Humanitarian Financing – The Grand Bargain and its impact for NGOs

Humanitarian Financing – The Grand Bargain and its impact for NGOs

Posted by

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening
to all of you, depending on where you are connecting from today. My name is Angharad
Laing, for those of you who don’t know me yet I’m the Executive Director of PHAP.
That’s short for the International Association of Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance
and Protection. I’m very pleased to be serving once again
as co-host for the sixth and final session in the learning stream on humanitarian financing,
which has been jointly organized by ICVA and PHAP. Today’s session focuses on The Grand
Bargain Policy Process. We’ll begin with a brief introduction by
my colleague and co-host Melissa Pitotti from ICVA and after that we will move to look in
depth at three specific areas of The Grand Bargain, specifically their implications for
NGOs. Getting to the substance of today’s session
entitled, Grand Bargain and its impact for NGOs. Over the last month as many of you know,
PHAP and ICVA have organized a series of five interactive online sessions, which have dealt
with different funding sources available to humanitarian NGOs. Everything from UN humanitarian
funding to pooled funds, direct access to funding from governmental donors, as well
as the growing potential of private funding in the humanitarian sector. Throughout these five events, and given the
interest expressed in the specific topic of The Grand Bargain by participants in past
events, today we’ll be exploring the development and the implications of The Grand Bargain,
which is a package of commitments made by different humanitarian actors to improve humanitarian
financing following ten work streams. Of those ten we’ll be focusing in depth on three
specific work streams, namely localization, reporting, and then next is with development.
And again, that’s based on the interest expressed by participants in the previous
events. So therefore, in brief, the learning objectives
that we’ve laid out for today’s session are as follows. First, to look at what is
the so-called Grand Bargain, the main processes and their origins, as well as the actors involved.
And then to move into three, as I mentioned, specific aspects that have been of interest.
First, looking at current trends and emerging policies in relation to increasing support
to national and local responders. Second, the challenges faced by NGOs regarding the
harmonization and simplification of reporting vis-à-vis donors. And finally, current discussions
relating to the humanitarian development nexus and its implications for humanitarian planning
and funding. Joining us today, I’m very pleased to say
we have a panel of three guest experts who have been heavily involved in these specific
work streams. First of all, I am very pleased to introduce and welcome Anne Street, who
has been Head of Humanitarian Policy at CAFOD since 2010. Anne’s work addresses a range
of issues including international humanitarian system change, promotion of partnership approaches
and the localization of humanitarian aid, as well as advocacy on specific country crisis.
Anne is a strong advocate of the NGO led Charter for Change, which is an initiative to strengthen
localization in the humanitarian sector. Next, Jeremy Rempel has spent the last 17
years working on issues related to risk and accountability with a particular focus on
NGO monitoring and evaluation systems. His current work with ICVA as a US based consultant
is focused on the so-called Less Paper More Aid initiative, to improve the effectiveness
of humanitarian funding. Jeremy has also been heavily involved in the harmonized and simplified
reporting work stream. Last but not least, I’m very pleased to
welcome Sara Sekkenes who is Conflict Prevention Partnership Adviser at UNDP here in Geneva.
Sara currently focuses on working with partners on efforts to achieve a sustained reduction
in the impact and occurrence of armed violence and conflict with specific specialization
on arms control, humanitarian disarmament efforts and conflict prevention measures.
Sara also engages in interagency efforts to align new ways of working across the humanitarian
development peace and human rights sectors and has been actively involved in the discussions,
specifically related to the humanitarian development nexus work stream as part of The Grand Bargain
process. Now I’m very pleased to introduce once again
my co-host, Melissa Pitotti. Melissa is Head of Policy at ICVA and has been co-hosting
with me the entire series on financing that we’ve organized over the past months. Melissa
is going to start us off with a presentation introducing the Grand Bargain and then we’ll
move on to, as mentioned, the three mentioned work streams. Thank you Angharad and thank you all for joining
us, great turnout here. I just wanted to answer a few quick questions that we’ve received
from several NGOs about the Grand Bargain and give it with the caveat that these answers
are based on ICVA’s experience with the Grand Bargain. ICVA has been present at all
the negotiation rounds of the Grand Bargain and we’ve been very involved in the implementation
phase. I saw one of you is participating here from Mercy Malaysia. Mercy Malaysia’s Faizal
Perdaus was one of ICVA’s representatives at the negotiations and he alternated with
our Executive Director Nan Buzard. I participated in all of those to support them. So first what is the Grand Bargain? It’s
a package of 51 commitments, organized into 10 different work streams, or themes, that
was negotiated by a group of donors and agencies, ultimately with the aim to make humanitarian
financing more efficient and more effective so that we could get more resources to affected
populations. If you want to look at the origins of the Grand Bargain, you can trace it all
the way back to 2014, when many humanitarian organizations were feeling the pain of funding
shortfalls and we felt that we had to do something collectively. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General at the
time, he appointed a High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing. This panel launched a report in
January of 2016 that was organized into three chapters with ideas on how to address the
funding gap. First, looking at shrinking the needs, second, looking at deepening and widening
the resource base, and thirdly, finally, becoming more efficient through a grand bargain between
donors and agencies, that could ultimately, in the best case scenario that was put out
there, save perhaps a billion dollars that could be used for affected populations. So who was involved in the Grand Bargain?
