Summary of 2004 Mid-Year Review of the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP)

Attachments

• Download Report (PDF | 155.54 KB)

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:

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.)

(155 KB - *pdf file)

Disclaimer

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

To learn more about OCHA's activities, please visit https://www.unocha.org/.