Report to the IASC Principals on the Integration of Early Recovery in recent crisis settings

Transcription

1 INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE Report to the IASC Principals on the Integration of Early Recovery in recent crisis settings Circulation level: IASC Summary 30 April 2015 Submitted by the Global Cluster on Early Recovery (CGER) On behalf of Global Cluster Coordination Group (GCCG) The IASC Principals have endorsed Recommendations on Strengthening Early Recovery 1 and have requested clusters (with the exception of ETC and Logistics) to integrate early recovery into all the different phases of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) as the foundation for fostering resilience in a crisis or post-crisis context. The Global Cluster on Early Recovery (GCER) - with support from Global Clusters - was requested to prepare this report to the Principals on progress in integrating early recovery into their work. This report draws on experiences of Early Recovery integration by Clusters from a range of country contexts. The relationship between Early Recovery and the Humanitarian Programme Cycle is examined through reviews of practical examples of Early Recovery integration at strategic and operational levels in countries encompassing a range of complex emergency, natural disaster, epidemic and L3 emergencies. Good practice in addressing cross-cluster Early Recovery integration is explored in the report,including: Quickly identifying context-specific recovery needs and being able to deliver appropriate technical coordination and capacity from the global level; Ensuring that basic services contribute to fostering resilience and are expandable to meet the needs of displaced and other affected groups in a durable manner; Taking a cross-cluster approach to livelihood programming, including through increasing use of unconditional cash transfer programming; Focussing on community resilience to respond to recurrent shocks: Engaging development actors into the overall coordination as well as integrating preparedness for future emergencies in response action; Supporting governments to maintain or re-establish services, including to ensure stability; and, support governments to deliver quality programmes, integrate and promote international standards and guidelines. The report also considers good practice, and some challenges, where a dedicated cluster has been established to handle coordination on Early Recovery issues not covered by other clusters, including: Debris clearing and recycling; Dealing with the explosive remnants of war; Restoration of Local Governance and Re-establishment of Service Delivery; Stability and social cohesion; and, Nonagricultural livelihoods. Successful practices for the integration of Early Recovery in humanitarian response are found to be context specific, with key variables depending inter-alia on: the type of crisis, the capacity and leadership role played by clusters and governments, the existing resilience of affected communities, and the pre-crisis engagement of the international community. The success of an early recovery approach requires an early shift in internationally led response to one that is led and managed by national authorities, and that aligns with national policies. All clusters must be ready to do this intentionally and systematically wherever and whenever appropriate. 1 See IASC document Recommendations on Strengthening Early Recovery, November 2013, in Annex. 1

2 Recommendations Considering international humanitarian response, four enabling themes emerge as fundamental for the success of Early Recovery integration, around which overall recommendations have been built: Leadership of the overall response at the HC and HCT level, across and within clusters / sectors Clear articulation and prioritization of Early Recovery in SRPs. Work to reinforce the obligations and capacities of affected government to protect its own people as and where possible (HC, HCT, Country Cluster Coordinators). Work in close collaboration with affected communities, acknowledging their capacities, and work to strengthen these alongside humanitarian response. Strengthen linkages of early recovery addressed by the humanitarian organizations and Recovery programs undertaken by development actors. Coordination specifically reaching out beyond humanitarian actors Engage more systematically with development actors early on in coordination, e.g. consider regular joint coordination fora on specific topics, inter alia social security safety net programming, or land and housing reforms (HCTs and Country Cluster Coordinators) Consider innovative groupings to examine durable solution options early in a crisis including to review market conditions with the involvement of the private sector (HCs, HCTs, Country Cluster Coordinators, Donors) Greater consideration about the physical location of sub-national coordination hubs to promote ER linkages needs to be factored into the management of the response; including to ensure proximity to regional or district authorities. Financing resources need to be available and requirements need to be prioritised Find ways to ensure coherence between development and humanitarian funding streams along the lines of ER strategy; this means e.g. development funding streams coming online quicker (Donors) Make more use of country-based pooled funds for ER (HCs, HCTs and Donors) Ensure that funding requirement prioritization exercises go beyond just flagging immediate life-saving requirements, to be more strategic in also considering ER dimensions. Flexibility to adapt interagency planning and coordination in accordance with dynamically evolving contexts Undertake an analysis of needs and capacities to redefine the parameters of the humanitarian response according to the evolution of the context. Undertake frequent evaluation of coordination architecture vis-à-vis the evolving context; consider innovative approaches to address gaps including establishing dedicated clusters on ER issues (HCTs) 2