If you look at this next slide, it shows you the initial Grand Bargain actors. There are
15 donors, 15 agencies, you’ll see on the right-hand side under the agencies that it
was not only UN agencies, but also ICRC and IFRC from the Red Cross and Red Crescent
movement, and also the 3 NGO consortia involved in the interagency standing committee. That
includes ICVA, InterAction and SCHR. These original Grand Bargain actors were called
‘Sherpas’ or negotiators of the Grand Bargain. They met four times between February
and May 2016 and at the World Humanitarian Summit their commitments that they negotiated
were launched. Now these commitments, if you take a look
at the next slide, were organized into ten themes or work streams. The first one you
see here is called Transparency. It’s about getting more visibility on funding flows.
A big focus here has been on using something called the IATI Data Standard to have more
visibility. The second one, what used to be called Frontline Responders now is National
and Local Responders, is what is more associated with the localization agenda which you’ll
hear about from Anne very soon. The third one was focused on using cash; scaling it
up as appropriate and several of the NGO signatories to the Grand Bargain have made targeted commitments
here. The fourth one you see is Reduced Management Costs, has a lot of good components from the
NGO perspective, including some commitments related to the UN agencies harmonizing their
approaches to NGOs and also perhaps sharing partner capacity assessments. The next one
you see here is making a better use of Needs Assessments, that’s a very big topic that’s
gotten some attention recently at a workshop held in Brussels. The next one, the Participation
Revolution, which is currently co-convened by an NGO consortium called Steering Committee
for Humanitarian Response and the US Government, is trying to bring affected populations more
into the process. The next one NGOs really care about, Multi-Year Funding. Several of
us are limited to annual funding or even monthly funding, which is not optimal, especially
in protracted situations. After that you see Reduction of Earmarking, something very important
especially for UN agencies. And then finally, number nine; we find Simplified and Harmonized
Reporting, which you’ll hear about from Jeremy and on the Humanitarian-Development
Nexus, which you’ll hear about from Sara. Now if you turn to the next slide, who is
actually in charge of the Grand Bargain? There’s no one person, one entity in charge, it’s
really a multilateral effort. You’ll see that each work stream is co-convened by a
donor and an agency and these co-conveners are leading the development of work plans
for their respective work streams. You’ll see for example number nine for reporting;
ICVA is co-leading that with Germany. And the implementation phase the Grand Bargain
is guided by something called a facilitation group. This group is comprised of a representative
mix of signatories including ECHO, IFRC, OCHA, SCHR, Switzerland, UN Women, and WFP. This
group is meeting regularly to address various issues, and I’ll name three that are very
important. Number one, the collection and analysis of each of the signatories self-reporting.
Number two, commissioning independent annual reports on the Grand Bargain implementation
and number three, planning the annual meeting of the Grand Bargain signatories. This year
it will be held on June 20th, right before the ECOSOC Humanitarian Affairs Segment. This facilitation groups have some support,
they will soon be supported by a secretariat staff person who will be hosted by the interagency
standing committee secretariat in Geneva. And hopefully with this new capacity we’ll
have an updated webpage that will provide more information on the Grand Bargain. You can get more information on the Grand
Bargain in this briefing paper, which is hot off the press. It gives you more about the
history of the Grand Bargain, how it was negotiated, and it goes into depth on the commitments
and the work streams, but also ways to get involved. I want to close my brief introduction to the
Grand Bargain with one more slide, and this is the key message that ICVA, as an NGO network,
was promoting during the negotiations and now in the implementation phase. Ultimately,
it’s that the humanitarian system must move away from a centralized, command and control,
one-system-fits-all approach to one that recognizes we exist as an ecosystem of diverse actors,
and we want to see whoever is there, on the frontline’s best place to respond, receive
adequate and timely resources that are predictable, sustainable and ultimately for a contextualized
response. NGOs who want to get engaged in Grand Bargain
are welcome to do so, it’s not a binding document but, signatories take the Grand Bargain
commitments very seriously and we all have to report back annually on how we are achieving
these commitments. We want to make sure that the benefits of the Grand Bargain ultimately
reach NGOs. Thank you very much. Thank you Melissa. We have one quick follow
up question for you, before we move on. Specifically building on your last points. This is a question
from Bodo based in Germany, he asks, are the meetings of the work streams you’ve mentioned
open to non-signatories of the Grand Bargain? That’s a really good question, Bodo, thank
you. You will see that to implement many pieces of the Grand Bargain, we need to have collective
action that goes beyond the original signatories and it includes a lot of different actors.
In our Grand Bargain Explained guide that we just published today, we go into detail
in each of the Grand Bargain work streams and we highlight areas for NGOs to participate
in. And I think, for example, Anne might tell you about one particular commitment called
the Localization Marker Development, where we have seen a process created that includes
non-signatories feedback. So there are examples where we reach out to non-signatories to get
involved, so thank you for that. Great and thank you. Now we’ll move right
along to Anne’s. Anne Street is coming on now, Head of Humanitarian Policy with CAFOD.
And joining us remotely, Anne I believe we have your audio setup. Good morning. So there were six commitments
in the localization work stream. Which could broadly be said to be grouped under four aspects.
These are investment in capacity and partnerships, funding, measurement, and coordination. What I want to do is to say a little bit about
some of the activities that are going on in each of these commitments. The IRFRC has recently
produced a very good mapping of the activities under all of these work streams, which might
be of interest to people. For example, OCHA has been doing some very
interesting work now looking at context-specific coordination, which as people will know, has
been on the agenda for quite a long time but really looking at how to shift the dial on
this. For example, undertaking regular, annual reviews of coordination in order to make them
more specific. On capacity strengthening, a huge amount of work, understanding what
works, mapping capacity, strengthening initiative’s work by the NEAR Network, by a group of Asian
NGOs, I think some of them are online through the SEFI Initiative, the Missed Opportunities
Group, the regional coordination of actors through ROHAN, a huge amount on that. On the funding, a number of initiatives are
being developed with the NEAR Network intending to set up a new, pooled fund, and also Start
Network looking at the establishment of a Start National NGO fund. But I think the thing to really point out
on these commitments is that this includes a really clear, strong commitment of 25% of
humanitarian funding to go to local actors by 2020. There are some riders in that, so
that the actual wording says “as directly as possible.” So that is what we are now
moving on to address. I want to look at what some of the opportunities
for the humanitarian community in this are. Firstly, I think that the funding target,
we need to look at what we mean by national actors, so what does it mean as directly as
possible and what is included in the 25%. We’ve set up through the IASC Humanitarian
Financing Task Team, a localization marker working group, which has included UN agencies,
donors, and national and international NGOs, to look at elaborating definitions of national
actors. So who is a national actor, who isn’t a
national actor? And then to look at what is direct funding and what is indirect funding?
