Global Cluster for Early Recovery (GCER) 2017 Annual Plenary Meeting 24 January 2017 - Geneva SPEAKERS: - Chair, Jahal de Meritens, Global Cluster Coordinator for Early Recovery - Tom Delrue, Early Recovery Advisor in Sudan - Manal Fouani, Cluster Coordinator for Early Recovery and Livelihood Sector in Syria - Eva Lescrauwaet, Cluster Coordinator for Recovery, Return and Reintegration Sector in Sudan and former Cluster Coordinator for Early Recovery and Livelihood Sector in Haiti - Roberto Paganini, Early Recovery Advisor, Programme Specialist, Global Cluster for Early Recovery, Geneva - Rekha Das, Early Recovery Advisor, Programme Specialist, Global Cluster for Early Recovery, Geneva - Caroline Blay, Senior Protection Advisor, Global Cluster for Early Recovery, Geneva - Ernesto Maio, Programme Officer, Global Cluster for Early Recovery, Geneva PARTICIPANTS: 59 participants from missions and organizations: Member States: Canada, Denmark, European Union-ECHO, Germany (represented by GIZ), Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland Organizations: ActionAid, Co-chair of the IASC Task Team on Humanitarian and Development Nexus in Protracted Crises, Co-chairs of the IASC Task Team on Protracted Displacement, ER experts, FAO, Global Cluster for Early Recovery, Global Health Cluster, Global Food Security Cluster, Global Protection Cluster, Global Shelter Cluster, AOR Child Protection, Groupe Urgence Rehabilitation Developpement, Independent consultants, TWG on Durable Solutions members, IOM, JIPS, OCHA (BSP; ICCS; JEU), REACH, Shelter Centre, UNDP (BPPS Regional Hub for Africa; CRU), UNHCR (IDPs section; Solutions Section), UNICEF-Inter-cluster coordination, UNITAR-UNOSAT, WFP, WHO Excused: USA; Global Logistics Cluster; Global GenCap Advisor AGENDA and BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: click here HIGHLIGHTS: GCER support 1. Deployments in 2016 6 Cluster Coordinators were deployed, 18 Early Recovery Advisors, and 2 Information Management officers in 2016. 38% of them were women and 69% experts were trained. The 26 deployed experts were assigned to 21 different countries: Burundi, Central African Republic, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Haiti, Malawi, Mali, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, opt, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Timor Leste, Ukraine, Zimbabwe.
2. Country support and Missions 27 countries benefitted from remote support provide to HCT, cluster or UNDP country office. * 5 country support missions: - ER multi-stakeholder workshops in Lebanon from 12 to 18 June 2016 - Syria ER mainstreaming Workshop - 23&24 September 2016 - Haiti First Respondent Mission from 8 October to 22 October 2016 - Nigeria Cluster review mission from 10 to 15 October 2016 - Durable Solutions Mission form in Afghanistan in November/December 2016 ** 2 Inter-cluster missions: - Cluster architecture revision in Ukraine from 7 to 17 March 2016 - Inter-cluster Mission in DRC from 23 to 27 October 2016. 3. Training and E-learning The Global Cluster for Early Recovery organised two face-to-face trainings. - A 6-day training for prospective Early Recovery Advisors in Bangkok, Thailand from 5th to 10th June 2016. 19 participants were selected to attend the training course. (10 women and 9 men) - A 8-day training in French for prospective Cluster Coordinators in Casablanca, Morocco from 18th to 25th November 2016. 18 participants were selected to attend the training course. (9 women and 9 men). GCER currently develops e-learning modules for Cluster Coordinators. 6 modules will be available on the following topics: Introduction to Early Recovery, Early Recovery in the Humanitarian Programme Cycle, Early Recovery Programming, Cluster Coordination, Implementing Early Recovery, Monitoring and Evaluation. The Early Recovery Online Resource Centre was launched in May 2016 with the contribution of ECHO, DRC and UNDP. The ER video is available in English, French and with Arabic subtitles. Early Recovery Coordination 1. Early Recovery Overview and funding analysis GCER - with the support of the Graduate Institute analysed the integration of Early Recovery into all Humanitarian Response Plans and Flash Appeals submitted in 2015 and 2016, and the funding of Early Recovery projects. In 2015, 47% of the projects submitted (by UN Agencies, NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement) through humanitarian response plans or flash appeals around the world were Early Recovery related. 38% of the funds were requested for Early Recovery. 