IASC CAPSUB-WORKING GROUP MEETING
THURSDAY, 12 March 2009
NOTE FOR THE FILE
CAP 2009 Mid-Year Review Launch and CAP 2010Launch
Tentative date for the MYR launch: 21 July (or possibly 20 or 22)en marge of ECOSOC humanitarian segment.
Tentative CAP 2010 launch date: 24 November 2009.
Montreux discussions confirmed that the present calendar of CAP development and launch seems to work both for agencies and donors; it will therefore be maintained. The World Humanitarian Day recently approved by the General Assembly for August 19 seems at first glance similar to ideas discussed in the SWG on an earlier, ceremonial, media-oriented CAP launch followed by a working-level briefing when the actual documents are ready. However, the timing is awkward – Europe and much of the field are on holiday in August, and in that month it is not even always clear what the following year’s CAPs will be. Nonetheless, CAP Section will monitor the planning for WHD, in case it can serve some of the functions of a CAP launch, and therefore relieve the need to design the CAP launch for media attention at a time when the CAP documents need substantive attention.
The CAP Section is setting a CAP launch date early, to have more time to get a celebrity. SWG members should check to ensure that November 24 does not clash with other events. Please revert to Robert Smith in case of problem.
The CAP film will be done on a small budget this year, and could benefit from taking advantage of footage filmed by agencies. Please convey the contacts of your film or publicity people to Alex Ruiter ().
Montreux debrief
The Convenors will distribute their note of conclusions by about April 3. Here are some highlights of discussions at Montreux:
AFFECTED COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS:
Possible course of action or menu of options for country teams in situations that necessitate a concerted response but where the govt prohibits the classic IASC tools, particularly CAPs:
Generally: determine the motives behind the govt’s refusal, identify elements of joint planning that do not run counter to the govt’s core motives, and implement.
If the govt’s main concern is stigma, a simple appeal name change often suffices.
If the government insists on leading the planning and appealing process in order to assert autonomy, the country team should influence the govt appeal to incorporate best practice.
If the motive is based on significantly differing definitions and characterisations of the crisis, this is the hardest case. The country team can try quoting 46/182, aligning the CHAP symbolically with some useful element of the govt’s humanitarian or recovery plan, or sacrificing some explicitness or visibility in the public CHAP document.
ROLE OF CLUSTER LEADS, AND ROLE OF HCs IN THE CAP:
The Montreux discussion generally corresponded to the roles outlined in the draft documents of those names. The documents will be refined and circulated to the SWG.
TRANSLATING STRATEGY INTO PROJECTS:
Both donors and agencies see value in the operational details offered in projects and their summary versions published as part of CAPs. Donors may or may not fund projects precisely as delineated in their CAP versions, or if they do, they may or may not use the CAP-style project summary as a formal proposal to be annexed to a funding contract. But either way, the information in CAP project summaries is important to their decision-making. Earmarking is not likely to be diminished by better reporting alone – earmarking requirements are hard-wired into donor regulations in many cases. On the other side, earmarking can be reduced in practice by presenting more aggregated, less splintered projects in the CAP. Another de facto method of reducing earmarking is to explore more multi-sectoral project proposals. This would sacrifice some information on funding needs and funding received per sector, but it would reflect the reality that many organisations do multi-sectoral work in a given geographical area anyway, and that coordination groups for geographical areas operate on a multi-sectoral basis. CAP Section will, and the rest of the SWG is encouraged to, explore this in discussions with the field leading up to CAP 2010.
CAP DEVELOPMENT CALENDAR VS. AGENCY AND DONOR CALENDARS:
(see above)
NEEDS ASSESSMENT:
The donors would like to see a system that ranks the scale and severity of crises on a comparable basis – a ‘Richter scale’ – and the scale and severity of needs among sectors within a crisis. (Some agencies emphasised the limitations of such a system.) Donors also pushed for “Common Needs Assessments,” modelled on the joint exercise of that name in post-Nargis Myanmar in 2008, in at least two sudden-onset disasters in 2009. (It should be clarified what exact elements constitute a Myanmar-style “Common Needs Assessment” and what differentiates it from current joint post-disaster assessment tools.) The advice from last year’s Montreux was reiterated: each country team should, around mid-year, agree with donors on a specific plan for needs assessment and analysis to lead into the following year’s CAP – what needs to be assessed and how, who will do it, and who will pay for it.
PARTNERSHIP:
In contrast to Montreux 2008, where NGOs expressed considerable reservations about the new humanitarian financing instruments and requested setting up a “CERF for NGOs”, at Montreux 2009 this issue was not very controversial – most NGOs seem to be able to work with the system of CERF, CHFs and ERFs in combination with traditional direct funding. There is stillroom however for improvement in timeliness, predictability, transaction costs, allowances for overhead costs, and administrative convenience in UN-to-NGO funding arrangements.
Post-Montreux, someagencies expressed the view that the agenda and discussions were too influenced by the donor side, and hoped that the convenors’ conclusions would be commensurate with the informality of the forum, i.e. not too ambitious or binding. The GHD CG will communicate that to the convenors.
