INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE
PRINCIPALS RETREAT
Final Summary Record
28 April 2017
Geneva, Palais des Nations
Host: Emergency Relief Coordinator
The IASC Principals Retreat was convened following a decision by IASC Principals in December 2016 to explore propositions on how the IASC can ensure its continued relevance, including through refined working practice, enhanced advocacy and communication, increased engagement at regional, national and local levels and outreach to the diverse humanitarian ecosystem. Consultation between Principals in smaller and bilateral meetings since December 2016, and in the April 2017 IASC Working Group, informed preparation for the Retreat itself.
Opening the meeting, the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) welcomed new IASC Principals and representatives, including Mr. David Beasley, Executive Director, WFP; Mr. Mark Goldring, Chief Executive Officer, Oxfam GB, as the incoming SCHR Chair; and Ms. Jennifer Poidatz, Vice President for Humanitarian Response, Catholic Relief Services and an InterAction member, to their first meeting. He bid farewell to Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, Assistant Administrator, UNDP, and Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General, World Health Organisation (WHO).
The ERC reflected on fruitful discussions over a Principals-only dinner on 27 April, which had been informed by outcomes of the United Nations’ Chief Executives Board (CEB) meeting, 26 - 27 April 2017, led by the new Secretary-General. The CEB’s discussion on the ‘State of the World’, global dynamics, rising expectations post-World Humanitarian Summit, resource constraints, and new positioning and reform of the UN system, prompted understanding by IASC Principals that simple answers cannot be sufficient in such a complex environment. Principals reaffirmed the need to foster strategic partnerships, to ensure IASC relevance, maintain the ability to make appropriate decisions, and focus on those areas where the IASC can really add value, particularly in response to field needs and demands.
Session 1: Delivering a coordinated and effective response in the field
Framing the discussion on how Principals can fulfill their commitment to ensure IASC action is responsive to field realities and actively support field leaders and humanitarian delivery for affected people, Ms. Ahunna Eziakonwa-Onochie, RC/HC Ethiopia and Mr. Jamie McGoldrick, RC/HC Yemen, shared their insights on their expectations of the IASC as a whole. Their presentations were informed by very different operating environments.
Reflecting on the Yemen current country context, Mr. McGoldrick welcomed the success of the 25 April pledging conference, co-hosted by Switzerland and Sweden, and mobilization through this of USD 1.1 billion. He noted, however, that despite this recognition of the severity of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, it remains overshadowed in the international agenda by Syria and Iraq. He noted the challenges of an L3 designation in a protracted crisis, and in achieving the desired ‘shift change’ this should bring. He regretted low international staff presence on the ground, and the 90% concentration of staff in Sana’a. He highlighted the need for Principals’ commitment to respond to requests from field leadership, and ensure the right staff, with relevant experience and expertise, in the right place, at the right time. He expressed appreciation for IASC support through recent IASC Emergency Directors Group (EDG) and Senior Transformative Agenda Implementation Team (STAIT) missions to Yemen as providing valuable inputs and guidance to establish priorities, including against L3 benchmarks, and to conceptualize the response. While welcoming recent World Bank and European Union funding as indicators of support and confidence in humanitarian efforts in Yemen, he noted the low donor presence, and the significant challenges of diplomatic outreach and developing strategic partnerships. Noting these ‘gaps’, he stressed the supportive role Principals can play in outreach, advocacy support, and as a ‘buffer’ for field leaders in the political/diplomatic arena. He noted the relevance of the humanitarian-development nexus and the New Way of Working (NWOW), citing a joint forum that already exists in Yemen. He also highlighted the importance of keeping humanitarian needs on the agenda, including in the context of planned meetings in the Gulf focused more on development/reconstruction needs.