38% of funds requested for Early Recovery projects were received, which represented 33% of the total funds received. In 2016, 49% of the projects submitted in humanitarian plans worldwide were Early Recovery related. They represented 39% of funds requested. The 2016 funding analysis is underway. 2. Early Recovery Coordination in Syria - Manal Fouani, Cluster Coordinator for Early Recovery and Livelihood Sector. http://earlyrecovery.global/country/syria Presentation available from slide 9. Manal Fouani has been in Syria for the last 5 years. The Early Recovery and Livelihood (ERL) Sector has been activated in 2013 and functions as a cluster. Manal introduced the evolution of humanitarian planning in Syria, from SHARP to SRP and HRP. The three strategic objectives of the humanitarian response are: 1. Provide life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable people, with emphasis on those in besieged and hard-to-reach (including militarily encircled locations) and accessible areas with high severity of needs.
2. Prevent, mitigate and respond to protection risks in particular for women, children, and the most vulnerable and support the protective environment in Syria through protection-sensitive programming and sustained advocacy. 3. Increase affected people s access to basic services and to resilience-building and livelihood opportunities, especially among the most vulnerable households and communities. Early Recovery has been integrated into the strategic plans and the response from the beginning: The ERL strategic objectives are: 1. Improve safe access to basic and social essential services and infrastructure for affected people and institutions. 2. Restore disrupted livelihoods for strengthened social protection and positive coping mechanisms of affected people and vulnerable groups 3. Promote social cohesion and local participation for more resilient communities From 2013 to 2017 the number of projects submitted by the ERL sector significantly increased from 11 to 46 and the number of sector partners grew from 3 to 33. In the same time, the number of beneficiaries targeted as well as the total funds received and the funds received by the ERL Sector increased significantly. One of the major improvement during the previous year is the information management. It has been challenging to defined the priorities based on vulnerabilities and needs without discrimination, and to request relevant funding. The Sector decided to put in place a system of evidence-based programming. The coordination between Syria and other regional hubs (Amman, Gaziantep) is complicated. For a while, it was challenging to receive donor funding for projects inside Syria. It is still challenging to advocate for funding because a lot is happening outside of Syria, such as many stabilization plans in Gaziantep. From 2013 to 2014, Early Recovery was not considerate as important because it is not live saving. It took time before the HCT and OCHA recognized the importance of Early Recovery activities and encouraged the implementation of ER projects and integration of ERL sector into the humanitarian response. The political atmosphere is challenging because some donors request the Syrian government not be engaged into the response. To reach the targeted population, UNDP is working and collaborating with local actors such as civil society from all political tendencies. The Government counterpart does not co-chair the sector. At local level, coordination is done with the authorities in place depending on the region. Regarding larger activities such as basic services, most of the contact are at national level with the relevant Ministry. 3. Early Recovery Coordination in Haiti - Eva Lescrauwaet, Cluster Coordinator for Early Recovery and Livelihood Sector. http://earlyrecovery.global/country/haiti Presentation available form slide 29. Following the reactivation of the Early Recovery and Livelihoods (ERL) sector, Eva Lescrauwaet was deployed as Cluster Coordinator from November to December 2016 (Surge deployment). The government leads the Sector with the technical support of international community. The Early Recovery and Livelihood Sector estimated to 1 million the people in need, and targeted 35% of the population in need for the response in 2017. Recognizing that the drivers of humanitarian needs in Haiti are multiple and complex, the sector developed three interlinked objectives, which will contribute to two of the strategic objectives of the humanitarian response plan. - The first objective focuses on supporting local authorities in guiding and coordinating the humanitarian response by strengthening disaster risk reduction and governance to ensure the success and sustainability of the response.
