The GFF in Fragile States and Humanitarian Settings SECOND INVESTORS GROUP, St Albans, United Kingdom, 17-18 February 2016

Action requested: The Investors Group is asked to provide guidance on the questions linked to GFF engagement in fragile and humanitarian settings as laid out by the Task Team This will help inform the parameters of the GFF and possible next steps for further analysis

Rationale for GFF engagement is clear: Magnitude large and growing: Almost 60M people displaced globally Average displacement time now > 20 years By 2030, more than 50% of world’s poor live in countries affected by fragility, conflict and violence Not just a humanitarian challenge Women, children and adolescents disproportionately affected by crisis: 75% of the 80 million people needing humanitarian assistance in 2014 are women and children 40% of 1.4 billion people in countries impacted by crisis under 15 RMNCAH outcomes worse: 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of <5 deaths happen in settings of conflict, displacement or natural disaster

Rationale for GFF engagement is clear: GFF eligible countries intrinsically linked to fragility and emergencies: 1/3 of the GFF eligible countries classified as ‘fragile and conflict affected state’, including Liberia and DRC Many recently been affected by disaster, epidemic or conflict. Funding gap for humanitarian action considered significant: US$15 billion estimated by High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing Consequences of global challenges also affect high income countries faced with migration, climate change, pandemics (Ebola, Zika) Possible interest from donors to explore role GFF and opportunities for resource mobilization

Opportunities and Limitations Task Team considered several approaches for IG consideration: GFF engagement in states willing and able to support populations in fragile and humanitarian settings GFF engagement in states willing, but not able or obliged to support populations in need GFF’s engagement in states not willing to support populations in need

1. GFF engagement in states willing and able to support populations in fragile and humanitarian settings Certain entry points exist within the current business model of the GFF: Investment case can integrate planning for fragility and emergencies (proactive and/or reactive approaches) Country platform (incl. humanitarian and development actors) and Quality Assurance process can be important tools to ensure no one is left behind, incl. IDPs and minorities affected by (cross-border) conflict

1. GFF engagement in states willing and able to support populations in fragile and humanitarian settings Guidance requested on following questions: Draft RMNCAH investment case guideline has been mostly advisory. How to ensure countries will: carry out risk assessments plan and allocate appropriate funding for DRR and EPP as well as equitable allocation of resources to hard-to-reach populations which may be more costly or difficult to reach? Any considerations from QA and country platform perspective? How to ensure mechanisms exist to ensure flexibility in repurposing and the capacity to manage those funds in case of emergencies to ensure timely RMNCAH response? Should contingency stocks be established for possible emergencies?

2. GFF engagement in states willing, but not able or obliged to support populations in need Certain entry points exist within the current business model of the GFF: Innovative mechanisms to overcome barriers to RMNCAH service delivery such as public-private partnerships. Appropriate health system strengthening and technical assistance for capacity building also included in investment case GFF funding availability may help address needs of those not necessarily obliged to assist, such as refugees and migrants Innovative mechanisms to overcome barriers to RMNCAH service delivery such as public-private partnerships, like the NGO support in Ebola response or contracting out of service delivery in Afghanistan. Appropriate health system strengthening and technical assistance for capacity building also be included in the investment case

2. GFF engagement in states willing, but not able or obliged to support populations in need Guidance requested on following questions: What consideration should GFF give to the humanitarian-development divide, in view of the protracted crises? What further exploration may be needed by the Task Team? Should the GFF play a role in supporting populations government not obliged to cater for? For example, will some form of pressure/incentivizes to national governments be considered to be more inclusive of refugee and displaced populations? Should further exploration with UNHCR and IOM take place on this?

3. GFF’s engagement in states not willing to support populations in need Government not always present or there may be a weak government with no effective reach, or reasons for unwillingness by the state to reach its entire population. The current business model of the GFF does not cater for such situations. Alternative non-state mechanisms for addressing RMNCAH needs may be considered through the GFF in settings where a state-led approach is not practical. It is recognized though that significant needs exist and funding gaps persists.

3. GFF’s engagement in states not willing to support populations in need Guidance requested on following questions: Should non-state funding mechanisms be considered in these settings as part of the GFF? Support non-GFF eligible countries (e.g. Lebanon, Syria) facing significant humanitarian crises with considerable RMNCAH needs? What further exploration may be needed to help inform decision making? Initial questions are: comparative (dis)advantage of GFF and role of the Bank possible funding landscape possible stronger link between humanitarian aid and development assistance reduced earmarking, and more effective use of resources through results-based approaches the use of innovative financing mechanism.

GFF implementation risks in fragile and humanitarian settings The impact of GFF in fragile settings is anticipated to be significant. Recognize the risks in view of the enhanced complexity, particularly: Trade-off: timely, flexible response vs. need to monitor funds Simple investment cases needed, to monitor and amend frequently Carry out implementation research to help inform such work Consideration for role health financing strategies for sustainable, equitable financing - part of GFF value proposition - may be difficult Complexity of CRVS and possible concerns of people to register. Many countries at greatest risk of humanitarian crises are also those with the greatest health system challenges and capacity issues

GFF implementation risks in fragile and humanitarian settings In all three scenarios described, the IG is requested to give consideration to the following questions: What are the GFF parameters, i.e. what is needed (as a minimum) and what may be acceptable for GFF implementation in fragile and emergency settings? What are acceptable risks and how can risks be mitigated?

Recommendations: The Investors Group is requested to: Recognize the importance of GFF support to fragile states and humanitarian settings, given the fact that many GFF eligible countries have, either currently or recently, been affected by disaster, epidemics or conflict. Women, children and adolescents are disproportionally affected by such crises. Consider the three scenarios, which highlight opportunities and limitations with the current business model of the GFF, and provide feedback on the extent to which the GFF should be engaged in these different scenarios. Provide guidance on further analysis to be carried out by the Task Team in preparation for the next Investors Group meeting scheduled in June 2016.