NHRP II note to Governments on the Transformative Agenda

18 December 2012

Since the IASC’s adoption of the Transformative Agenda (TA) in December 2011, donors and some other governments have welcomed the IASC’s efforts to improve coordinated humanitarian responses. Donors have offered significant support to the TA and the humanitarian community are appreciative of this support. However gaps and weaknesses in the reform process linger and NGOs continue to experience challenges engaging with and influencing the mechanisms of the TA. This note summarises some of those issues and suggests a number of ways for donors to strengthen their advocacy and support.

The TA is not a new or separate process; it builds upon and improves the Humanitarian Reform process to strengthen the mechanisms and systems of emergency response. For NGO staff working to implement the reforms the use of a new title has been confusing. Donors must encourage IASC to maintain the focus on the TA until the desired improvements are actually achieved.

The TA has contributed to improved coherence of and coordination between the international humanitarian actors. However, it has focused on strengthening the international system, for example by concentrating authority in the UN leadership, at the expense of supporting existing national leadership capacity. The UN and donors must ensure thatfuture implementation of the TA is coherent with the overall humanitarian vision of the international community working with national organisations to strengthen local capacities to respond.

Given that NGOs deliver the bulk of humanitarian assistance, both with their own funds [1] and as operational partners of donors and UN agencies, NGOs expect to be more involved in the decision-making and priority-setting in coordination bodies. Despite the TA reforms[2], this is not consistently the case: HCs are usually from within the UN system, clusters are mostly headed by UN agencies, and UN entities administer pooled-funding mechanisms.

The TA does not adequately reference the importance of all parties observing the Principles of Partnership[3]. As a result, the capacities of NGOs, particularly national NGOs are not recognised and leveraged and the unequal relationships between the international and national actors and the UN and non-UN stakeholders continue to be obstacles. The Principles of Partnership were a prominent element of the Humanitarian Reform but references in the TA are limited and this deficiency and the attendant failure to fully implement the Principles is a major obstacle the successful participation of NGOs in leadership and coordination. Donors should ensure that future implementation of the TA includes clear reference to the Principles of Partnership and they should ask the UN and NGOs to provide concrete evidence of how they are advancing the Principles in practice.

Increasingly, NGOs are equipped and prepared to share leadership roles but the opportunities are not always forthcoming. For example, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) is intended to be a strategic body, but is more often a platform for exchanging information. In addition, NGOs report that when decisions are taken at the HCT, the process is not always inclusive or transparent.

The TA is focussed on improving the clusters as a principal coordination tool. NGO engagement in the clusters has increased and NGOs are assuming more co-lead positions[4]. Nevertheless NGOs, particularly national NGO cluster co-leads report that they are providing secretariat support to the clusters rather than co-leading discussionand strategic planning. As a result, the opportunities to include NGO views, voices and expertise are not capitalized on. In order for INGOs and NNGOs to co-lead clusters and better engage with coordination mechanisms, more donors and the UN should follow ECHO’s example and acknowledge the transaction costs of NGO contributions and provide adequate support when NGO staff assume coordination functions.

NGOs are aware that they need to have a strong representational voice within the HCT, clusters and pooled fund advisory boards and that they are responsible for ensuring that decisions reflect NGO views and agreed-upon priorities. Donors should encourage the IASC to formalise the HCT and cluster decision-making processes and ensure a balanced representation on these bodies will lead to improvements. However, these will only be successful if the Principles of Partnership[5] are acknowledged as the foundation of strong coordination and the expertise of national and international NGOs is recognized and valued.

Initially, accountability to affected populations[6](AAP)was not included in the TA. Following NGO advocacy in the IASC context, it was subsequently added as a core component.The NGOs have more than a decade of experience working on AAP and are contributing this knowledge to the TA implementation and the CEO of an INGO has recently been appointed as the AAP Champion to lead and support the process across the humanitarian system. However, thus far, most UN agencies have understood accountability primarily in terms of reporting donors and supervisors. If the TA is to transform humanitarian response, AAP must be prioritised and accountability for performance must from now on include accountability to affected populations. Donors should advocate that accountability to affected populations be a shared, system-wide responsibility. They should encourage those in humanitarian leadership positions to include updates on AAP at regular HCT, cluster, and other meetings. They should also support the development and implementation of accountability frameworks at the country level, by making sufficient (financial) resources available.

NGOs agree that if the TA reforms are to become agreed standard practice, all stakeholders need clear measurable benchmarks and indicators against which to assess progress and develop strategies for improvement. In order to be widely accepted these measures should be developed in consultation with all implicated parties and represent a shared approach to meeting the vision of the TA through practical improvements that do not create additional bureaucratic hindrances to response. Donors should encourage the IASC to lead a consultative process for the development of time bound, measurable benchmarks and indicators - reflecting the TA vision.

Donors must also recognise their impact on the implementation of the TA. Fundamental to the premise of the TA is the call for greater multilateral coordination and cohesion. Therefore, donors need to recognise the substantial influence they can have on ensuring the implementation of the TA is well coordinated with all relevant stakeholders. They can influence through ensuring there is coherence in their funding strategies and ensuring acommon results framework referred to previously. Donors should ensure NGOs are adequately funded to play their role and ensure their voices are heard. In this regard, it was unfortunate that in early December 2012 a group of donors met with the Emergency Directors of the UN agencies. Leaving NGOs representatives out of discussions risks sending out contradictory messages in terms of the TA’s ownership and responsibility for implementation.

There have been significant investments in the TA over the last two years. However the TA is in its infancy. The necessary guidance and tools are still being developed and implementation is at different levels and speeds in different countries. In practice it will be the field colleagues that respond to the challenges of the TA and drive the necessary changes. Understanding of the existing norms, guidance and desired outcomes will only improve with focused testing and dissemination. Future progress requires long-term investment in system wide attitude and behaviour change. Donors together with the IASC should recognise that system-wide behaviour change in terms of coordination and partnership requires continued focus and resources in 2013 and attention should not be diverted from the TA until the reforms have been achieved. It is crucial that they continue to provide financial, policy and advocacy support to ensure the achievements are sustained.

[1] According to ALNAP’s 2010 report on the State of the Humanitarian System, 7.4 million of the 16 million spent on humanitarian response that year

[2] In 2005, the ERC launched a “humanitarian reform” (HR) process focusing on improving coordination through the creation of “clusters,” enhancing the predictability and flexibility of humanitarian funding and strengthening the role of humanitarian coordinators (HCs) at country level. In December 2011, the IASC adopted its “Transformative Agenda 2012”, focusing on the areas of leadership, coordination, and accountability.

[3]The unequal relationship between the various humanitarian actors was addressed in the July 2007 Principles of Partners from the Global Humanitarian Platform. They provide a useful framework within which humanitarian organisations can improve their working arrangements and mutual accountability.

[4]DRC protection cluster Co facilitation – lessons learned, August 2012 by Ellie Kemp, independent consultant

[5]The failure to address the unequal relationships between various humanitarian actors was addressed in the 2007 Principles of Partnership. The Global Humanitarian Platform endorsed the Principles as a useful framework within which humanitarian organisations can improve their working arrangements and mutual accountability.

[6]In December 2011 the IASC Principals endorsed the five Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP). They comprise of: the inclusion of affected populations in programme design, implementation and review, the provision of timely, relevant and clear information to communities, and the provision of feedback by affected people on the services and protection offered by IASC organisations, including a feedback and complaints mechanism.