- The second objective aims to stabilize immediate livelihoods and revitalize the affected communities through cash-for-work emergency employment interventions that enable both the rapid injection of cash into the local economy and the implementation of activities that benefit the entire communities. Safe removal of debris and waste management will be the priority. - The third objective aims to ensure and maximize synergies among key actors to integrate an early recovery approach into the humanitarian response through efficient advocacy and coordination with all relevant stakeholders. A gender and age-sensitive approach will be promoted, seeking to highlight the gender dimensions of impacts on different vulnerable groups to illustrate distinct needs, risks, coping mechanisms and capacities. Women and people with specific needs will be actively involved through a participatory approach in the recovery process to ensure equitable participation and fair distribution of early recovery and livelihood assistance. In 2018, the sector aims to continue building on the gains of the initial year and facilitate the transition to recovery and development using a multi-sectoral approach. Achievements - The Sector has been activated quickly and has dedicated coordinators. - High interest of partners, including donors (USAID, ECHO, etc) and line-ministries. - ER is integrated in the HRP Strategic response chapter. - ER multi-sectoral importance is recognized and ER is integrated in some other Sectors plans. - Both emergency & recovery/development oriented assessments were used to inform the humanitarian response. - The Sector will pilot the IASC Gender and Age marker Challenges - The IASC frameworks are not fully use and understood by international community and the Gov t. - There are some shortcomings on multi-sectoral synergies and on gender, environment, protection focus. - Limited ER activities implemented / prioritized. - Early Recovery is underfunded. The context is not conducive as the Flash Appeal has been funded at 18%. - There are some issues on the Government leadership capacity to lead the Sector. Opportunities: The government is engaged in the Sector. Donor are interested in Humanitarian and Development Nexus which is important because response provided for Hurricane Matthew should strengthen future response. UNDP has on the ground a strong team and network and could provide strong support to set up the platform and provide tool and guidance for the sector. Recommendations: Create platform that can be strengthened in time of crisis. It will allow to share documents, information and tool to better response, and to better use and collaborate with national capacity. Focus on strengthening Humanitarian and Development Nexus in context such as Haiti (multiple, recurring crisis). Further promote multi-sectoral & area-based approaches. Ensure adequate, multi-year funding and prioritization for ER throughout the year. 4. Early Recovery Coordination in Sudan Eva Lescrauwaet, Cluster Coordinator for Recovery, Return and Reintegration (RRR) Sector. Presentation available from slide 38. Eva Lescrauwaet has been deployed in Sudan since 5 years.
Among the 5.8 million people identified to be in the greatest need of humanitarian assistance are 2.2 million who are internally displaced, 4.6 million who are food insecure and 1.5 million children under age five who are acutely malnourished. In 2016 the HRP was funded at 41% on which RRR Sector was funded at 20%. Since 2015, the management of the response has change completely. Sudan actors led by the Humanitarian Coordinator are developing a Multi-year humanitarian response plan (2017 2019). As in Syria and Haiti, the coordination system set up in Sudan is a Sector System working as a Cluster system. The RRR Sector has been activated in 2014. UNDP co-leads the RRR Sector with IOM and CRS. The Government counterpart is the Humanitarian Aid Commission. Weakness and challenges Challenges are mainly around Durable Solutions and capacity building to strengthen actor s knowledge on return and reintegration. The response is weaker also because of the lack of standardization of tools and need for more detailed information on intentions. Sometime the information is there their but it is not shared and used because there is not information sharing system. Coordination system are set up but not well organized. National and regional levels should be better linked and the coordination roles could be better defined. It will also help to better organized the funds received and prioritized the interventions. Achievements The sector has a good relation with the government. The ER capacity have increased particularly among partners but in general for all humanitarian actors. The Sudan HC is leading the development of a multi-sector and areabased approach to return (pilot phase) which is putting Durable Solutions and IDPs in the middle of the response. The Sector coordinates the DS response to displacement (approved platform for DS by HCT and UNCT). The number of active members increased. The Sector includes donors, NGOs, sector coordinators and Government. Recommendations Strengthen capacity and ensure adequate, multi-year funding and prioritization for DS. Flexible country specific approach. Further promote multisectoral & area-based approaches value for money. Durable Solutions and Displacement 1. Planned activities and where we are a. Country Support The Technical Working Group on Durable Solutions (TWG DS) has been providing country support and policy and operational guidance. Efforts are being made to improve the online resource centre in order to allow various actors at global, regional and country level to consult existing tools, background material, training modules, best practices and lessons learned, etc. Update and feed in of materials are requested from partners. The TWG would like to compile and maintain a roster of experts on durable solutions for displacement. Most of them are currently on rosters such as ProCap and the UNDP roster for Early Recovery Advisors, which affect their availability. b. Information management The TWG is collaborating with JIPS on the development and use (piloting) of DS indicators for profiling in durable solutions initiatives, as well as for the monitoring and evaluation of strategy implementation. The indicators are currently being piloted in 7 countries in different operational contexts and stages.