3 Report to the IASC Principals on the Integration of Early Recovery in recent crisis settings The preparation of this report entailed several consultative and analytical steps. The GCER undertook an initial desk review of Strategic Response Plans (and related planning / resource mobilisation documents) from 2014, to consider how early recovery integration has been presented within and across cluster strategies and operational plans. A summary of this desk review was presented to the Global Cluster Coordinators Group (GCCG), to inform common agreement on a selection of country contexts for further joint detailed review and analysis. The GCCG proposed to focus this review on countries encompassing a range of complex emergency, natural disaster, epidemic and L3 emergencies, specifically: Philippines (Typhoon Haiyan) Sudan Iraq Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) response (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea) An inter-cluster review of good practices and challenges was initiated by the GCCG. Illustrated examples of early recovery integration from the selected focus countries were collected and consolidated from a range of Cluster Coordinators, Early Recovery Advisors and OCHA. The joint review and analysis considered details of the processes (and agreements made) at country-level to arrive at the presented plan, and consideration of the response strategy as ultimately implemented. Integration of Early Recovery into all different phases of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) as the foundation for fostering resilience in crisis or post-crisis contexts The Humanitarian Programme Cycle and Early Recovery: The humanitarian programme cycle rolled out as part of the IASC Transformative Agenda consists of a set of inter-linked programmatic tools to assist the Humanitarian Coordinator and Humanitarian Country Team to prepare, prioritize, steer and monitor the collective response through informed decision-making.affected people are at the centre of the humanitarian programme cycle and they should be effectively consulted at each step. The ultimate objective is to improve the delivery of aid through a better joint response. Early recovery is a vital element of any effective humanitarian response. Planning for it should start when the crisis begins. Early recovery is an approach that addresses recovery needs that arise during the humanitarian phase using humanitarian mechanisms that align with development principles. It enables people to use the benefits of humanitarian action to seize development opportunities, fosters resilience, and establishes a sustainable process of recovery from a crisis. For humanitarian organizations, early recovery can provide a path to durable solutions and an exit strategy. For both reasons, programmes that promote sustainable long-term solutions, including greater system and community resilience, should be integrated into the humanitarian programme cycle and explicitly referenced in humanitarian strategies and approaches. Early Recovery is guided inter alia by the principle of build back better and is underpinned by capitalizing on a detailed understanding of local situations. Using data and an evidence base is critical for this concept, as well as communicating effectively with affected people, to ensure that their wishes, 3

4 ideas and capacities are taken into account in planning and implementation as necessary. Early Recovery response is informed by devoted information management, needs assessment and analysis. Decision making on Early Recovery in the field happens at various stages of the HPC, including in the analysis and prioritisation of needs, and notably in Strategic Response Planning processes where Strategic Objectives (and Cluster Objectives) are established, and Boundaries (or scope of the plan ) are agreed. Boundaries present HCT conclusions on which of the identified needs will be addressed through humanitarian response and which are (or should be) more-appropriately addressed by others, e.g. governments, or development actors. Decision making on this point has generated healthy debate amongst HCTs and Inter-Cluster Coordination fora on resilience topics, and how to define capacity building for national actors in the context of humanitarian response. Integration of Early Recovery at the Strategic Level in Strategic Response Plans and related Planning Processes Key findings from the desk reviews of the planning instruments from the selected contexts are presented in Annex 1 of this report. All of the strategies clearly prioritised Early Recovery, with many cases of top level Strategic Objectives being explicit. A selection is presented here: Improve the access of conflict-affected people to livelihoods and durable solutions to enable them to restore their self-sufficiency and build resilience. (SO3, Iraq SRP for 2014/15) Resilience: The most vulnerable households, groups and communities are better able to mitigate risk and withstand shocks and stresses. (SO3, Sudan SRP for 2014) Affected people quickly regain access to community and local government services, including basic education and a strengthened protective environment. (SO5, Philippines/ Typhoon Haiyan SRP) ENSURE essential services, SO4: PRESERVE stability (SO3, Ebola ONR) Further integration of Early Recovery at the Strategic (HCT) Level: In Sudan the HCT decided in 2012 that there was a need to improve the overall focus on Early Recovery themes across sectors, which led to the regular tabling of issues at the Inter-Sector Coordination Group, and the establishment of a stand-alone Return, Recovery and Re-Integration Sector. Operations under the Sector have included focuses on: durable solutions for IDPs, returnees and affected communities, for example by ensuring access to services, markets and traditional livelihoods; infrastructure construction in support of non-agricultural livelihoods for vulnerable groups; and, the tracking of returnees and affected people in Darfur. Whilst donor funding has not been as forthcoming as hoped for, the establishment of the sector has also provided a vehicle to promote linkages with development planning processes and instruments, such as the UNDAF. In the Philippines the response was characterised by the rapid self-recovery of the people who, within days, mostly returned home and were rebuilding at least makeshift shelter and seeking to rebuild their livelihoods, though often via use of high cost credit. The IASC Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation (IAHE) found that the response needed to better adapt and customise activities to support early recovery. Differences between the international and national planning timeframes, and different views on the boundaries and linkages between emergency relief, early recovery and recovery, all contributed to a difficult process of transition from relief to recovery programming. The IAHE also found that 4

