Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP)
The CAP is much more than an appeal for money. It is an inclusive and coordinated programme cycle of:
a) strategic planning leading to a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP);
b) resource mobilisation (leading to a Consolidated Appeal or a Flash Appeal);
c) coordinated programme implementation;
d) joint monitoring and evaluation;
e) revision, if necessary; and
f) reporting on results.
The CHAP is a strategic plan for humanitarian response in a given country or region and includes the following elements:
a) A common analysis of the context in which humanitarian action takes place;
b) An assessment of needs;
c) best, worst, and most likely scenarios;
d) Stakeholder analysis, i.e. who does what and where;
e) A clear statement of longer-term objectives and goals;
f) Prioritised response plans; and
g) A framework for monitoring the strategy and revising it if necessary.
The CHAP is the foundation for developing a Consolidated Appeal or, when crises break or natural disasters occur, a Flash Appeal. The CHAP can also serve as a reference for organisations deciding not to appeal for funds through a common framework. Under the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator, the CHAP is developed at the field level by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Country Team. This team mirrors the IASC structure at headquarters and includes UN agencies, and standing invitees, i.e. the International Organization for Migration, the Red Cross Movement, and NGOs that belong to ICVA, Interaction, or SCHR. Non-IASC members, such as national NGOs, can be included, and other key stakeholders in humanitarian action, in particular host governments and donors, should be consulted.
The Humanitarian Coordinator is responsible for the annual preparation of the consolidated appeal document. The document is launched globally each November to enhance advocacy and resource mobilisation. An update, known as the Mid-Year Review, is presented to donors in June of each year.
Donors provide resources to appealing agencies directly in response to project proposals. The Financial Tracking Service (FTS), managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), is a database of donor contributions and can be found on www.reliefweb.int/fts
In sum, the CAP is about how the aid community collaborates to provide civilians in need the best protection and assistance available, on time.
The United Nations Secretary-General launched "Humanitarian Appeal 2005", outlining key humanitarian issues and trends and summarising the 2005 Consolidated Appeals, in mid-November last year. This Mid-Year Review examines progress made to date in 2005, analyses some of the key challenges in humanitarian financing, and highlights remaining priorities in countries and regions with a Consolidated Appeal.
Using the resources mobilised under the appeals up to 10 June 2005 (some US$ 2.4 billion cash and in-kind, equal to 48% of funding requirements for the year), much has been achieved: tens of millions of people have been fed; tens of thousands of square metres of mined land has been cleared; millions have been vaccinated against polio and other life-threatening infections; hundreds of clinics and health-care centres have been supported; seeds and agricultural tools have been provided for hundreds of thousands of farmers; hundreds of emergency education facilities function; hundreds of thousands of people have been temporarily employed; shelter has been provided and non-food items have been distributed to hundreds of thousands; hundreds of thousands of people have had their lives and rights safeguarded; safe drinking water has been supplied for hundreds of thousands; and, the immense relief and recovery needs of the victims of the Tsunami have been mitigated. Much more remains to be done.
Priorities from now until the end of 2005 vary by country or region, and readers are asked to refer to the individual Mid-Year Reviews that detail the priorities for the remainder of this year. In terms of financial requirements, the United Nations and its partners now require US$ 2.6 billion to address the urgent needs of some 30 million people in 29 countries.
Since 1992, on average, a CAP has ended the year 66% funded. Given that in the past Consolidated Appeals have included some projects bordering on recovery and reconstruction, and that funding has been made available for many clear humanitarian projects, it might not be inaccurate to state that priority life-saving humanitarian projects are on their way to being fairly well covered in 2005. Furthermore, the pace of donor response to appeals this year has been considerably faster than in 2004, and a clear improvement on years before. That said, the donor response to most appeals remains low: 36% excluding the Tsunami Flash Appeal. The verdict from the experience of the Tsunami is clear: donors are capable of large-scale, fast, and flexible response. Moreover, funding figures for crises away from the Tsunami show that donors are able to improve on the low level of resources provided by the same time in 2004, even in the face of a headline crisis. Now, the challenge is whether donors can live up to the high standards they established for themselves under Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) for all crises, not just the year’s biggest. Without additional resources, the relatively improved funding picture at mid-2005 will turn out at year’s end to be an illusion.
For the second year in a row, analysis of humanitarian financing shows no clear or consistent evidence to substantiate the oft-cited notion that the availability of money hinges on the media or strategic interests. So why do some appeals get funded more than others? And within appeals, why are some sectors more funded than others? There are many factors that can make a difference. These include: the quality of needs analysis and prioritised response; the extent to which non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the Red Cross Movement, and the UN are working together; concerted involvement of the donor community; support provided by host authorities; and leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator.
Table of Contents
1. PROGRESS TO DATE IN 2005
1.1 EXAMPLES OF KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY COUNTRY OR REGION
1.2 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
- 1.2.1 Needs Analysis Framework
- 1.2.2 Prioritisation
- 1.2.3 NGOs and Consolidated Appeals
- 1.2.4. Flash Appeals
2. OVERALL FUNDING TRENDS: HOW DOES 2005 COMPARE TO 2004?
2.1 FUNDING PER APPEAL
- 2.1.1. Good Humanitarian Donorship
2.2 FUNDING BY SECTOR
2.3 DOES THE "CNN EFFECT" EXIST?
2.5 WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF LATE OR INADEQUATE FUNDING?
2.6 FUNDING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CAP
2.7 FUNDING MODELS
3. SUMMARIES OF EACH MID-YEAR REVIEW
- CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
- CHECHNYA (RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
- CÔTE D'IVOIRE
- DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
- GREAT LAKES
- OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
- REPUBLIC OF CONGO
- WEST AFRICA
OTHER COUNTRY PLANS
Note: The full text of this appeal is available on-line in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format and may also be downloaded in zipped MS Word format.
* Get the Adobe Acrobat Viewer (free)
For additional copies, please contact:
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Palais des Nations
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
CH - 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel.: (41 22) 917.1972
Fax: (41 22) 917.0368
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
- To learn more about OCHA's activities, please visit https://www.unocha.org/.