c. Capacity-building Guidance and training materials are being developed for durable solutions experts who will be providing incountry technical support. Training will be conducted this year to durable solutions experts and in-country stakeholders in rolling out the materials. d. Preliminary Operational Guide on Durable Solutions The Guide has been widely disseminated among stakeholders and is known by most of the actors developing strategies, but it is not frequently used. Some of the feedback received stressed that the Guide takes on a top down approach to an issue that should be addressed through a bottom up approach and is therefore difficult to adapt to the specific contexts of the countries at stake. Others consider that the guide is useful; it is the process of how we are using it that is to be reviewed. Most of the existing national plans / policies and strategies are not implemented due to lack of ownership and buy-in (political will) of the national government. This is mainly the case when efforts are initiated at RC/ HC level. Trends rather indicate that sub-national and decentralised (local, area-based) durable solutions initiatives tend to be more successful, often due to ownership and buy-in from local authorities (Governor, Mayor, etc.). These reflections have been taken on board in the development of the training package and has led to the decision to provide practical guidance material that could guide operational stakeholders and practitioners in developing durable solutions programmes, rather than reviewing the Guide, as was initially envisaged (see below). 2. Country initiatives on Durable Solutions Initiatives are implemented in the following countries: Afghanistan, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia, DRC, Ukraine, Iraq, Philippines, Vanuatu and Yemen. Continuous remote country support is provided in Afghanistan (Herat), Burundi, Chad, CAR and Iraq. The Senior Protection Advisor, co-chair of the TWG undertook an incounty mission to Afghanistan (November 2016). Sudan Example There are between 2.2 and 2.3 million of IDPs in Sudan (depending of the source of information). In 2015-2016, mandated by the HCT, WFP and OCHA led the development a Protracted Displacement Strategy (PDS) in the framework of the Inter-Sector Coordination Group. Engagement of UNHCR and UNDP and the sectors was rather limited since the strategy was perceived as a WFP strategy. The PDS aims at increasing the self-reliance of the IDPs in order to better prepare them for DS and to decrease the vulnerability of the IDPs. The suggestion of developing a more inclusive durable solutions strategy, in line with the SG s Decision on DS, was initially perceived by some as a way to undermine the PDS development. Besides, several actors considered DS to be a development issue. In the course of 2015, the GoS took increasingly action to decrease the number of IDPs: they established a Joint Mechanism for Sustainable Solutions for IDPs which includes several governmental entities, and the Humanitarian Affairs Commission (government) started with intention surveys in the IDP camps. However, concrete next steps were not clear: what about the conditions in the places of potential return? How would land-issues be dealt with? Since July-August 2016, the government increasingly asks for support on DS. At that point in time, the humanitarian and development community did not have joint approach yet. A JIPS mission in December 2016 helped clarifying some necessary next steps to address DS in a coherent way, together with the authorities, across the aid equation: develop joint methodology for IDP profiling, intentions survey, etc. to inform good DS programming (included in a UN-WB proposal to the UN-WB Partnership Trust Fund), establish joint data base with GoS to be jointly managed, IDP Profiling and DS training to be put into practice in an agreed (urban) area / IDP setting. Following several consultations, HCT and UNCT agreed that the Recovery, Return and Reintegration (RRR) Sector would become the umbrella forum for displacement and DS
