WRITE in THIS - CLEAN FINAL 2012 CAP Document Template (Pre-Set Formatting, No Guidance Text)

2012 APPEAL MID-YEAR REVIEW DOCUMENT TEMPLATE

Save a copy of this file and use it as your appeal document (deleting the instructional text highlighted in yellow, or sample text).

Type where the Latin “filler” text appears (“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet…”); this will ensure that your text has the right formatting, which will allow us to publish your MYR faster. If you copy and paste text, please paste it in the filler text; it should snap to the right formatting for that section, while preserving your bolds and italics. Please don’t change the standard formatting,* except for bold, italics and underlines.

CAP Section will now work in Office / Word 2010. However, if you only have Word 2003, you can download a “compatibility pack” free from Microsoft, which will allow to edit and save Word 2010 documents.

To ensure fast HQ processing time for your CAP document, you should write according to these guidelines (click to open hyperlink):

Style-checking Guidelines

Writing and Editing Guide

Writing tip: CAP MYR documents should be thorough but concise. They can summarize and refer to more detailed information available elsewhere. If you are clear on what’s important to say, you’ll write more concisely.

Writing tip: Make your 2012 CAP MYR less text-heavy – use tables, charts, graphics, and links to on-line resources to tell the story, present the evidence and outline the plan. Make your document visually appealing – see the on-line Best Practices page (items 9-12) for examples of good graphics.

Writing tip: each paragraph should have a beginning, middle and end. The beginning introduces the paragraph’s subject. The middle presents all key facts and arguments. The end makes clear the point of the paragraph. (If you cannot define the point of the paragraph, consider omitting it.)

[cover – to be inserted by CAP]

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

Table of Contents

1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE I. Requirements and funding to date per cluster

TABLE II. Requirements and funding to date per priority level

TABLE III.Requirements and funding to date per organization

2.CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT, HUMANITARIAN NEEDS, AND RESPONSE

2.1CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT

2.2SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO DATE

2.3UPDATED NEEDS ANALYSIS

2.4ANALYSIS OF FUNDING TO DATE

3.PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND SECTORAL TARGETS

3.1STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

3.2CLUSTER RESPONSE UPDATES

3.2.1CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT

3.2.2EARLY RECOVERY

3.2.3EDUCATION

3.2.4EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS

3.2.5FOOD SECURITY

3.2.6HEALTH

3.2.7LOGISTICS

3.2.8NUTRITION

3.2.9NUTRITION

3.2.10SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS

3.2.11WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

4.FORWARD VIEW

ANNEX I: LIST OF PROJECTS AND FUNDING RESULTS TO DATE

TABLE IV.List of appeal projects (grouped by cluster), with funding status of each

TABLE V.Total funding to date per donor to projects listed in the appeal

TABLE VI.Total humanitarian funding to date per donor (appeal plus other)

TABLE VII.Humanitarian funding to date per donor to projects not listed in the appeal

TABLE VIII.Requirements and funding to date per Gender Marker score

TABLE IX.Requirements and funding to date per geographical area

ANNEX II: [if needed]

ANNEX III: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

[map]

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua.[1]

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

Evolution of Needs

• Trend: xxxx
• Evolution of priority needs: xxxxx
• Most likely scenario of needs: xxxx
• Worst case scenario: xxxxx

Progress of Response and Gap Analysis

Provide an explanation of the above bar chart on the cluster overview referring also to operational constraints. Highlight any changes in cluster targets.

• E.g. Capacity and funding constraints have significantly limited the cluster’s implementation rate. Currently only 3% of targeted beneficiaries are covered.

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

Additional basic humanitarian and development indicators for [country name]

* The symbols mean: ↑ situation improved; ↓ situation worsened; ↔ situation remains more or less the same.

TABLE I.Requirements and funding to date per cluster

TABLE II.Requirements and funding to date per priority level

TABLE III.Requirements and funding to date per organization

[CAP Section will generate and insert these once the figures are final. You can check running project totals on OPS, and funding to date on FTS. Please communicate any funding news that FTS is missing to .]

