Companion document to HRP guidance
Issues to consider for
Multi-year Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs)
September 2015
This paper outlines some of the key points to consider when adopting a multi-year approach, and
provides some advice on how to do it.
I.
Introduction
In recent years, an increasing number of countries with humanitarian emergencies have adopted
strategies spanning beyond the traditional one-year duration. As of 2015, there are 15 countries that
have adopted a multi-year planning approach (OCHA, 2015), and a few others are considering it in the
near future. Despite a significant number of ongoing appeals being multi-year, there is no clear
guidance on how to shift from a one-year to a multi-year strategy, on what are the advantages and
challenges and related implications. While this paper is not meant to be a comprehensive guidance, it
aims to provide some advice and tips on how to adopt and implement multi-year strategies, and to
provide clarity on some of the most common questions raised by countries.
II.
What is a multi-year HRP?
A multi-year HRP is a tool for planning and delivering coordinated humanitarian aid in protracted
crises. It differs from a traditional HRP in its greater focus on establishing a response strategy for an
emergency that goes beyond one year and takes into account the impact that humanitarian assistance
should have over time in contexts where crises are likely to continue over the medium to long term. A
multi-year HRP aims to set collectively agreed outcomes and multi-year targets for humanitarian
activities, which should eventually lead to a decreasing need for humanitarian assistance, and a
progressive transfer of responsibility to national and local authorities and development partners.
III.
Why should we consider a multi-year HRP?
Multi-year planning has several potential advantages.
More sustainable response- Multi-year planning allows humanitarian partners to realistically address
people’s needs in a more sustainable way. By focusing on medium-term outcomes, rather than shortterm inputs and outputs, it allows humanitarian partners to concretely plan how to reach the stated
outcomes, and eventually to transition to national authorities and/or development partners. In addition,
multi-year planning can also contribute to lower operational costs and reduced funding requirements
1
Companion document to HRP guidance
for humanitarian operations, by facilitating the choice of the most appropriate interventions and
maximising the benefits of medium to long term investments.
Improved coherence with development interventions- Multi-year planning contributes to strengthening
the coherence between humanitarian and development action in contexts where crises are likely to
continue over the medium to long term, as indicated by the humanitarian risk index (INFORM,
http://www.inform-index.org/). It allow to include a wider range of early recovery interventions and
social services support, and has an increased focus on building the resilience of affected populations
towards a gradual drawdown of humanitarian assistance.
Strengthening of national and local capacity- By adopting a longer planning horizon, a multi-year HRP
also provides the opportunity to strengthen capacities of national and local partners to address
vulnerabilities and structural challenges at different levels.
Improved funding predictability- To date, 16 OECD DAC donors have made available multi-year
humanitarian funding. Donors are increasingly interested to support multi-year plans and to see their
impact in the medium and long term. Multi-year funding supports more strategic partnerships and
better planning. At the same time, it also allows a more flexible response, as organizations can react
more appropriately and quickly to changing conditions.
Reduced workload for country teams- Last but not least, multi-year planning can provide an
opportunity to reduce the planning workload on country teams and partners. Systematic monitoring of
the response will however be required to regularly measure progress against plans. With multi-year
plans, countries may consider undertaking light revisions of their strategies and targets whenever
necessary, without going through full-fledged planning processes requiring a lot of resources and time.
IV.
When should countries consider a multi-year strategy?
There are a few pre-conditions that should exist in a country to consider a multi-year strategy. The key
ones are the following:
1. A certain degree of political stability.
2. Likelihood that the humanitarian crisis will continue to exist in the years covered by the plan, as
indicated by INFORM.
3. Overall predictability and/or a relatively stable planning scenario (i.e. sufficient information on
political events, cropping cycles, climatic changes, or harvest predictions).
4. Interest in this approach and some capacity from the Government, which should progressively
begin taking on some of the responsibility of responding to needs.
5. Interest by the wider development and donor community.
V.
What key questions should the country team consider?