So what could be included in that 25%, is it one transaction level, is it donors direct
to national NGOs, how possible is that going to be, is that through pooled funds, is that
through one transaction? We’ve developed a paper on this and it’s now going to be
disseminated. We will really urge people to participate in a survey that we’re now developing
from it. So I’ll come back to that at the end, what
I’d like to move onto now is to address some of the challenges I think that there
are in this work stream. If we have a commitment to fund 25% to national actors, clearly we
have to move the dial from the present not .2% of direct funding. But, depending on how
the definitions are agreed in the end, it could actually make reaching the target harder.
If there’s a narrow definition of what is a national actor, if there’s a very narrow
definition of what is direct funding, and the other issue that is of contention is do
we include only financing in that 25% or do we include in kind, do we include material
goods, do we include training capacity, strengthening and secondant. All those things are up for
debate and depending on where the definitions are finally agreed. It will be easier or harder
to meet that target. But I have to say the Grand Bargain, if it
was about anything; it was about a commitment by signatories to change the way we work to
make the humanitarian system and humanitarian response more efficient and to deliver better
to people in need. I think that it is hugely challenging, but we need to challenge ourselves,
and not to try to put everything that we’re doing into very broad definitions and therefore
say we’re actually at the 25%. I think there are also some challenges in
terms of links to other work streams. If we are measuring our 25% and how we’re doing
on that, obviously that requires more transparency and more reporting at a time where we’re
actually looking at actually streamlining reporting. I think that the other challenge is the engagement
of southern actors. I think that arguably the strength of the localization commitment
of the Grand Bargain is very much due to the strong voice and advocacy that national actors
made in the regional consultations running up to the World Humanitarian Summit. And that
was fantastic; we really have to continue to ride on that. Perhaps since then, particularly
on this issue of the definitions it’s rather sort of gone into the international sphere.
We do need to keep up the engagement of the entire humanitarian community in this. So moving on to the next slide, how can NGOs
engage? The survey is being launched today, and I think this webinar will be sending around
the link. It’s in French, Arabic and English and I really would urge everybody to participate
in the survey if they can. It’s ten minutes, give your feedback on what you consider the
definitions of national actors are, what about as direct as possible and what about in command.
Share it with your partners, share it with your colleagues, and disseminate it virtually,
and I urge people to participate and it’s closing on the 23rd of March. I think that it was mentioned earlier, people
asked whether they can participate in the work streams even if they’re not signatories,
and I think the answer is yes. There was a meeting for example that IFRC and the Swiss
held last week for the co-conveners of the localization work stream and there were about
ten or fifteen national NGO representatives at that meeting who were not themselves signatories. VOICE has also set up a Grand Bargain task
force which meets regularly in Brussels but also people can call in. So if you’re agency
is a member of VOICE do get involved in that, they’re prioritizing a number of work streams
including the localization one. ICVA has been doing work on humanitarian financing
over a number of years and has a very vibrant humanitarian financing group, which again,
people can get involved in and participate in, remotely develop policy positions and
discuss engagement. I think that there’s plenty of room to hold ourselves to account,
there are a number of INGO signatories, as well as the networks signing up to the Grand
Bargain, and I think at the national level humanitarian actors can get together and advocate
to signatories, discuss, ask their donors, ask UN agencies, ask themselves as NGOs, what
are you doing to fulfill your commitments under the localization work stream and other
work streams. I think that is really all I wanted to say
and I look forward to the discussion afterwards. Thanks. Thank you so much Anne. Melissa here, we have
received a lot of questions related to this work stream that we will talk about later
in the webinar, but already we’ve received a lot of feedback. Could you say a little
bit more about how the definition of localization comes into play? For example, we had one question
from Asif in Pakistan, how can we agree on a standard definition of localization? During
the Grand Bargain negotiations it received a lot of debate of who should be included
when we talk about national and local responders, and you already mentioned in your presentation
the challenges for measuring to say who are we talking about, what are we talking about?
So could you elaborate a little bit more on the definition and the process to achieve
it? Thank you. Yes, thanks Melissa. So we set up a working
group in the summer in July, after the Grand Bargain was signed because one of the detail
word things on the localization commitment included working with the IASC to develop
a localization marker, so to look at how we track the funding. This working group soon
realized that actually you cannot track the funding until you know the definition of what
you’re tracking. We started discussing what is a national actor.