Support to CAP countries between now and MYR
CAP Section plans a structured workplan of support to CAP country teams between now and the mid-year reviews, including: implementing the M&E framework, introducing the OPS revision tool, sharpening strategies, and planning needs assessment. Considering limited travel budgets, CAP Section invites other SWG members to share their mission plans with the group so as to combine efforts. The SWG did a quick priority rating of the CAP countries in terms of support needs, yielding (in rough descending order of priority) Chad, Afghanistan, Nepal, West Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Cote d'Ivoire, CAR, and Sudan.
Claude Hilfiker mentioned the upcoming cluster evaluation, which could be dovetailed with CAP support. Other OCHA missions, such as CERF and humanitarian financing ones, could also combine with support to CAPs.
Update on policy docs under development
Role of Cluster Leads in the CAP: will be recirculated to SWG after input from Global Cluster Leads and Montreux.
Role of HCs in CAPs: still an internal OCHA draft, will be circulated soon after recording input from Montreux.
The 1994 guideline should be revised.
A guideline for M&E was suggested as a next product.
(N.b. CAP Section discussion post-SWG suggests a need for “role of OCHA office in CAPs” and “role of partners in CAPs”)
Upcoming appeal docs
Kenya: Document will be finalised 13/3 and there is a donors briefing on 16/3. Main increases are in food, nutrition, multi-sector (refugee influx from Somalia) and ER.
Zimbabwe
Cholera response plan: indications are that it will not be revised as it has reached its natural end as a separate, specialised response.
A general CAP revision is planned, following high-level (Policy Committee and some MemberStates) political interest in support the new power-sharing government. Donors are now agreed to fund “humanitarian plus,” apparently meaning the sorts of recovery and building-resilience programmes often proposed but seldom funded in the CAP – and the donors now explicitly want the “plus” in the CAP. It is thought that 3-4 weeks will be needed to conduct the assessments, and another 1-2 weeks will be needed to analyse the information, before actual drafting of the review can begin. Such a schedule implies that the final field draft would reach the SWG around the end of April.
Flash appeals:
Yemen Flash Appeal
unlikely to be revised, as the country is in security phase III, with limits on operations and movement.
There is also little capacity within the RC’s office at this time to do a revision before the appeal’s six months are expired (April 2009)
Honduras Flash Appeal
Country team planned to a very light revision, with no budgetary changes. However, CAP Section strongly advised that key elements of the appeal document itself (executive summary, context) needed updating with the latest information.
This has been pending for four months. The country team feels that they have done enough. CAP Section feels otherwise, as does OCHA CRD. Responsibility for actually finishing the revision rests with the RC and country team.
There is a renewed emphasis to get the remaining work done (new contacts with RC and country team this week), but it is unlikely to be done before the appeal’s six months are expired (also April 2009)
Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan (PHRP)
The situation of conflict-induced displacement is worsening, with numbers of displaced rising rapidly. Numbers have now almost reached (or possibly surpassed) the contingency planning figure of 600,000 as stated in the PHRP’s revision of January 2009.
The country team issued a prioritisation statement at a donor/Government meeting in Islamabad on Wednesday 11 March. The prioritisation statement was an update on the situation, and a list of projects from the PHRP that have been put forward as urgently requiring funding between now and May 2009.
The country team is planning on doing a complete review of the PHRP in May, essentially an early mid-year review.
Otherappeals:
Syria
Indications are that the drought, which has been persisting for four years, will remain bad this year with up to 80% of the country affected (still not very clear how exactly). Community livelihoods and resilience is declining as vulnerabilities are increasing.
There will almost certainly be a new drought appeal sometime around the second half of April. This is primarily so that the latest meteorological data can be available to underpin the appeal’s assessments.
There are some problems with this appeal, notably a lack of in-country operational and humanitarian capacity.
The Syrian Government is very receptive to international assistance, but was also upset at the overall response to the 2008 drought appeal (20% funded).
Given the type of vulnerabilities (long-term, community-based, livelihoods) it is questionable to what extent this will be and can be a humanitarian appeal. It might be more appropriately dealt with through early recovery/recovery frameworks.
OPS update
The revision function should be in service by mid-to-late April, after which CAP Section will offer thorough coaching to all users.
PARTICIPANTSFAO / Sandra Aviles / OHCHR / Camilo Cataldo
FAO / Laura Sciannimonaco / UNDP/BCPR / Tullio Santini
IASC Sec. / Darla Silva / UNICEF / Vincent Cauche
ICRC / Cristy McLennan / UNFPA / Nina Sreenivasan
IFRC / Edith Adhiambo Otieno / UN-HABITAT / Mariko Sato
IOM / Ann Guthmiller / UNHCR / Miroslav Medic
OCHA / Carlos Geha (Dakar) / UNHCR / Sajal Gupta
OCHA / Claude Hilfiker / UNRWA / Elena Mancusi-Mater
OCHA / Alex Ruiter / WFP / Marianne Ward
OCHA / Luke McCallin / WFP / Gregory Pellechi
OCHA / Robert Smith / WHO / Cintia Diaz Herrera
OCHA / Ysabel Fougery / WHO / Luzitu Simao
1