From Ethiopia, Ms. Eziakonwa-Onochie noted that, despite Government’s leadership and commitment on response for the most vulnerable communities, the scale of the current humanitarian situation overwhelms national response mechanisms. Reflecting on how the IASC can empower and support field leadership, she highlighted seven key areas for Principals’ consideration, noting: (1) humanitarian funding mechanisms (CERF and CBPF) play a critical role in empowering and building HC credibility, catalyzing opportunities for strong links with NGOs and national authorities. She urged Principals to promote pooled funds as enablers of immediate response, and explore their potential role and/or link to the New Way of Working. She sought continuous Principal-level advocacy to achieve the CERF USD 1 billion target. (2) She called for an ‘honest conversation’ on operational coordination, and serious thinking on the cluster system. As HCs manage relations with diverse groups and the Government, weak structures and the low calibre of humanitarian staff is disempowering. She sought timely deployments of senior staff, with expertise, and sophisticated profiles, including leaders and cluster coordinators familiar with both humanitarian and development responses. She called for predictable provision of financial and human resources, citing the impact of a loss of donor trust on future resources. (3) Reflecting on the positive value of the HCT structure as a ‘blueprint’ for emergencies, she also stressed that the HCT must be held accountable, and its composition tailored to specific contexts, reflecting the need to engage with Governments where their role is critical to operations. (4) She suggested that Principals re-think the Level 3 emergency response model, clarifying its added value. She noted confusion on its use, including for Governments, amid perceptions of it as a fund-raising instrument. (5) She noted underlying tension, animosity and lack of harmony within the humanitarian community, and the potential for increased competition for limited resources, stressing the need to build relationships for effective response. (6) She welcomed the value of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC), the flexibility of the Humanitarian Response Plan, and its use for planning and prioritization. She suggested Principals re-consider the continued value of annual appeals. (7) She stressed the inevitability of the humanitarian-development-peace nexus agenda, underscoring the importance of IASC collective action on this, and noting Ethiopia’s championing of the New Way of Working, and positive engagement in this respect with Government and development partners.
In discussion, the importance and centrality of support to IASC field leadership for an effective response was underscored. Principals welcomed the positive feedback on CERF and Pooled Fund (CBPF) mechanisms, recognizing that these co-exist with other funding instruments, and also noting CBPF funding to NGOs. Principals acknowledged the challenges of the L3 mechanism, including its perceived role as a fundraising tool, the ability to sustain engagement of key partners in protracted L3 contexts, and the perception and potential impact of emergency declarations for Governments.
Reflecting on the strong staffing and capacity concerns raised by HCs, Principals stressed the importance of ensuring an appropriate balance of HQ/field staffing, of actively encouraging staff rotation to ensure and better deploy experienced and expert staff to the field, including for timely and appropriate cluster staffing. It was suggested that actual capacity on the ground should be the determinant of cluster field leadership. The importance of building and managing future talent was stressed: inspiring, rewarding and incentivizing staff. On-going agency initiatives were recognized to support systematic access to surge staff and technical expertise, including UNDP’s ‘People Pipeline initiative’ (for P3/P4 staff upwards) and the WHO’s work with partners to build expertise for health emergencies. It was suggested agencies could tap into a range of staff development initiatives (such as the UN staff college leadership programme).
Principals noted the on-going UN development system reform, its potential implications for the RC role, and opportunities for greater alignment between UNDG/IASC mechanisms and tools, for further shared analysis and data-exchange. The New Way of Working was identified as a key driver for change and enabler of collective action, and should be further clarified. A common understanding should be agreed and appropriate resources (both human and monetary) be sought in the coming months for its implementation. Fundamentally, however, it was noted this is less a resource issue than a mindset and attitude change. Welcoming the action by the World Bank already, IASC Principals also look for more development actors to increase field presence and step forward in emergency contexts, enhancing opportunities for field partnership.
It was noted that donors still maintain separate humanitarian/development ‘funding boxes’, with limited or/no reference to the Grand Bargain at field level, and that all signatories, including donors, should be reminded of their actual ‘bargain’ commitments. On resource mobilization, the role of social media, including recent successes and use for the threatened famine contexts, was recognized, encouraged and can be built on and maximized.
Principals suggested the IASC explore options for more strategic engagement with Governments and Member States, noting the need for a nuanced approach dependent on the context. For NGOs in the field, IASC support in facilitating access, mobilizing resources, and political engagement with Governments, is essential to create and maintain space and NGO ability to implement humanitarian operations. At the same time, diplomatic outreach must be ‘smart’, with the IASC using the potential leverage of other actors where necessary to achieve political action. Principals recalled the Secretary-General’s paradox: maintaining humanitarian independence and neutrality entails considerable political engagement.