Does that include national actors that operate in the country where they’re headquartered,
does it include local actors operating in a specific geography or a subnational area,
are the Red Cross Red Crescent national societies included, do we include national governments,
local governments? We’ve developed a definitions paper, after a lot of discussion, a lot of
drafting, a lot of redrafting, and basically where we’re at at the moment on that is
that we’ve defined national and local civil society organizations, Red Cross and Red Crescent
national societies, and national governments. But at the moment what we’ve agreed is not
included in those categories of national and local responders are affiliated national and
local organizations. So a national branch of an international NGO is not included in
that. If an international NGO sets up a branch in Kenya or Bangladesh or Myanmar, that is
not a national actor, that is an affiliated actor. Southern international NGOs, this is an area
where there is discussion at the moment. They’re not included. International NGOs, also not
included. It’s national NGOs, multilateral organizations, so UN agencies and the International
Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Society. The survey is an attempt to hear the views
of both the Grand Bargain signatories, donors, UN, INGOs, but most particularly to hear from
national actors about what their view on what a national actor is. Thank you so much Anne. Very grateful for
the presentation and also the elaboration on that definitions question and that would
certainly encourage everyone to take a look at the definitions paper and to participate
in the survey that’s being highlighted. Thanks so much. We’re going to move now
to Jeremy Rempel, consultant with the Less Paper More Aid initiative with ICVA. Jeremy
also joining us remotely, I’ll just do a quick check and make sure your audio is sounding
fine, Jeremy are you there? Yes, good morning I’m here. Good morning, sounds terrific. Okay the floor
is yours, over to you. Great, thank you very much. This morning I’d
like to share a little bit on some of the background in the reporting work stream and
then get into some opportunities for action as well. I should say ICVA has been very heavily
engaged in this area since before the Grand Bargain, or leading up to it, through Less
Paper More Aid as you’ve heard, donor conditions task force, also we’re part of the Grand
Bargain as a co-convener in the reporting work stream, so heavily engaged in this area. For myself, as a starting point to think about
the reporting work stream I think it’s helpful to step back and think at a high level about
what we’re talking about with regard to reporting. In my own mind I like to think
of some different spheres of reporting. Whether that’s management, so your internal reporting
needs that you make decisions on as an organization internally; donor reporting to your funders;
specifically with regard to humanitarian work we have reporting around cluster or strategic
needs through our humanitarian response plan, et cetera; and public domain reporting which
can be seen as transparent reporting as well, that gets reported out publicly. Ideally, we have a strong degree of alignment
between those spheres of reporting so that they have some differences but fit together
quite closely as a structure. The Grand Bargain reporting work stream is specifically focused
on the sphere around donor reporting, but I think you can already see through some of
the themes here that there are linkages across other areas as well. Public domain for example
in the transparency work stream, certainly some aspects of management reporting linked
to reducing management costs, et cetera. From the NGO perspective I think there are
some important considerations that we think about when we’re looking at the reporting
spheres and how they align. A big one is the degree to which systems are aligned across
these spheres, or we’re creating parallel systems that might be competing with each
other for staff time, creating burden, et cetera. Also it’s important to consider anytime
you’re doing reporting how that actually feeds into improving your ability to provide
service to affected populations, to provide effective aid, to do your work better. As
we look individually into the spheres too, we have some obvious questions that come up
around volume, frequency, complexity, and duplication. These are all themes that are
highlighted when we look specifically at how we can improve reporting. For example, in
the donor sphere. One of the challenges we have is to take that
and turn it into action. One advantage that has emerged in the reporting work stream is
we actually have had a lot of work done over the past year, year and a half, certainly
leading into the Grand Bargain, to generate evidence around reporting, some of the burden
that that creates. We’ve had a number of studies done by ISC on donor conditions. GHD
funded something on donor reporting requirements. You’ve heard already about Less Paper More
Aid. All of these helped feed into some of the commitments that were made as part of
the Grand Bargain. Following that, we also had some additional work done by the Global
Public Policy Institute funded by Germany on how to better harmonize our reporting and
making recommendations around that. Some unique things, across all this evidence
there has actually been quite a high degree of consistency with regard to some of the
conclusions around how it might be possible to save significant work time, the existence
of burden by having multiple inputs and multiple recording streams to donors that could be
better streamlined. So the evidence has been quite clear that
there are significant gains to be made by looking into how we can better handle reporting
in a way that’s more harmonized and simplified, reduces the burden on staff in the field,
and can still meet the needs of donors and hopefully improve our ability to deliver effective
aid. With all of this evidence there is this question
of what we do with it. I think frequently what happens is evidence and good studies
get compiled together into lessons learned, we think about it and then it may or may not
get translated into action. One of our key points following, especially the Grand Bargain,
is how do we translate all of this evidence into action. There are some very clear ways in which we
are trying to do that. The Grand Bargain has certainly been a helpful way to frame our
further action. I’ve put up here on the screen just specifically what the commitments
were. There are three areas of commitments around reporting in the Grand Bargain. To
simplify and harmonize reporting requirements, investing in technology and enhancing quality.
I added some of the bold here, I think one thing that’s important to me to keep in
mind here as we look through the commitments made in the Grand Bargain is what our objective
actually is. The higher level objective is that we’re
producing substantive, qualitative reporting, we can be more efficient in use of resources,
so it’s really around how are we doing reporting in a way that’s promoting good quality reporting,
effective and efficient use of resources and enabling us to meet an affected population’s
needs. It’s easy sometimes to confuse our objectives
and see a template, for example, is our higher-level objective. Those are actually more tools that
we would use to achieve the higher-level objective. Especially when the more we think about how
to harmonize reporting, how to move forward it’s important I think to keep some of those
things clear in our minds. To help frame our actions well, the study
done by GPPI following the Grand Bargain has been quite helpful in generating some very
clear recommendations to move forward. I should note that this study is available publicly
on the GPPI website so you can read the whole thing there. It’s quite well done, drawing
on some of the base work done through Less Paper More Aid and other research to really
develop some clear conclusions around how we could pilot a harmonized donor reporting
framework. One of the key things in the GPPI study is
around what is called a 10+3 approach. A lot of research was done by GPPI to look across
donors to try and understand what would it look like to harmonize requirements, what
common factors already exist in reporting requirements, how can we trim this into a
practical framework. The approach that they came up with was to
identify ten key dimensions that are really quite common across all donors, such that
you could cover 80-90% of all donor reporting requirements by having some clear guidance
in these areas. So you see those ten areas highlighted on the left. In addition to that,
they came up with sort of a menu list to choose an additional three. And the idea is by having
a harmonized ten, plus a bonus additional three that everyone could choose from a menu,
you could really get up to cover essentially 100% of donor reporting requirements. It would
be some degree of flexibility between how you approach individual donors on the menu
option there, but essentially there’s a solid group of ten dimensions that would cover
the vast majority of all donor reporting needs. Part of what we’re doing now is trying to
take this recommended approach and turn it into an actual pilot project to test out a
little more clearly what this looks like in action. Obviously it’s nice to have a good
study done but we need to see it more practically as well, how this can function in the field.
