes from some of the countries are presented below.
OPPORTUNITIES
Advocacy for your cluster
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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.”
Coordination set-up/architecture
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.”
Government engagement
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 | 7
Summary
The survey shows that:
o
o
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.
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.
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.
A lot
5%
A little
9%
Fairly
19%
Not at all
19%
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
Fig
plan and going through a collective
ur
planning processes, they expressed
e
mixed feelings and strong concerns
4
with regards to time pressure, lengthy
F
Quite a lot
disputes over numbers and caseloads,
48%
i
rigid
formats, simplistic methodologies
g
for
complex
contexts,
limited
u
consultations with and inclusion of national stakeholders in the course of the planning phase.
r
Some termed the process as faulty.
e
4
Page | 8
Selected quotes from some of the countries are presented below.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“I think it's essential. The data and figures will never be 100 % accurate, and the process is timeconsuming, 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.”
Summary
o
o
o
Respondents think that HRP/HNO planning processes is an opportunity for a multistakeholder platform that bring together governments, donors, local and international NGOs
to address humanitarian needs and provide solutions in a well-coordinated fashion.
However many consider that the value added of the current HRP planning processes is
limited.
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.
Page | 9
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.
A lot
5%
Quite a lot
14%
Not at all
29%
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
A little
28%
F
i
g
u
r
e
Fairly
24%
5
“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.”
Summary
Page | 10
o
o
o
Almost 60% of respondents have little or no elements of preparedness/early action in Flash
appeals.
Most respondents find that HRPs are mainly focused on immediate actions and life-saving
leaving no space to early action and preparedness.
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 intercluster coordination, analysis and planning and joint
programmes/projects.
Selected quotes from some of the countries are
No
24%
Yes
76%
presented below.
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.”
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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 | 11
Inter-cluster coordination, analysis and planning:
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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.”
Summary
o
o
76 % of respondents are engaged or have been engaged in joint programming initiatives.
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.
Page | 12
F. Is there any coordination platform that brings together humanitarian,
development and peace building actors?
Highlights
No
38%
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.
Yes
62%
Selected quotes from some of the countries are presented below.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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 | 13
Some view the ER cluster as a natural platform to bring the multiple stakeholders together.
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.”
Summary
o
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.
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.
Not at all
5%
Quite a lot
19%
A little
43%
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.
Fairly
24%
A lot / Very much
9%
Page | 14
Some respondents explain that local actors feel alienated from a UN-centric humanitarian
programme cycle process.
Selected quotes from some of the countries are presented below.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
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.”
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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.”
Summary
o
o
o
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.
Limited involvement of national partners is due to a weak understanding and knowledge of
HRP processes.
In some countries the HRP process does not sufficiently consult NGOs – the process is
perceived as UN-centric.
Respondents feel that wide consultations are essential to ensure national ownership and
required support, including financial, to the activities of the cluster.
Page | 15
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.
No
19%
Yes
81%
Figure 9
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.”
Page | 16
Those who find a multiyear plan useful:
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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:
Asia, Central Asia and Europe:
“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 | 17
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.”
Summary
o
o
o
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.
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.
Some of respondents feel that governments would be inclined to adopt multiyear planning to
tackle humanitarian needs.
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.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Proposed way forward
Allow more time and strengthen collective capacity for quality data collection and analysis.
Develop stronger key advocacy messages explaining why ER is time critical.
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.
Collectively discuss and define the scope, aim and methodologies of joint programming.
Support the establishment of coordination platforms which allow for humanitarian,
development and peacebuilding partners to plan together.
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.
Ensure governments’ participation in the HRP planning process by preparing them and
raising their awareness of the HRP planning process.
Advocate, where relevant, for multiyear plans.
Page | 18
VI.
ANNEX
Page | 19
Page | 20
Page | 21
Page | 22
Page | 23
Page | 24
[email protected]