5 transition to recovery was complicated by the fact that sectors and regions recovered at different paces, and by uncertainty regarding the government's capacity and timetable to begin large-scale recovery programmes. In the planning for the EVD response, the initial response strategy was focussed solely on Stop Ebola & Treat the infected (together with UNMEER), there was little initial consideration about how the mission might contribute to the longer term recovery of the affected countries; subsequent changes in the approach to Inter-Cluster Coordination paved the way for planning in this domain. Early Recovery Integration Across Clusters From the inputs received from the Global Cluster Coordinators a number of recurrent themes were found, relating to efforts in Early Recovery integration. Quick identification of the context-specific recovery needs, then ensuring appropriate technical coordination and capacity available from the global level: The Global Shelter Cluster has built its whole approach and strategy around early recovery, acknowledging that for affected people the shelter recovery process starts immediately at the onset of the crisis. To this end a Shelter in Recovery Working Group was established in 2014 at global level to support country level shelter cluster coordination with guidance and best practice, including on linkages with Early Recovery Advisors. In the case of the Philippines, specific expertise was deployed early on in the crisis to look at identified early recovery issues, specifically: a dedicated environmental advisor to address the issue of coco lumber and its role as an impediment and opportunity for recovery in supporting reconstruction; and, a dedicated housing, land and property advisory team to address regulatory barriers faced by affected households. Operationally, specific guidance was developed on shelter recovery, along with the roll out of a safe shelter construction campaign. A coco lumber working group was also established as a joint initiative of the Shelter and Early Recovery clusters. Ensuring that basic services are contributing fostering resilience and are expandable to meet the needs of displaced and other affected groups in a durable manner: In Sudan, the Education cluster - in tandem with the Government - has been encouraging durable solutions and building back better. In particular, the Education Cluster has been supporting the Ministry of Education to integrate work on Education in Emergencies into broader sector planning processes and financial forecasting, work which is also being backed by the World Bank. The Ministry has established an Education in Emergencies Unit at Federal and State level. Also in Sudan, given the strain on ageing WASH infrastructure, especially in areas with high IDP concentration, the WASH cluster strategy has a strong resilience focus in line with one of the overall SRP Strategic Objectives. The WASH cluster also has an objective relating to inter-cluster action in supporting durable solution strategy locations for IDPs and others. In the Philippines, the WASH cluster considers that the response integrated a fundamental Early Recovery approach from the outset of the emergency, in that it supported government to re-establish systems. Ensure local authorities and partners engage in a constructive and experiential learning approach to improve disaster preparedness and resilience in the future. Reconstruction and rehabilitation activities were often supported through cash for work and other cash-based initiatives boosting the livelihoods of affected people. The nutrition cluster also ensured that efforts to support community management of acute malnutrition had capacity building dimensions, working with existing national capacities where possible. 5

6 In Iraq the WASH cluster supports the government through its efforts to ensure municipal water and waste systems are available and maintained in IDP hosting areas, contributing to durable solutions for IDPs. Taking a cross-cluster approach to livelihood programming, including through increasing use of unconditional cash transfer programming: In support of Livelihoods in EVD affected countries, the Food Security cluster established a quantified survival deficit for households that lost their workforce during the crisis, addressed through unconditional cash transfers. Other cash and food for work initiatives were designed to protect productive assets, with further cash or agricultural/ livestock inputs provided to restore livelihoods and assets lost during the crisis. Under the rubric of Basic Infrastructure and Rehabilitation, the Food Security cluster addressed food conservation and reduction of post-harvest losses through the provision of community or household managed silos, cereal conditioning bags, conditional cash transfers and technical support; In-country transformation capacity to replace external supply through the provision of food processing machinery (e.g. cassava mills, rice hullers, oil processing machinery) and technical training; Strengthen the availability of agricultural products in the market by providing transport vouchers, facilitation of commercial relationships inside the different value chains (e.g. joint FAO/WFP Purchase from Africa to Africa approach) and organization of agricultural products fairs in zones with poor food access. In Iraq the Food Security Cluster led development of a livelihood early recovery plan for major returnee areas. In the specific case of Liberia recovery planning was supposed to be resting with the UNCT / HCT, which was seen as very detached from UNMEER, leading to two parallel structures, looking at two different things: 1) Ebola emergency side and 2) peace keeping mission, economic and non-health impacts. The actual reporting lines for newly established clusters was not clear in the initial stages of the response, though care was taken to not establish duplicative structures vis-à-vis established, countrylevel coordination forums. From December the Inter-Cluster Coordinator role was actually assumed by an Early Recovery Advisor, convening the group to consider what might be done - post-ebola - with all of the committed financial and logistical resources (motor bikes, machinery, etc.), and including the hundreds of newly trained health workers. The Liberia inter-cluster coordination group became a defacto ER inter-cluster coordination group, meeting fortnightly to plan for the coming year on recovery in non-health domains, including around future employment for the trained health care workers, getting the banking system working again, and supporting (cross-border) trade. A lite interagency Ebola Recovery Assessment was conducted jointly by UNDP, WB, EU& ADB. Focus on community resilience to respond to recurrent shocks: In Sudan the nutrition cluster worked with communities to enhance participation and leadership to withstand recurring, predictable shocks, whilst also ensuring an expansion of multi-sectoral nutrition services. Engaging development actors into the overall coordination as well as integrating preparedness for future emergencies in response action; In the Typhoon Haiyan response the Education cluster engaged development actors early in coordination, in particular to work on preparing for future emergencies with a specific focus on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). In Iraq, whilst the Health cluster didn t elaborate a specific early recovery objective within the SRP framework, it was able to relate existing programming in capacity building support to government in Preparedness, Surveillance and Response which became increasingly relevant due to the crisis. This 6