So that’s a key step we’re getting to now. We have pilot planning actually underway,
starting from November of last year. We had a follow up meeting to the GPPI report to
hear those results. Beginning in January now to present, we’ve engaged heavily between
ICVA, Germany and GPPI to start the planning for a pilot, generate interest, put together
partners. The idea is that we’d kick off March 24th
with a final meeting of people engaged in the pilot. This would be based on this 10+3
Approach, as I shared in the last slide. And what this starts to look like from the planning
so far, what you see here is a two-year period where we look really specifically at harmonized
reporting. We’d like to target three locations. We’re in the process of selecting specific
countries between donors and NGOs and UN partners that we can agree on. Currently we have about
six donors, six large NGOs and four UN agencies that are committed to engaging in the pilot. You see the way I’ve set up here, there’s
a couple of elements in the pilot to look at here. We want to go with a fairly rigorous
core pilot, where we have a number of set locations that we track very carefully through
a standard process of feedback, lessons learned, conclusions, et cetera. The concept of this
could also be somewhat of an open design so that as we move forward in this two year period
and start to generate lessons learned, that even outside the core area people could start
to apply those and do some experimentation as well. Certainly this might relate as well
to national, local NGOs and some of the effects that piloting this framework might have there.
That’s one thing we want to track specifically through the pilot is the effect at that level.
This is sort of the basic design we’re working with now. Another action point, pilot wise, is we’re
still looking for a lot of feedback as to what the pilot looks like, how people can
engage, soliciting NGO partners to engage. So there’s a few ways in which people can
do that. Some homework, the GPPI study that I mentioned earlier, that’s available on
their website, has the 10+3 approach in it, we’re really looking for some practical
feedback on what people think about that approach. I think it would be great to have NGOs, even
if you’re not directly engaged in the pilot, to send some feedback about what you think
regarding the 10+3 approach. That would be very helpful feedback to get in the coming
few weeks, so if you’re able to do that it would be quite helpful. We are looking for organizations to continue
to volunteer to engage, whether that’s in the core pilot participation or in the some
extended participation as we see how lessons learned can be scaled up. I think that would
be great if people have an interest there, it’s excellent if you’re able to contact
me. Another key thing we’re working on through
the pilot and actually the broader work on reporting is connecting the dots between some
of the other work streams. Whether that’s UN harmonization efforts, or the other work
streams in the Grand Bargain, be conscious of how things fit together well so that we’re
all pulling in the same direction, not working too much inside. And just a final note there,
although we’re talking about donor reporting, it really is critical to get NGO participation
and feedback. We want this really to be a way that NGOs can provide good feedback into
donor reporting but I think also think through how some of the reporting spheres I talked
about earlier on can fit better together. Whether that’s management-reporting aligning
with donor reporting, transparency questions, et cetera. So NGO feedback is a critical piece
of that. There are a few challenges; it’s not entirely
an easy task to harmonize reporting across multiple actors. One key thing that we’re
looking at through the pilot is the effect on informal reporting and better understanding
how that is a burden on staff. We frequently have formal reporting requirements through
midterm, end of project reporting that are quicker, however there’s also a whole range
of other requests that frequently come through, whether that’s email or a request based
on quality issues, just need for additional information. These typically happen in a much
higher degree of frequency than formal reporting. So this is one of the questions we have, that
a harmonized reporting framework is a help, harmonizing a formal reporting framework might
affect informal flows of communication. Just another challenge, there’s a lot going
on right now. We’ve got ten work streams just in the Grand Bargain. I think Anne brought
this up a little bit earlier too, we just need to be careful that we don’t have too
much going on that people are working in silos unaware of how things link together and we
want to be careful that there’s not a degree of fatigue. We have to just be conscious of
how things are fitting together in the different reporting work streams, ensuring that we’re
pulling in the same direction, and help people not get tired with dealing with these work
streams as much as possible. I think there really is some good work to be done and we
don’t want the technical pieces of that challenge to kill the interest in moving forward. And finally, this is me with some kids in
Mongolia years ago. I worked for a long time in audit, different types of reporting, so
I’ve been aware through my career of the balance that’s requires so we’re not coming
up with systems and tools that are so heavy we forget the purpose of why we’re there
in the first place. There really is a need to be careful about the balance, come up with
systems and tools, whether that’s for reporting or other things that are effective and useful,
but ultimately help us serve the people that we’re there to serve. I think it’s always
good to keep that in mind as we’re working to move forward with these work streams. Great,
that’s it for now. I’ll conclude there and happy to take questions at the end of
presentations today. Thanks so much. Thanks Jeremy, just a quick follow up before
we move on to our next speaker. You mentioned the linkages that the reporting work stream
has with other work streams, and of course, a work stream that is receiving a lot of questions
today is the localization related work stream. There’s a commitment there that talks about
reducing barriers, administrative barriers, that would normally block local and national
responders from accessing funding, which is quite linked to the work stream that you’re
engaged with. We have a question from an ICVA member, Amel from Virginie, which works in
Lebanon, so great to hear from Virginie. She’s asking if you could elaborate a little bit
more on the pilot to test out the new 10+3 reporting approach. Could you say a little
bit more about which countries selected, there have been some NGOs who have already volunteered
to participate. She’s wondering about national NGO participation in the reporting pilot.