Noting key themes arising from the discussion on field support, the ERC stressed the importance of identifying and focusing on gaps, being frank on what does and does not work, and of identifying clear areas for IASC response and where Principals themselves can make a difference. He highlighted the need to better use, build, stretch, develop and deploy staff capacity, the importance of ensuring and reinforcing mutual accountability, and of enhancing the positive impact of the New Way of Working in the field.
The IASC Principals agreed that:
· Building on the range of issues and priorities identified in the above discussion, that an ‘agenda for reform’, together with a menu of options will be developed before the next regular IASC Principals meeting, Action by: Emergency Relief Coordinator, supported by the IASC secretariat, to lead engagement with IASC Principals by November 2017.
Session 2: Ensuring engagement with the broader humanitarian eco-system
Building on the outcome of World Humanitarian Summit (May 2016), and in the context of the on-going changes in the global environment and humanitarian operating space, Principals reflected on opportunities for and modalities of the IASC’s engagement with a more diverse range of humanitarian and non-humanitarian actors globally and at field level. The Principals also considered the requests for IASC membership submitted by UN Women and the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR), and the potential - within current membership - to change status between ‘full member’ and ‘standing invitee’.
Noting the positive contribution, and considerable added value, of diverse stakeholders, the Principals, particularly the NGO consortia, reaffirmed that the status quo cannot continue, and the IASC must engage more broadly, including with the Global South. Such engagement should be beyond the humanitarian system, and should include ‘external’ actors, such as academia and the private sector. At the same time, noting the potential challenge of the IASC becoming a ‘parliament’, the need for prioritized engagement with the right actors, for exploring the added value of any expansion, and for assuring clarity on the legitimacy and extent of representational roles was stressed. They highlighted the importance of not compromising humanitarian principles or the IASC’s founding General Assembly resolution. Principals noted the need to ‘get the equation right’: of finding different methods to be more inclusive, without being unwieldy, and maintaining IASC Principal capacity for effective decision-making and support to operational delivery.
Reaffirming the importance of being informed by more diverse perspectives to enhance field effectiveness and response, Principals sought to ground the discussion in better analysis and a shared vision of what the IASC is or could be. They highlighted the opportunities posed by its considerable range of structures - both in the field and at global level – to achieve this. On-going discussion on the IASC’s structural configuration, must be situated in the context of the IASC’s engagement or alignment with the on-going UN reform agenda, and the revision of the development system. Given this, Principals noted the IASC must retain flexibility to adapt, and acknowledge and address the current challenges to immediate decision-making, as well as in the event that more members are formally included.
Principals identified, however, some potential options of enhancing inclusivity through the gamut of global/field IASC bodies, as well as through the existing diversity and footprint of their individual organisations, federations or consortia. Conceptualizing the IASC rather as a network of fluid, inter-linked structures than a hierarchical chain, presents options also to vary the size, level and type (UN, NGO) of inclusion in different physical, central/decentralized and virtual locations, and to encourage representation for different groups, including representatives of affected people such as IDPs. Principals recalled, for example, how the WHS demonstrated the potential for more consistent, coordinated engagement at regional level, particularly representation of region-specific southern voices, as well as the value of outcomes from regional mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Up Front (HRUF) reviews, that feed into global decision-making. Principals noted in particular the opportunities to increase diversity through both the IASC’s subsidiary bodies, which already support IASC decision-making and provide expertise to guide to support field responses, as well as within IASC field structures themselves (HCTs, clusters). They raised the option of convening appropriate ‘advisory groups’ around key themes/issues as necessary. It was stressed, however, that such modalities of inclusion must be facilitated and enhanced through more strategic communication, information flow and transparency between the various bodies and structures.
The IASC Principals agreed to:
§ In advance of the next IASC Principals meeting, explore additional modalities for engagement, building on and beyond initial proposals outlined in the session background paper, to inform further strategic discussion and agreement by the IASC Principals. Action by: All Principals, with support of IASC secretariat.