related issues under which several working groups and pilot approaches would resort. The RRR will sit under the HCT and the UNCT to ensure both the humanitarian and development work streams are included. Addressing protracted displacement and durable solutions is also integrated in the multi-year humanitarian strategy and the new UNDAF. Within the RRR, a core group is being established to engage at the working level with the Joint Mechanism on the government s side. 3. Future of the Technical Working Group on Durable Solutions The Technical Working Group on Durable Solutions was established in 2015 to develop and roll out the Guide on Durable Solutions, following the 2011 Decision of the Secretary General ( s Policy Committee) on Durable Solutions (hereafter: the SG Decision). The decision was taken in 2016 to prioritise in-country technical support on DS as one of the core activities of the TWG, in order to maintain its operational character. However: - Activities of the TWG are not based on inter-agency efforts. UNDP is the main drive and actor in discussions and actions - Bilateral discussions and meetings with agency members are more effective for receiving information and data - The TWG seems to be more perceived as a sub-cluster than as a technical working group - Moreover, feedback received on the use of the Guide has required a shift of focus and change of approach to developing and implementing durable solutions initiatives. The planned revision of the SG Decision might have provided a new legitimate base for the TWG, but the appointment of a new UN Secretary General and the integration of the Policy Committee (that took the SG decision) into the newly established Executive Committee will also necessitate further discussions and clarity as to whether a review of the SG Decision can feasibly take place, or whether new approaches to durable solutions should be embedded in other policy areas such as the humanitarian development nexus. These discussions, together with the pending evaluation of Early Recovery coordination and concept, will affect the existence of the TWG on Durable Solutions. What is the future of Early Recovery? 1. Country examples: From Early Recovery to Humanitarian- Development Advisor - Tom Delrue, Early Recovery Advisor in Sudan. Following an OCHA-Donor mission (October 2015) recommendation to develop a multi-year humanitarian strategy, the RC/HC requested an ERA for a 3-months mission (December 2015) to support the design multi-year HRP, integrating Early Recovery, support the work on durable solutions for IDPS, and to ensure linkages between humanitarian and development work would be taking into account during the development of the new UNDAF. After one month, the focus was adapted on making the response to the protracted crisis more fit for purpose, enhancing a shift in mind-set and approaches, and bringing two worlds together (humanitarian and development). These changes also inevitably meant facing challenges and push backs. It appeared quickly that 3 months would not be enough, several donors suggested to build capacity in RC/HC office to support this process for a longer period, and financially supported to establishment of ER capacity in the RC/HC office. Tom s role evolved de facto to Humanitarian-Development Advisor (HDA), enhancing the Humanitarian Development Nexus, getting things in motion, enhancing and facilitating the changes needed to towards a multi-year response approach, reviewing the coordination structures, and the development of a DS strategy.