I know it’s a little bit too early to say anything definitive but do you want to address
those questions? Over to you Jeremy. Sure, I think briefly one of the challenges
is location. It’s easy to agree on general regions, so for certain we have interest in
a Middle East location, in an East Africa location and an Asia location as well. When
it comes down to specific country, we start to get a challenge in that we have to try
and put together a core group of donors and NGOs and local partners, such that we have
a big enough pool of participation to make the pilot meaningful. So it become a little
challenge in terms of the order in which we select location and partners in. So like I said, we have about six donors,
European government donors, some American donors engaged, and six larger NGOs about
right now we started with, the advantage there is we have a broad range of locations that
we could pick. Over the next couple weeks we’re going to try and narrow down some
specific locations in those three regions, and at that point we’ll be able to start
engaging more with some more local partners to see how we can engage better in the specific
three countries that we’d like to start piloting in with our partners there. It’s hard to say exactly what those three
countries will be yet, we have to start to have some discussion there but certainly Middle
East, East Africa and Asia are the regions that we’re going to be looking in to partner
with. In the coming weeks, certainly by the end of March, as we come to a better agreement
on location we’ll be able to start reaching out more specifically to some of our local
partners. Excellent, thank you so much Jeremy. And I
guess it must be quite early for you so I appreciate you joining us at this hour. We’re
going to move next to Sara, who will be walking us through some thoughts on the humanitarian
development nexus. Sara over to you, you have the floor. As they presented I’m Sara Sekkenes from
UNDP and I’m also co-chair a task team in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee on the
humanitarian development nexus with specific focus on protracted crisis, with my fellow
co-chair Rudi Coninx from the WHO. The Grand Bargain, as Melissa already said,
the Grand Bargain is about the need to work together efficiently, transparently and harmoniously
with new and existing partners and that this will indeed require us to innovate, collaborate
and adapt mind-sets. And the whole purpose of course is to better serve people in need. The key elements that I will be discussing
are under work stream ten on the Humanitarian- Development Nexus has to do with the overall
on reducing the needs of affected populations, the current work plan and recent activities,
links with other work streams, and update on the New Way of Working on the peace nexus. Enhancing engagement between humanitarian
and development actors to not only meet needs but reduce needs focuses on a number of elements.
One is decreasing humanitarian need by focusing existing resources and capacities towards
prevention, mitigation and preparedness. Investing in durable solutions for refugees and forcibly
displaced persons. Investing in social protection programs with focus on national and local
systems. Performing joint multi-hazard risk and vulnerability analysis, and I’ll get
back to that one. And invest in new partnerships with comparative advantages and value added. And NGOs, of course, particularly at local
level have a crucial role to play in all of the above, and they need to help us ensure
that investment in prevention, mitigation and preparedness happens at the local level
and with local and national actors to create a shared vision. NGOs will be crucial in ensuring
that these investments focus on local and national level, working closely with governments
and the support of international organizations. Joint risk and vulnerability analysis and
planning must be done with and in support of local actors, both to feed into the analysis
process and to form a shared vision of priorities for addressing vulnerabilities. And again,
NGOs will have a crucial part to play in ensuring it is with the affected populations that conditions
the analysis and the formulation of priorities. If we look a little bit on the recent activities
under work stream ten, the cool part of this work stream going forward is the roll out
of what has been labeled, the New Way of Working, both at country levels and at policy levels.
Against the backdrop of the Sustainable Development Goals, bending needs by reducing risks and
vulnerabilities is now a shared responsibility among all actors and stakeholders within the
United Nations system. But also beyond, thinking of the signatories of the Grand Bargain, if
you wish. Based on this shared responsibility, humanitarian
development actors must jointly define for themselves and for their context, collective
outcomes that transcend long-standing conventional thing, other attitudinal, and institutional
and funding obstacles.   The New Way of Work is about ensuring all
parts of the UN system based on their comparative advantage work together towards jointly defined
collective outcomes and set out clear roles and responsibilities around delivering against
those outcomes. In short you could say that the new way of working is about obtaining
greater interoperability between humanitarian, development and peace activities, plans and
programs. This in particular calls for a much higher, much more coherent approach in assessments,
planning, and programming towards reinforcement of the local capacity. It does not mean that humanitarians will move
toward development activities, and vice versa. The different principles are kept, but we
have shared goals and humanitarian principles will always guide humanitarian actions and
should not be undermined. But while principles may differ, the centrality
of human rights provides all the foundations required to work toward shared development
goals with peace dividend. Some of the milestones looking ahead under
this work stream include an upcoming meeting in Copenhagen, which I think focuses a little
on what Jeremy mentioned in terms of turning the evidence that we know into action. The
government of Denmark in collaboration with OCHA and UNDP and the World Bank will host
a high level workshop in ten days or so, and the objectives are in brief, to look at country
cases, assess progress and identify opportunities and propose ways to overcome barriers to implement
this new way of working. Secondly, that they will demonstrate high
level multi stakeholder support, to advance and accelerate implementation through action
points to overcome blockages, noting key milestones and opportunities that leverage measures being
taken by different actors. This will also be followed, it is a thought of an event in
Washington in April, which also will be at high level and focus on donor countries and
states to take leadership and move this agenda forward. A third element is the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee – UN Working Group Transition joint action plan, which also includes country missions.