2
Companion document to HRP guidance
a. What is the ideal timeframe within which the risks and vulnerabilities that the country team (HCT
and UNCT) is trying to tackle can be addressed? Would these best be addressed over one or
multiple years?
b. What are the outcomes that the country team wants to achieve, in coordination with the
Government and other actors? What opportunities will a multi-year HRP provide?
c. How would a multi-year strategy fit in to the other planning processes (e.g. UNDAF, National
Development Plan/Strategy, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper) existing in the country?
d. How can a multi-year HRP align to/create a bridge towards other planning processes and
coordination structures, particularly as concerns transition, recovery, rehabilitation and resilience?
e. What is the host Government’s appetite for addressing the issues through a multi-year
framework?
f. Is there donor interest towards supporting a multi-year strategy in the country, if it can
demonstrate that it will provide a more solid basis for achieving more sustainable and durable
outcomes?
g. What implications does a multi-year strategy have for the boundaries and scope of the HRP?
h. What implications does a multi-year strategy have for activities/projects selection and prioritization
criteria in the country?
i. What are the expected implications for the overall financial requirements over the years covered
by the multi-year plan?
j. What indicators and targets should be considered to measure the progress and impact of the
response over time?
k. What monitoring methods will be needed to ensure reporting and measurement at the end of each
year and at the end of the multi-year cycle? Can M&E structures already in place for development
operations be used to support monitoring and reporting on humanitarian assistance?
l. What is the impact on the roles and responsibilities of the HC, cluster coordinators, OCHA staff,
the HCT? How can the cluster architecture more closely collaborate/integrate its work with
national sector working groups and local institutions and more effectively support the transition
towards development?
The final decision to adopt a multi-year planning strategy should be taken by the Humanitarian
Country Team (HCT), who is eventually accountable for its implementation.
VI.
Who should be part of a multi-year plan?
Developing a multi-year plan requires greater participation of a more diversified group of actors. To the
extent possible, in addition to humanitarian organizations, a multi-year plan should ensure
engagement of national and local partners (e.g. Government, local authorities, civil society),
development partners and key private sector actors. Where possible, national governments should
play a leading role in developing their multi-year response plan. This should lead to improved
alignment, synergy and coordination across interventions.
3
Companion document to HRP guidance
VII.
Will the process of doing a multi-year HRP be different from an annual HRP?
The planning process will be similar, and consultations, strategy-definition, project submission and
vetting will remain. However, a multi-year plan needs to rely on a stronger evidence-based analysis of
crisis risks and trends, for example by using more consistently sub-national versions of humanitarian
risk index (INFORM) to define planning assumptions at the country level. The HCT should also think
about how to ensure that it is a truly “multi-year” plan, as opposed to a “multiple single-year plan”.
VIII.
How often should the strategic priorities and cluster response plans be reviewed?
Will there be triggers and thresholds for revisions?
Both should be reviewed on a yearly basis to ensure they are still relevant and appropriate; however
there is no need to revise/update them if the situation has not substantially changed. Should there be
a substantial change to the humanitarian situation, strategic priorities and response plans should be
revised/updated accordingly at any time.
One of the key elements of successful multi-year planning is the flexibility for constant adaptations and
revisions in a light way. The strategy can be revised and adapted as often as required to achieve the
expected outcomes. Context-specific benchmarks (e.g., election cycles, weather seasons, return of
refugees/IDPs) should be set, and the context and priority needs should be reviewed when needed to
capture developments of the ground and update financial needs.
IX.
How will targets for the strategic objectives and cluster-specific objectives be set
and then monitored?
The monitoring process is similar to yearly HRPs, with some key adjustments. Incremental multi-year
targets should be included in the HRP to outline the expected results (in line with context-specific
benchmarks) yearly as well as at the end of the multi-year planning cycle. Targets should eventually
lead to the multi-year outcomes, and pave the way to a reduction of humanitarian assistance, or (in
the worst case scenario) to avoiding a deterioration of the humanitarian situation.
X.
Will project requirements be one-year or multi-year?
This is up to the appealing agency to decide. Budgets in OPS must be for one year only, and financial
tracking is also performed on a yearly basis. However, the estimated total amount of the multi-year
requirements should be included in the HRP with a breakdown by year. A new Response Planning
Module (RPM) tool is being developed and should be implemented as of next year. The RPM will
allow to overcome this challenge and to more effectively plan on a multi-year basis.
4
Companion document to HRP guidance
XI.
How often will the projects need to be reviewed?
As per current practice, projects will be created as part of the cluster response plans. They can be
reviewed anytime during the year as needed, either individually by the leading agency/organization or
as part of a collective HRP revision.
5