7 longer-term programme is part of a UN Inter-Agency Iraq Public Sector Modernisation development strategy and is partly cost-shared by agencies with government. Several clusters found that the application of an Early Recovery approach into programming can be more expensive than solutions that only address short-term needs; in the Philippines an initiative by the shelter and education clusters - initial temporary learning shelters - was modified to ensure the structures would be resilient to future hazards. Supporting governments to maintain or re-establish services, including to ensure stability: Responding to EVD the Education cluster considered the reopening of schools as a key early recovery priority, and indicator of a return to normalcy. The Cluster supported the development and roll-out of the Protocol for the Safe Opening of Schools in partnership with governments, with the objective being to limit the risk of EVD transmission and ensure preparedness for potential new outbreaks. The Protocol entails specific details on teaching and classroom management, and improvements in the physical school environments. Also in the EVD response, the WASH cluster supported governments in their efforts to maintain and re-establish WASH infrastructure in general, and in particular in state facilities such as health posts and schools, without which they could not have reopened. Supporting the government to maintain infrastructure in urban areas with increased population was also seen as a way of preserving stability. It was also noted that in Guinea in particular, the withdrawal of some development actors active in the sector triggered a slowing down with regards to the implementation of a number of ongoing projects and led to increased needs In Iraq the Education Cluster strategy focused on supporting the government to provide quality education in a protective environment to crisis affected people, and to prepare for future crises. Support governments to deliver quality programmes, integrate and promote international standards and guidelines: The Global Protection Cluster shared examples from a range of contexts concerning documentation in particular around the appropriate issuance of identity documents. It was noted that across multiple clusters, early recovery success in this domain happened when international and national actors focussed on the longer-term were able to engage; often only at the stage of clusters being de-activated and solutions stakeholders being identified. Examples given include the engagement ofprogrammes supporting birth registration or census efforts, plus those engaged in technical support to governments on the rule of law. In the Philippines the nutrition cluster worked to fill gaps identified by government, and in to support the government in maintaining national programmes, including with advocacy relating to the National Milk Code. In Sudan the nutrition cluster work with government on three common projects: Community Management of Acute Malnutrition, Infant and Young Child Feeding, and Micronutrient Deficiency Prevention and Control. The strategy is to improve treatment services; the availability of drugs, therapeutic and supplemental food; and, adherence to guidance through training, community linkages and monitoring. All clusters noted a recurrent impediment and challenge in securing adequate funding. Additional Early Recovery Coordination Bodies As described in the Recommendations endorsed by the IASC Principals, based on the local context and needs, and following a gap analysis, the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) may recommend 7

8 a coordination mechanism be established with a specific focus on an identified thematic area not covered by other clusters. The brief case study on the process followed in Iraq see page 10 describes good practice in this regard. In 2014 Early Recovery coordination mechanisms were active in 26 countries. 2 These clusters/ sectors have been named according to their specific thematic areas of focus such as Social Cohesion and Livelihoods cluster in Iraq, an Early Recovery and Livelihoods cluster in the Philippines, and a Recovery, Return and Reintegration sector in Sudan. 3 Whilst a range of diverse issues were covered through the work of these clusters, some interesting common good practice themes emerged from the review. In a number of cases these clusters were convened and worked to enable the rest of the humanitarian response as well as recovery. In the Philippines, cluster partners worked in a coordinated manner to assist the government to reach out and support the participation of local communities in the clearance and management of rubble and debris following the storm. Debris clearing and recycling of debris activities resulted in renewed access and the restoration of schools, hospitals, health care units, municipal halls, day-care centres, roads, drainage canals, dump sites and other public places including churches and public markets. Whilst not a focus country, the example of the Occupied Palestinian Territories also warrants a mention, where cluster partners have been working on rubble removal and the explosive remnants of war to enable further response and recovery following the latest conflict in Gaza. The Restoration of Local Governance and Re-establishment of Service Delivery in post-disaster contexts was another core thematic area identified by cluster partners. The Government of the Philippines was supported in a) developing a participatory recovery plans that set out the priorities of the communities in order to foster their resilience and b) restoring the functionality of local government units in typhoon-affected regions to lead and deliver recovery, e.g. critical public service delivery for the affected populations; this also included the setting up of local level grievance mechanisms to work towards the peaceful resolution of any conflicts over issues such as land and/or resettlement Stability and social cohesion was a recurrent theme for these clusters; in addition to Iraq and Sudan, Yemen and Myanmar also made use of similar coordination forums. In Iraq, the cluster focussed on ways to take account of the complex social fabric, recognizing the extremely volatile situation, in particular between displaced and host communities. This was done through promoting dialogue between different groups encouraging humanization and communication ; and, working to protect livelihoods, income and public services in a context where the consequences of large numbers of displaced arriving has been daily labour rates going down, prices (rents) rising and petty crime increasing. Response has included activities to promote sustainable livelihoods for vulnerable host communities and IDP families, including access to credit, grants, cash assistance, market assessments and vocational skills training, handled through transparent selection mechanisms for beneficiaries and regular communication with affected groups. In terms of livelihoods work, cluster strategies in many countries have included cash-for-work emergency employment, cash injections and the purchase of local materials and services, providing crucial relief to many households of the affected population; efforts that have had a significant multiplier effect, stimulating local economies and restoring purchasing powers. In the case of the Philippines, the loss of livelihoods was mainly due to infrastructure damage, lack of market access and disrupted cash flow. Many micro, small and medium enterprises were destroyed or unable to continue, with assets lost and capital depleted. The immediate early recovery objective was 2 This number refers to 24 coordination arrangements led by UNDP, 2 led by Government institutions, 10 Sectors, 9 Clusters, 4 Networks, 1 Sectoral Task Force, 1 Integrated Committee, 1 Working Group. 3 In this context it was agreed that Livelihoods would relate to non-agricultural livelihoods; agricultural livelihoods being covered by the FSC. 8