And here, I want to specifically mention what has been called unprecedented, which is strange
in itself, a workshop that was held late last year in which the Inter-Agency Standing Committee
met with the UN Working Group Transition to elaborate further on what it entails to do
joint planning, joint analysis, and joint programming. This is very much a breakthrough
in terms of how having policy discussions and drilling down to find, or identify the
challenges that need to be overcome to actually make this a reality. This work continues with
a number of actions and activities in this joint action plan that was developed during
the retreat in October. And the fourth initiative, which is being
taken forward, is a People Pipeline. And that one focuses in particular on the recognition
that whilst many of the entities in the UN possess an unparalleled reservoir specialized
expertise in many of its entities, there is a clear gap when it comes to experts within
these UN entities, who possess system wide planning expertise, who could leverage this
expertise to a more coherent and coordinated UN approach in the given context. Also internally,
the UN is working quite a lot to speed up our ability to work across the pillars of
humanitarian work development, peace and security. Some of the links to other work streams. All
of the work streams under the Grand Bargain were originally meant to complement each other,
and we have looked specifically under work stream ten how we partner with or link up
to the work stream two on localization. As you’ve seen there’s a lot of elements
in here that are relevant to the success of the development humanitarian nexus to achieve
true localization. And the work stream seven on multi year planning and financing. On work stream two on localization of support
and funding tools we need to recognize that NGOs are often the first to respond to crisis,
remaining in the communities they serve before, during and after emergencies. So they’re
a critical interface to decreasing the needs in the long run. And we’re working to define
localization markers, which was also mentioned previously by previous speakers, to identify
barriers to direct funding and increase opportunities for an effectiveness of funding as ‘direct
as possible.’ In linking with work stream seven on collaborative
multi year planning and financing, early results of review show that multi year financing promotes
positive change in agency behavior with tendency to do more on design, research, adaptive programming,
iterative improvement, all of which likely enhance overall program quality. But, I should
also caution and say that overall results show no clear evidence of direct positive
impact of multiyear planning and financing on resilience and reducing the needs of affected
populations. At least partly because funding does not seem to be at scale, there’s simply
just not enough. There’s also continued needs for multi year planning and financing
to go beyond 18 months and for more tools, guidance and case studies on this. And as
was mentioned by previous speakers, the short sightedness of annual or even monthly funding
is simply a huge obstacle to improving the work in the humanitarian development nexus. So a short update on the New Way of Working,
as it’s called. Progress has already begun in transcending this humanitarian development
peace divide through humanitarian plans that are being done in close consultation with
development and peace building actors, and are designed to achieve common objectives.
A couple of examples that may be known to many of you are the Lebanon and Jordan response
plans for the Syria Crisis, the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan called the RRRP, in response
to the Syria Crisis, the Somalia Compact and the Sahel Regional response plan which has
been developed not only across the UN system but also with partners beyond. On the financing side, progress includes a
global concession financing facility, launched in 2016 by the World Bank, UN and the Islamic
Development Bank. The G7 Pledge, to provide risk insurance to 400 million more people
by 2020. The UN-World Bank partnership is moving forward on providing catalytic funding
to seven to nine countries to advance activities on the humanitarian development peace nexus.
The Global Preparedness Partnership was launched in 2016 to provide a platform for providing
expertise and financing toward prevention related natural hazards in particular. But of course we also need to keep in mind
the link with the peace side of the nexus, with for example, the example on the screen
in front of you in DRC. And this remains a sensitive topic in terms of providing the
humanitarians space on neutrality and partiality and ensuring that humanitarian needs are met,
regardless of the connections to development work and the tends to try and decrease the
need over the long run. So what does this mean for NGOs? As you’ve
heard, I’ve mentioned the critical role of the NGOs as frontline responders or the
primary actors on the ground, and that without the insights of NGOs, there is very little
that can be done in improving the way we work in the nexus, as it’s called, the shared
ecosystem that we all work in whether humanitarian worker or development worker or peace worker.
We have the same target groups, we have the same beneficiaries, but we have different
timelines and different objectives. But we have to start looking at the ultimate backdrop
of the Sustainability Development Goals in terms of ensuring that we also decrease the
need for humanitarian action and can let beneficiaries move on into the development potentials. You
have an absolutely critical role in ensuring that analysis, planning and implementation
are driven by the needs of affected people and objectives of reducing needs, rather than
by top-down institutional agendas and structures. You are the frontline responders in humanitarian
action and as such, the most important element in making the response in the nexus efficient
and effective going ahead. Sara, this is very helpful that you’ve ended
on the slide for NGOs. While you were speaking we had a poll, to ask participants how familiar
they were with the New Way of Working, and the vast majority are unfamiliar with the
New Way of Working and we’ve received questions about how NGOs can get engaged. So could you
say a little bit more about the New Way of Working, where can people go to find more
about it, is it publicly available and does it involve NGOs at all? Thank you, thank you. It’s a very good question.
And yes, the short answer is yes, if it does not involve you, then it will not become a
New Way of Working. It has become a slogan, if you wish, and much of these policy discussions
are done in policy forums in which the UN is dominant, there’s no doubt about that.