Although Tom s role is now recognised and the added value of his role acknowledged, it took quite some time before the different stakeholders understood Tom s role: There was suddenly someone in the RC/HC office who was asked by the RC/HC to advise on several issues; sometimes asked for comments on HCT documents, strategies, etc. That was not the case before, and. Although neutral, it was initially not always perceived that way by everybody. As advisor to the RC/HC, Tom Delrue is a neutral actor not attached to an agency nor project and is not perceived as a competitor for funding. This means he has time to do things for which other colleagues do not have time, such as: - navigate between the humanitarian (OCHA-HRP) and development (RCO-UNDAF) work streams which facilitated contributing to the development process of the new UNDAF (reference to addressing root causes of humanitarian needs, linkage with the humanitarian response; enhancing longer term humanitarian strategic thinking; promoting multi-sector approaches and a more inclusive approach to address durable solutions for IDPs; - be more open with interlocutors, including Government officials; - Build an open working relationship with the donor community; - engage with national and international actors at country, regional and HQ level; - facilitate support missions, e.g. JIPS mission to Sudan; - work closely with the World Bank (development of joint UN/WB Trust fund proposal); - be a resource person in country and outside the country: often asked to meet missions from capitals (donors, INGOs and UN agency missions from HQ and regional offices, HDN workshop in New York, asked as resource person on ER and HDN during the SDC retreat in March 2017, ); - support the RC/HC during HDN advocacy missions (e.g. mission to SDC, EU and UK); and changing the narrative from linking humanitarian actors with development actors to linking humanitarian programming with development programming. Humanitarian/Development nexus in Fiji - Rekha Das, Early Recovery Advisor, Global Cluster for Early Recovery Fiji is another illustration of the Humanitarian/Development nexus. Although the global debate around protracted crisis, the question of bringing humanitarian and development actors together is not limited to protracted crisis alone. UNDP and the Global Cluster for Early Recovery facilitated a training addressed to UNDP actor s in Pacific hosted in Fiji. The training focused on preparedness for disasters and OCHA was also invited to present the tailor made country preparedness packages being piloted in the Pacific. This region is mainly in a development mode but a several times a year the region is faced with, natural disasters, such as tropical cyclones, earth quakes and tsunami warnings. This is when development operations have to transform into humanitarian response. The humanitarian-development nexus lies in the efforts placed in disaster preparedness and anticipating crisis, which was also reflected in the training preparedness Reflections around bridging the humanitarian and development divide is as relevant for natural disaster contexts as for protracted and complex crises e.g. such as: How to localise the crisis response by having national and local governments leading and coordinating the humanitarian response? Whether and how the long term national planning should include preparedness and crisis response? How to reorient ongoing development projects to respond to the emergency and recovery needs? How development stakeholders need to learn the language of the humanitarians and vice versa to be efficient in both situation? How prioritising investments in preparedness and root causes and anticipating crisis can reduce needs?
2. Discussions There were a lot of different policy documents adopted during the 2 last years: such as Sendaï framework, WHS and the commitment to actions, COP 21, the Agenda 2030, the SDG goals. The agenda 2030 is universal and the framework is working for everyone. Following the WHS, two main directions emerged: The New Way of Working stemming from the Commitment to Action and the Grand Bargain. The Commitment to Action is the foundation of the multi-year planning, and proposes the collective outcomes. The New Way of Working is the practical explanation for countries to implement the collective outcomes. It concerned the joint analysis and planning, leadership and coordination and financing modalities. In 2017, the UN are expected to work together. We are talking about humanitarian changes, however, the change will also come from development actors and the new way of working will also generate changes into development processes. The task team has been created in 2016. It focuses on how we are operationalising the 2030 Agenda at global and country level to progress on joint analysis and planning, to articulate collective outcomes and look at joint programming as a way of possible improvement of the response, insuring that we have leadership arrangement at country level and funding agreement which make sense at country level. Based on country experiences, the Task Team currently try to find a way of systematics the process to make sure that we have coherence that could lead to systematic and transformable changes. It is not only concerned the humanitarian side, but also development side, and it make sense a link with the working group on transition. This working group includes humanitarian and development actors. The GCCG retreat took place on 19-20 January 2017. The following priorities have been endorsed by the group: 1. Identifying the roles/functions of the ICCG (development TOR), and related activities such as training materials 2. Joint inter-sectoral analysis 3. Integrated outcome-based programming 4. Sub-national area-based