2.CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT, HUMANITARIAN NEEDS, AND RESPONSE

2.1CHANGES IN THE CONTEXT

(No need to repeat in detail what you put in the CAP, if the context has not changed significantly.)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

2.2SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO DATE

(Each cluster response plan will present details of their outputs to date vs. targets, below in Section 3. This section should therefore summarize which parts of the response are on target, and which have deviated from plans and why, and how this affects progress towards strategic objectives.)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

2.3UPDATED NEEDS ANALYSIS

(Each cluster response plan in Section 3 will present a brief updated cluster-specific needs analysis. This section should therefore illuminate the interactions and priorities among needs.)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

2.4ANALYSIS OF FUNDING TO DATE

• To what extent has the funding response to the CAP been adequate, timely and flexible?
• What is being funded outside the CAP, and why was it not counted in the CAP? (See FTS Table H.)
• Has funding increased or decreased compared to the midpoint of previous years, and why?
• Have donors responded to the prioritization scheme in 2012? (See FTS table on funding response per priority level.)
• Did clusters work with donors to direct funds to the most urgent projects?
• What have been the effects of under-funding in the various clusters?
• To what extent have pooled funds improved the quality and efficiency of humanitarian action (like funding clusters neglected by donors)? How were allocation decisions made for CERF or other pooled funds?

At a minimum, you should present and interpret the following statistics (all available on FTS):

► requirements and funding per cluster or sector;

► requirements and funding per priority level;

► amount of funding inside the CAP vs. outside (and which sectors have a lot of funding outside the CAP, and why);

► funding as of mid-2012 compared to the same point of previous years, inside CAP and overall (see previous MYRs for those figures).

Include at least one table/graph that illustrates the key point(s) that you want to make about funding. Please see FTS suggestions about how to present this information or contact FTS for further guidance ().

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

3.PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND SECTORAL TARGETS

(Describe any necessary changes in the strategic objectives, indicators and targets from those in the original 2012 CAP. Otherwise, reproduce your CAP’s strategic objectives, indicators and targets on the tables below, and add achievements to date. Add narrative as needed to explain each result.)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

3.1STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo.

(Add more tables for additional strategic objectives as needed.)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo.

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

APPEAL NAME MID-YEAR REVIEW 2012 1

3.2CLUSTER RESPONSE UPDATES

3.2.1CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT

Summary of updated cluster response plan

Categories and disaggregated numbers of affected population and beneficiaries

Note on definitions for this table:

• Affected people (not shown on this table) include all people whose lives have been affected in some way by the crisis. Not all affected people need humanitarian aid.
• People in need comprise those affected people who require humanitarian aid in some form. People in need are thus a sub-group of affected people.
• People targeted comprise all people the cluster system is trying to assist. This will likely be a sub-group of people in need, as there are many actors providing assistance that do not participate in the cluster system (affected communities, national authorities, Red Cross/Red Crescent movement, and NGOs).
• People reached (not shown on this table) comprise those who have received some form of assistance from a cluster member. This figure says nothing about how long and how well this assistance covers the needs of the beneficiary. A more meaningful picture provides the estimate of people covered (pls. see below).
• People covered indicates the number of people whose needs, defined by a humanitarian standard such as SPHERE, have been or are being met. Example of difference between “reached” and “covered: 1000 people received water (people reached), vs. 1000 people received enough water to cover their needs (15 litres per person per day) for the next two weeks (people covered).

Narrative

Narrative must be brief and focus only on significant changes in needs, objectives, targets, or projects – maximum 800 words. You should highlight:

1) Any significant changes in needs, how the cluster identified them, and why they occurred

2) Important achievements to date in 2012, to substantiate the quantitative information in the table

3) Reasons for any significant deviation between targets and actual achievements as of mid-year (e.g. because of poor funding, low capacity, or spontaneous diminution of needs)

4) Important implementation challenges, including which needs are not covered because of poor funding

5) Explanation of changes in targets (if any)

6) How the cluster re-validated the projects, for example by mapping the needs and orchestrating the projects so as to ensure full coverage without gaps or duplications

7) Coverage of needs by actors not in the cluster or CAP, and verification that the cluster’s updated project portfolio does not duplicate these.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr.

Table of mid-year monitoring vs. objectives

Optional: Map of cluster needs and coverage per location [if available]