9 to help individuals return to normalcy by providing much-needed livelihoods through immediate shortterm employment for debris-clearing activities (see example above) and the repair and reconstruction of public infrastructure and urban economic structures. Following the immediate response the focus switched to providing more sustainable sources of income, e.g. through skills training and support for enterprise recovery with the aim of gradually giving men and women decent work and an alternative source of income (business) that they can own and manage themselves. Some beneficiaries received food stalls made of coconut lumber (recycled, coconut lumber), or received cash grants that they can use to start their small food stall vending business running. In the Philippines, the establishment of the Cluster also presented some challenges in terms of delineation of livelihood activities with the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC). Ultimately it was agreed that farming and fishing based livelihood programming would be covered by FSAC, with the ER Cluster covering non-farming livelihoods. In the case of the Philippines the cluster was co-lead by UNDP with ILO with strong government engagement. In Sudan the sector was co-chaired by government. In all cases where clusters were established respondents noted that it was crucial to ensure adequate coordination and planning with other related clusters, in particular Food Security (agricultural livelihoods) and protection (relating to the rights of individuals and families, versus inter-communal concerns on social cohesion issues). In the case of Niger e.g., the initial activation of clusters in 2009 did not include the establishment of a cluster specifically focusing on Early Recovery. Following a gap analysis, a Working Group on Early Recovery 4 was created subsequently. Over time, however, the focus of the Working Group turned to issues relating to food security. Consequently, UNDP Niger as Cluster lead decided in March 2015 to deactivate the Working Group on Early Recovery and to incorporate its activities into the Food Security Cluster. 4 The Working Group on Early Recovery in Niger functions like a Cluster. 9

10 Country Support Provided by the Global Cluster on Early Recovery The Global Cluster on Early Recovery leads the efforts to set up standards and policy and build response capacity and operational support. At the global level the Global Cluster on Early Recovery continued its ongoing normative work by integrating early recovery into HPC guidance and tools such as the HPC Reference Module and the Cluster Coordination Reference Module. The GCER supported the mainstreaming and integration of the Early Recovery approach at the Country Level through the provision of strategic and coordination support to the HCs, Resident Coordinators (RCs), HCTs and CLAs. In ERAs, 4 CCs and 1 IM have been deployed to twelve countries 5 ; - GCER short-term (6 weeks or less) support missions were fielded to 9 countries 6 ; - Technical guidance and substantive input to HCTs strategy and policy documents on durable solutions to displacement provided to multiple countries 7 ; - Technical guidance and substantive input to HCTs on other key strategic documents and needs assessments provided in multiple countries 8. The structure of the Cluster includes a support cell staffed by UNDP Crisis Response, which is also supported by Danish Refugee Council and MSB - Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency secondees and partly funded by ECHO. The Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) is the principal advisory body for the Cluster 9. Along with global guidance and policy work, the SAG also provides country-level support, both remotely and through the deployment of technical missions, including mid-term deployments from an Early Recovery Inter- Cluster Country Support Roster. The roster comprises ER Advisors (ERA), Cluster Coordinators (CC) and Information Management Officers (IM). Capacity building investment has been made in The GCER trained of 27 Early Recovery Advisors and 20 Cluster Coordinators. In 2015 it is planned to train 40 Early Recovery Advisors and 40 Cluster Coordinators. Other experts have been deployed by UNDP as Inter-Agency Roster Manager, sometimes provided by stand-by partners (40 experts in 2014), such as Disaster Waste and Debris Management Teams and Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery Teams to Tacloban (Philippines). Early Recovery and the notion of Provider of Last Resort : The 2005 IASC Humanitarian Reform requested Cluster Lead Agencies to address critical gaps in the absence of other willing or able actors. In the case of Early Recovery, the Global Cluster considers the deployment of specialised Early Recovery Advisors to contexts where the HCT does not have capacity under this rubric. A specific example is also noted from the response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, where UNDP allocated an initial US$5m to rubble removal in Tacloban during the first days of the response, to facilitate access 5 Central African Republic, Guinea, Kosovo, Liberia, Mali, Myanmar, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Ukraine, Philippines, Iraq. 6 Cote d Ivoire (x 2), Guinea, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Mali, Philippines (Zamboanga), Serbia, Ukraine. 7 E.g. Cote d Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Philippines (Zamboanga), South Sudan, Myanmar. 8 E.g. Mongolia (Contingency Plan), Philippines, Myanmar, Iraq, Serbia (PDNA). 9 The SAG is composed of permanent SAG members: UNDP (chair), OCHA and current rotating SAG members: ACTIONAID, DRC, FAO, IOM, MSB, UNICEF, WFP; Terms of Reference in Annex. 10

