M3 – S4 FUNCTION 3 – ‘ PLANNING AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ’: Resource Mobilisation

Humanitarian Finance - the basics DEMAND: (Appeals for funding) –agency appeals –Interagency appeals –consolidated appeals processes Preliminary Response Plan Strategic Response Plan Global Appeal SUPPLY SUPPLY:(Funding sources) National government civil society NGO funds bilateral donors multilateral donors private sector pooled funds CERF Emergency Response Fund Common Humanitarian Fund

Demand Side

What is in the Preliminary Response Plan ?

What is the Global Appeal? All the SRPs in protracted and current emergencies, presented together.

Supply side: POOLED FUNDS

Pooled funds 3 types: CERF CERF - Central Emergency Response Fund CHF CHF - Common humanitarian funds ERF ERF – Emergency Response Funds Worldwide…. Country specific…. Small scale for gaps….

What is CERF? 1.Rapid response grants (2/3 of grant facility) to meet immediate relief needs for local procurement and/or transport 2.Under-funded crises (1/3 of grant facility) If no other funding source immediately available, including agencies’ own un-earmarked agency funds and earmarked donor grants 3. Loans ($50 million) Funding committed but not yet paid; or commitment very likely

Who can receive CERF Grants? NGOs cannot apply directly for CERF funds, but: –should participate in process as part of Child Protection Sub- Cluster – do receive funds as implementing partners of UN agencies & IOM

Life-saving activities or services Time-critical actions or resources Essential CERF criteria If not met, then

Coordinators have crucial role in organising appeals for funding. They need to: involve all cluster participants coordinate needs assessments communicate agreed priorities and funding gaps lead & coordinate response plans gather project proposals inclusively When required, vet projects transparently

5 general conclusions about donors: 1.donors have varied interpretations of xxxxxxxxxxxx to a large extent because it lacks a simple conceptual framework with a universal terminology: it is hard to explain to the public and to decision-makers. 1.donors don’t generally make the major xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx decisions (indeed no donor can say with confidence how much of their funding is spent on protection) but tend to allocate resources to priority countries and trusted partners ideally with as little earmarking as possible.

3.Many donors are concerned about the xxxxxxxx of protection programming and the narrow range of capable partners in this sometimes sensitive field of humanitarian work. At the same time, donor administrative constraints lead them in most cases to prefer fewer, larger projects. 4.Most donors would like to see better xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. 5.some donors are placing increased emphasis on xxxxxxxxxxx, as an important complement to protection-specific programming.

2 recommended protection funding strategies: 1.Increase the supply by advocating for more funding to be allocated to protection, and 2.increase the demand by improving the standing of protection within the overall humanitarian response and the quality of protection work. The two are closely related. Advocacy to increase the quantity of protection funding will fall short of expectations unless it is accompanied by clear commitment and action to improve the quality of protection work.

In the short term, it is operational humanitarian actors more than donors who can increase the focus on protection: 1.Advocate within protection organisations for a greater share of unearmarked or privately-raised funding to be allocated to protection, and 2.Increase protection content in multi-sector or integrated programmes pitched to donors.

CERF Funding Criteria All projects funded through the CERF grant component must be for life-saving / core emergency humanitarian programmes defined as: Activities that, within a short time span, remedy, mitigate or avert direct loss of life, physical harm or threats to a population or major portion thereof. Also permissible are common humanitarian services that are necessary to enable life-saving activities (e.g. air support, emergency telecommunications, logistics).

Activities Outside CERF Mandate Activities that are not immediately life-saving, such as disaster mitigation, early warning, prevention and preparedness, economic recovery, poverty reduction, and disarmament, are not suitable for the CERF. CERF contributions do not cover: –Recurrent costs (regular government staff salaries, running office and maintenance costs, etc.) –Regular agency stockpiling –Capacity building and training (funded only if related to direct implementation of emergency response) ** Proposals that contain life-saving elements in the project narrative but the budgets focus on non-life-saving elements are not suitable for the CERF grant window. **

Examples of Life-Saving Activities SECTORCRITERIAEXAMPLES AgricultureActivities that have a direct and immediate impact in protecting and restoring the livelihood of families affected by an emergency Provision of seeds, tools and fertilizer to restore food production capacity, survival of productive animals when primary source of livelihood, initial inputs for plague control Coordination and support services Activities that support the delivery of priority life-saving activities provided by UN agencies, NGOs and governments in emergency response Emergency telecommunications equipment, evacuation services, transport, Joint Logistics Centers, safety and security measures Education in Emergencies Interventions aiming at restoring educational and recreational activities for children and adolescents during an emergency School tents and other education material, emergency repair of primary education facilities, essential life- saving skills

Child protection Activities Identification, registration, family tracing and reunification or interim care arrangements for separated children, orphans and children leaving armed groups/forces. Ensure proper referrals to other services such as health, food, education and shelter Identification, registration, referral and follow-up for other extremely vulnerable children, incl. survivors of GBV and other forms of violence, children with no access to basic service and those requiring special protection measures Conditions Context of specific emergency response

Child protection (continued) Activities Activities incl. advocacy, awareness- raising, life-skills training, and livelihoods Provision of psychosocial support to children affected by the emergency, e.g. through provision of child-friendly spaces or other community-based interventions, return to school or emergency education, mental health referrals where expertise exists Identification and strengthening, or establishment of community-based child protection mechanisms to assess, monitor and address child protection issues Conditions Context of specific emergency response

Life-SavingMaybe, depending on context Not Life-Saving Primary HealthcareDe-miningInfrastructure Reconstruction Therapeutic FeedingLivestock VaccinationsIM systems Emergency Watsan General Food DistributionsMicro-credit Shelter/NFISurveillance systemsPreparedness Plans Protection Em. Education Psycho-socialVulnerability assessments Priority Activities

… Main reason for delays in CERF funding… BUDGET ERRORS…

What is wrong with this budget? Cost breakdown Amount ( USD) A. Staff costs (salaries and other entitlements) (drivers to deliver food) $50,000 B. Travel- C. Contractual Services- D. Operations (please itemize below; add rows if necessary) Transport of food and water containers$50,000 - E. Acquisitions F. Other- Subtotal project requirements $200,000 G. Indirect programe support costs (not to exceed 7% of subtotal project costs) PSC amount (none needed) 0 Total cost $200,000

Cost breakdown Amount ( USD) A. Staff costs (salaries and other entitlements) (drivers to deliver food) B. Travel C. Contractual Services D. Operations (please itemize below; add rows if necessary) Transport of food and water containers E. Acquisitions F. Other Subtotal project requirements G. Indirect programe support costs (not to exceed 7% of subtotal project costs) PSC amount (none needed) Total cost $4,000,000 What is wrong with this budget?

IASC Gender Marker What is the Gender Marker? The IASC Gender Marker (2009) is a tool that codes, on a 0‐1-2a-2b scale, whether or not a humanitarian project is designed well enough to ensure that women/girls and men/boys will benefit equally from it or that it will advance gender equality in another way. Getting Project Design Right There are five entry points for protection clusters to address gender equality in their project sheets: project objective, beneficiaries, needs assessment, activities and outcomes. Note: The essential starting point for any humanitarian project is to identify the number of women, girls, boys and men who are the target beneficiaries. This information is required in all project sheets. Gender mainstreaming in project design is about making the concerns and experiences of women, girls, boys and men an integral dimension of the core elements of the project: 1) gender analysis in the needs assessment which leads to 2) gender‐responsive activities and 3) related gender outcomes. This careful gender mainstreaming in project design facilitates gender equality then flowing into implementation, monitoring and evaluation.