coordination, linked to integrated outcomes and differentiated coordination models 5. Localisation, including capacity-building and working in national governments 6. Cash-based programming The priorities of the GCCG are very much in line with the New Way of Working. The Global Shelter Cluster added that they are in the process of reviewing the 5-year strategic plan, and that there are a couple of intersection areas between Shelter and Early Recovery. The Shelter Sector increased successfully the number of programme around Early Recovery approaches and observed improvements such as in Nepal. Coming from the WHS, the Global Shelter Cluster is trying to increase the scope of activities in collaborating for example with UN Habitat around urban areas projects and displacement in urban areas. In that kind of situation, collaboration with Early Recovery could be in integrated in the new strategic plan the Global Shelter Cluster is currently elaborating. The WHS contributed to increase the interest in multi-year planning at country level, with early recovery playing a key part. In 2017, 7 countries developed a multi-year plan or strategy. DRC is the only country working on a full 3-year planning including multi-year projection of needs, funding requests and monitoring framework. In other countries, there is a multi-year planning but they stay at a high level : they defined strategic objectives for several years, but they are still planning on one year. The countries concerned are Cameroon, Chad, CAR, Haiti, Sudan and Somalia. The plans are from 2 to 4 years. The multi-year plans are built on humanitarian principles, with a strong early recovery component and clearly make a linkage with the peace building work. The purposes of the plans are to provide more sustainable and predictable support by collaborating more closely with development and peace actors and with the national and
regional authorities. They aim to reduce the vulnerabilities, include an exit strategy (not in all of them). The multi-year process should be built on humanitarian and development collective outcomes. For example, the centrality of Protection, a collective humanitarian strategic priority, should lead towards longer-term Human Rights outcome. Ideally, working better together we will be able to transfer many of the activities to development actors and better transition. Pre-conditions to support the development of the plans: - Strong commitment of the senior leadership and the non-humanitarian actors meaning development actors, peace actors and national and local authorities where it is applicable - Joint analyses of needs, vulnerabilities, risks, capacities, and good projections on how the situation in those countries can evolve. Opportunities: - The process allows for strong linkages to log term development processes, in particular when the multiyear planning involve programmatic areas. - Senior leadership should bring together government and partners from the beginning of the process. - Donors should be fully part of the discussion. In some cases, donors committed before the multi-year planning development, agreeing on providing funding support to humanitarian and development projects which strongly facilitate the discussions. Challenges - Resistance: humanitarian assistance is short and based on quick response. Therefore, developing multiyear planning can be perceived as contradictory with the humanitarian processes. - The humanitarian system is not adapted and fully develop to support and provide those plans, - The monitoring part of the processes is difficult to define. A multi-year planning process need to be flexible and the monitoring tools should support this flexibility and feed the system to adapt the plan according the evolution. DRC is developing a full multi-year planning which includes strategic objectives, funds requests, needs analysis, target populations, indicators and monitoring framework. The plan will be structure around the UNDAF collective outcomes. Discussions between the different actors have started more than a year ago, which was the time needed to shift mind-sets. All plans will be aligned: UNDAF, multi-year humanitarian planning, Government national development plan, the World Bank plan. DRC will develop a mapping of all the interventions to identify gaps, vulnerabilities, risks and overlaps and better prioritize. Lebanon has moved from 2-year plans to a 4-year plans. They decided to shift from monitoring the needs to monitor the capacities, with a framework based on capacities which should be developed early 2017. Monitoring and evaluation tools are used in Mali or CAR, and could be practices to be adapt to other contexts. FAO, NRC and OCHA are leading a study on financing multi-year planning. What does this mean for Global Clusters in term of funding? with the right amount of funds, we can coordinate and work correctly. Are we looking for more a compact way of working? Should we reorganise the way of working, with platforms, skills approaches, multi-sectoral approaches? The best way to coordinate is to consult all the actors and engage them from the beginning of the project to ensure they understand and provide inputs to the plans. Often, the strategic and operational parts are not talking to each other (e.g. HRP strategic objectives are designed together, not cluster response plans, and they rarely relate to each other). How to address that? The question on the future of Early Recovery should be raise at local level, which is implies working with local governments. This subject was taboo for humanitarian actors several years ago as it was considered as development activities. Now localisation become a central issue. The concept and coordination of Early Recovery will be evaluated during the first quarter 2017.