11 and enable the rest of the response. This was done in advance of dedicated donor funding being available. Summary of the strategic support and operational coordination role played by a deployed Early Recovery Advisor in Iraq: The mission started by connecting with all major partners and clusters, firstly to ascertain viewpoints on the evolving context, and secondly to facilitate a common view on what recovered communities should look like. Next, a joint analysis was undertaken to consider what activities would be required to get communities to such a recovered state, and to identify strategic and operational gaps in the current response. The Humanitarian Country Team and Clusters identified social cohesion and sustainable livelihoods as appropriately summarizing the identified response gaps, and hence led to the establishment of the dedicated cluster. There were clear parallels with the established work of the protection cluster, though it was agreed that whilst the protection cluster work focused on the rights of individuals and families, there was a need to work at the level of inter-community relations; not least because of the complex social fabric of Iraq, and in particular the strains that displacement were placing on already-vulnerable (and frequently ethnically different) hosting communities. The cluster formulated a range of potential context-specific responses, which were described in the SRP. The structure of the cluster was replicated at sub-national level, notably in Dahuk, where two supporting working groups were also established one on social cohesion (co-chaired with the protection cluster), and another on livelihoods (co-chaired by the food security cluster) an overarching cluster forum brought together the work of the two working groups. Conclusions and Recommendations Successful practices for the integration of Early Recovery in humanitarian response are found to be context specific, with key variables depending inter-alia on: the type of crisis, the capacity and leadership role played by clusters and governments, the existing resilience of affected communities, and the pre-crisis engagement of the international community. The success of an early recovery approach requires an early shift in internationally led response to one that is led and managed by national authorities, and that aligns with national policies. All clusters must be ready to do this intentionally and systematically wherever and whenever appropriate. Considering international humanitarian response, four enabling themes emerge as fundamental for the success of Early Recovery integration, around which overall recommendations have been built: Leadership of the overall response at the HC and HCT level, across and within clusters / sectors Clear articulation and prioritization of Early Recovery in SRPs. Work to reinforce the obligations and capacities of affected government to protect its own people as and where possible (HC, HCT, Country Cluster Coordinators). Work in close collaboration with affected communities, acknowledging their capacities, and work to strengthen these alongside humanitarian response. Strengthen linkages of early recovery addressed by the humanitarian organizations and Recovery programs undertaken by development actors. Coordination specifically reaching out beyond humanitarian actors 11

12 Engage more systematically with development actors early on in coordination, e.g. consider regular joint coordination fora on specific topics, inter alia social security safety net programming, or land and housing reforms (HCTs and Country Cluster Coordinators) Consider innovative groupings to examine durable solution options early in a crisis including to review market conditions with the involvement of the private sector (HCs, HCTs, Country Cluster Coordinators, Donors) Greater consideration about the physical location of sub-national coordination hubs to promote ER linkages needs to be factored into the management of the response; including to ensure proximity to regional or district authorities. Financing resources need to be available and requirements need to be prioritised Find ways to ensure coherence between development and humanitarian funding streams along the lines of ER strategy; this means e.g. development funding streams coming online quicker (Donors) Make more use of country-based pooled funds for ER (HCs, HCTs and Donors) Ensure that funding requirement prioritization exercises go beyond just flagging immediate life-saving requirements, to be more strategic in also considering ER dimensions. Flexibility to adapt interagency planning and coordination in accordance with dynamically evolving contexts Undertake an analysis of needs and capacities to redefine the parameters of the humanitarian response according to the evolution of the context. Undertake frequent evaluation of coordination architecture vis-à-vis the evolving context; consider innovative approaches to address gaps including establishing dedicated clusters on ER issues (HCTs) 12

13 Annex-1 INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE Recommendations on Strengthening Early Recovery Circulated: 1 November 2013 Early recovery is a vital element of an effective humanitarian response. It is an integrated, inclusive and coordinated approach to gradually turn the dividends of humanitarian action into sustainable crisis recovery, resilience building and development opportunities. In 2011, the IASC Principals requested UNDP, as Chair of the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER), to identify recommendations to strengthen early recovery as an integral part of humanitarian response. The following recommendations were endorsed by the IASC Principals in 2013 after a broad consultation process. Proposed Actions The IASC Principals: 1. Request clusters* to integrate early recovery into all the different phases of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) as the foundation for building resilience in a crisis or post-crisis context, and request the CWGER supported by global clusters to report to the Principals on progress in integrating early recovery into their work. Action by: UNDP and all global clusters* by December Confirm the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER), led by UNDP, as the cluster coordination mechanism for developing early recovery policies and supporting their implementation in close consultation with other IASC bodies. Agree that the roles and responsibilities of the CWGER are to develop guidance on early recovery; support clusters on integrating early recovery into the strategic humanitarian response and into the operational programming of all clusters; advocate on resource mobilisation for all clusters and Humanitarian Country Teams (HCT) early recovery strategic objectives; strengthen the capacity of HCT in early recovery and strengthen the linkages between humanitarian operations and development frameworks including durable solutions strategies for IDPs and Returning Refugees. 3. Request UNDP as chair of CWGER to develop an early recovery inter-cluster country support roster, steered by the CWGER Strategic Advisory Group. The purpose of this roster is to deploy early recovery advisor(s) who report(s) to the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC).Action by: UNDP and CWGER. 4. Recommend that IASC organisations use existing coordination structures such as inter-cluster coordination groups to coordinate and integrate the overall early recovery approach at the country level. Action by: HC, country cluster lead agencies, OCHA (initiated by CWGER). 5. Request HCTs to identify thematic areas that are not included within the existing coordination mechanisms of a crisis-affected country. An additional coordination body may be created locally to meet specific early recovery needs which would not be covered otherwise. In consultation with the global cluster lead for early recovery, the HCT will determine the name of this body according to the issue being addressed and recommend the agency with the appropriate capacity and coverage to lead it at the national and sub-national level. This agency would be confirmed by the ERC during the cluster activation process and be accountable to support that work in the country, as a cluster lead agency would be. Where possible, local capacities and structures will be encouraged to lead early recovery coordination efforts. Action by: HC and HCT * except Logistics and Emergency Telecommunications clusters 13

14 Background Information on early recovery at the IASC: The IASC established the CWGER in 2005 with the aim of enhancing the global capacity for developing relief and recovery-related interventions, enhancing the impact of development interventions, and integrating risk reduction measures at the very early stages of emergency response and beyond. The CWGER is chaired by UNDP and is comprised of 34 active global partners from the humanitarian and development communities, including representatives of UN Agencies, Red Cross Movement, and NGOs. In 2006 the IASC WG endorsed the establishment of the early recovery network at the country level to assist in organizing the multi-sectoral dimension of early recovery. The IASC WG reaffirmed in 2008 and 2009 the importance of the CWGER and of all programmatic cluster leads, at both global and country levels, to strengthen the integration of early recovery in humanitarian action, including in the clusters own work. The CWGER work agenda, developed over the last few years has focused on four main lines of action: 1: providing direct strategic and coordination support to the humanitarian system: supporting Humanitarian Coordinators, Resident Coordinators, DSRSGs, Humanitarian Country Teams and Cluster Lead Agencies at country level; 2: defining and coordinating the work in the areas of early recovery not covered by other clusters (e.g. governance, non-agricultural livelihoods, or other thematic area identified by the HCT); 3: providing support and guidance on the integration of early recovery in the work of other programmatic clusters; and 4: advocating at the global policy level on strengthening financing mechanisms, building capacity on early recovery, and making humanitarian response more strategic to link better with the resilience agenda, disaster risk reduction, and development work. There is widespread agreement as to the importance of the early recovery approach in a response to a humanitarian crisis; as to its place alongside emergency relief in the humanitarian response as the foundation for building resilience of women, men, girls and boys in a post-crisis context; asto the need to link the relief phase to the development phase and bring their respective actors to better coordinate their work; as to the need to reconcile early recovery and longer-term recovery. Early recovery addresses recovery needs during the humanitarian phase, using humanitarian mechanisms in accordance with development principles.. Integrating early recovery into humanitarian operations shortens the timespan of the emergency phase and enhances the restoration of livelihoods, preserves natural resources crucial to successful recovery from a crisis, reduces vulnerability to future crises, avoids institutionalization of the emergency and a protracted state of dependency, strengthens the ability of national actors, at all levels, to respond to the current and future emergencies, and stimulates socioeconomic recovery. Existing challenges related to the support and coordination architecture of early recovery have been identified in a series of evaluations and discussions on early recovery. The background document: Implementing Early Recovery captures the recommendations identified through this broad consultative process which helped to further strengthen and clarify the way forward for early recovery. Prepared by: UNDP Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery 14

15 Annex-2 Summary of the Desk Review of SRPs Iraq SRP for 2014/15 Desk Review Findings: The overall strategy clearly prioritises ER, with two out of three Strategic Objectives being explicit: SO2: Provide life-saving assistance and ensure access to essential services for displaced and vulnerable individuals in a manner that supports the Government s responsibility as first responder. SO3: Improve the access of conflict-affected people to livelihoods and durable solutions to enable them to restore their self-sufficiency and build resilience. The Plan launched in October 2014 (around the time of the soft L-3 declaration), covers ongoing and planned activities up to end The Plan emphasises that the Government needs to take a lead in restoring basic services, including in paying the salaries of civil servants. The plan includes such service provision in a number of geographic areas, noting that if the government assumes responsibilities as described, it would allow the international efforts to focus on assistance for the most-affected groups. The following themes are noted as underpinning the strategy: Reinforce the primacy of the Government s responsibility at all levels and take into account local/ national capacity, including of Iraqi civil society, in responding to the crisis. Mainstream protection concerns into humanitarian action across cluster/sectors, supported by a cross-sector monitoring mechanism. Enhance accountability to affected people, including two-way communication, both to inform the response and ensure people know what the humanitarian community is doing and why. Incorporate conflict-sensitivity approaches across the clusters, support durable solutions and promote resilience. Cross-cutting issues such as protection, gender, age, disability, diversity and environmental impact are to be put at the centre of response. The provision of cash assistance is to be considered where appropriate. Most Cluster Plans have Cluster Objectives that refer to SO2, though most focus on the direct provision of life saving assistance, rather than supporting national leadership. Only Food Security and Protection have Cluster Objectives with specific reference to SO3. There is a dedicated Social Cohesion and Sustainable Livelihoods Cluster under the coordination of an Early Recovery Advisor working with UNDP. Part of its strategy includes promoting cash for work to increase access to essential public services in complement to the education, WASH and health clusters initiatives. The strategy also notes close coordination with the Protection and Food Security Clusters to ensure complementarity between agricultural and non-agricultural livelihoods initiatives. Sudan SRP for 2014 Desk Review Findings: The overall strategy clearly prioritises ER, with two out of four Strategic Objectives being explicit: SO3: Resilience: The most vulnerable households, groups and communities are better able to mitigate risk and withstand shocks and stresses. SO4: Durable Solutions: Progress towards durable solutions is achieved for IDPs and affected communities in targeted localities. Unlike most of the other plans, the Sudan SRP presents funding requirements by Strategic Objective, with Resilience requiring $233m (23% of total) and Durable Solutions requiring $100m (10% of total). Sector / Cluster budgets are also broken down according to the four Strategic Objectives. It is noted that this four pillared strategic framework allows for the volume of each strategic objective to be recalibrated at any time without the need to rewrite the strategic objectives themselves should a significant change in the humanitarian context take place. 15

16 The general Boundaries of the plan are described per Strategic Objective. For Resilience, this is described as improving the quality of the humanitarian response, rather than initiating fundamentally new activities. For Durable Solutions, the SRP describes how coordination will be strengthened between humanitarian and development actors on behalf of displaced populations. Linkages with other national and international development planning (and funding) instruments are laid out in a dedicated Early Recovery section early in the SRP. The plan also notes that whilst life-saving criteria will be top priority, that Early Recovery actions will also be prioritised. There is a Recovery, Return and Reintegration sector co-lead by the government with UNDP, CRS and IOM, covering durable solutions for IDPs, economic resilience for vulnerable communities and targeted infrastructure for basic services. It was however noted that this Sector was the only one to not receive funding from the CERF or CHF. Philippines/ Typhoon Haiyan SRP Desk Review Findings: The overall Goal of the plan has an explicit ER theme: Communities and local governments recover from the disaster, build back safer, and avoid relapses while strengthening resilience. Four out of five Strategic Objectives have explicit ER themes: SO1: Typhoon-affected people meet their immediate food needs, avoid nutritional deterioration and build food security in ways that are sustained through stimulation of markets and production and access to life-saving community-based nutrition services. SO2: Families with destroyed or damaged homes, including the displaced population, attain protective and sustainable shelter solutions. SO3: Women and men whose livelihoods or employment have been lost or severely impaired regain self-sufficiency, primarily with the restoration of local economies, agriculture and fisheries. SO5: Affected people quickly regain access to community and local government services, including basic education and a strengthened protective environment. The narrative states that the SOs were designed purposefully to be multi-cluster in nature, and to align with government priorities. It is made clear early in the SRP that Cash Transfer Programming will be used extensively in support of the SOs. There is significant narrative on basic principles expected to be upheld in the pursuit of durable solutions for the displaced in settlements. The SRP scope is described as being to complement the government s Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda (RAY), filling gaps as identified by Government and inter-agency assessments. The plan explicitly does not include reconstruction only minor repairs and rehabilitation. The duration and scale of economic support for livelihoods and temporary employment was to be balanced against the Government s cash transfer system and other social safety net capabilities. A PDNA was being prepared at the time the SRP was launched to inform major reconstruction/ longerterm recovery programming. The plan was originally intended to cover the 12 month period November 2013 to November 2014, though was ultimately closed by the HCT at the end of August Whilst life-saving interventions remained top-priority at the time of the SRP launch, there is significant narrative early in the SRP on how supporting self-recovery will be prioritised, along with strengthening the resilience of people and systems to mitigate shocks in the longer term. How these were used in the prioritisation of projects is not immediately clear from the narrative. 16