But I absolutely welcome you to work through the consortium’s mention in the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee, InterAction, ICVA, others that have a voice in these forums, which we
do want more engagement from NGOs. We want to have your first line insight on how many
of the challenges in the New Way of Working can be overcome. When it comes to information
on this, I will provide some of the material we have to the organizers of this webinar
that can be distributed and there will also be upcoming notes, policy notes, coming out
from the task team on the humanitarian development nexus in the near future. But shortly, if I could just mention some
of these challenges, if there’s time, that might be of interest. Because some of these
will concern NGOs. Agreeing on the problem and recognizing the need to change is not
going to be enough, even with a shared vision and commitment. We know that both the UN system,
state ministries, and other large multi lateral organizations, administrations, and even dual
mandated non-governmental organizations are not designed to work easily across these pillars.
As been mentioned, the financing side has many drawbacks in terms of working across
a larger interoperability between these pillars. And we also have ownership issues in terms
of looking at how many plans on the ground are being developed. Many of you will be familiar
with the UNDAF, which is a negotiated document between the governments and the UN system
on development where you have a strong component of the government’s priorities negotiated
into this document. And then you have the humanitarian response plans, which are primarily
UN and NGOs that sit around the table to the extents that that happens and elaborates on
the plans for humanitarian action. In order to work across these pillars, you
will have to enter the discussion with governments on humanitarian work and reaching humanitarian
needs, or answering to humanitarian needs. And of course, in any situation that is conflict
related, this does raise questions in terms of to what extent would humanitarians want
to engage with government actors on that. And one of the principles of course is to
ascertain to what extent authorities are willing and responsible to uphold international standards
and norms. Which is a very sensitive discussion to hold and to have in the first place, so
there’s a lot of challenges coming on this as we go ahead. And to address these challenges
we will absolutely need an open and very frank discussion with all frontline responders and
that primarily is NGOs. Thank you, over to you. Excellent, thank you so much Sara, very much
appreciated by everyone as we can see a lot of great additional questions coming in here
on the back end. We have received a lot of questions, we won’t be able to get to all
of them today but we’ll have time to address a few more. But as we have done in previous
events, we will do our absolute best to get to actually written answers to the questions
that are coming in so that the follow up communications to all of you who are participating today,
you can get the full set of questions and responses from our panelists. But for the
time we have remaining, I’ll give the floor over to Melissa to lead us through some questions
for our panel. Over to you Melissa. Thanks Angharad. The first batch of questions
we’d like to pose to Anne, because they’re related to localization. Anne I have three
questions for you. Number one, Isabelle in France and Roberta in France were asking about
the issue of capacity investment. It’s one of the commitments of the Grand Bargain, but
there is limited funding available for that and we see donors struggling to try and balance
funding that they’re giving for emergency response and longer-term investment. Could
you say anything about any initiatives out there, specifically for capacity strengthening? The second question I have is from Laia in
Spain, and I couldn’t think of a better person to ask this question. She asks, what
is a complementary role of international NGOs in the localization discussion, in the context
of the Grand Bargain? And we got a question from Mann, who asks a similar thing: How can
international NGOs remain relevant in the localization discussion? And the final question comes from Fiona in
Afghanistan, who noticed that several donors are reluctant to fund more local partners,
they prefer to fund larger projects with less partners. It’s tied to issues like risk
and capacity to manage grants. Sebastian mentioned that we’ve already had an example of this
recently in Lebanon with regard to cash. So could you say a little bit more about how
you see the Grand Bargain work stream support for local and international responders running
into that trend? So that’s a lot to ask you Anne, I’m handing over to you to see
what you think. Thanks very much. So great questions on capacity
building, on the role of INGOs, and on the tensions between larger grants to less actors.
You know, I think all of these things are real challenges in the localization agenda.
Investment in capacity building, I think there’s some good work being done by individual donors
trying to look at this. One of the donors I think is really leading the way on the localization
agenda is Australia, and trying to do some really creative work. The Good Humanitarian
Donor Group, which is 36 donors signed up to the Good Humanitarian Principles, now have
a work stream on localization, which the Australians and I believe the Canadians are heading up.
And Australia is looking at some strong capacity investments, for example, their Australian
Red Cross and with their INGO preferred partners. Really, requiring them to work with and strengthen
the capacity of their national partners. And providing greater amounts of money for preparedness
into local governments to strengthen their capacity initiatives. It is another thing
that Australia has been doing is working on direct secondant with organizations. There
is actually a huge amount; the capacity strengthening initiatives is one of the areas of greatest
investment. Another one is the Humanitarian Leadership Academy, and there’s quite a
lot of working going on also at the southern NGO level. The details of some of that are
in a document that IFRC have commissioned and perhaps we could look at sharing that
online. On the issue of what’s the complementary
role of INGOs in the localization agenda. I think that there are several areas that
INGOs are particularly well placed on. Obviously, a lot of these discussions go on at the global
level, so INGOs are much more present than in New York and Geneva. So I think that they
can sort of take forward those policy and advocacy positions, but also I think it’s
really important that they work with their southern partners to enable them to be part
of those initiatives and those policy discussions. One of the sorts of the complementary roles
that CAFOD and 29 other NGOs are involved in on the sort of localization stream is this
charter for change around changing the way that INGOs work with their national partners. The question on the larger grants to less
actors, I think that is a big tension that Sebastian rightly identifies. We know that
donors are under the same efficiency pressures to have less administrative capacity so they
need to push out more money to large actors. I think this is a challenge, but I think one
of the ways that this can be address is through those agreements actually ensuring that there
large grantees do comply with the localization commitments of the Grand Bargain on providing
money for capacity strengthening and for multi year funding, et cetera, et cetera. Donors
can encourage those grantees even if they can’t fund directly to a whole myriad of
small grants. Thank you so much Anne. I want to quickly
answer three questions on process and then turn it back to each of the speakers for the
final question. On the process of the Grand Bargain we heard from Paul in the Netherlands,
what are the mechanisms for holding government accountable for their commitments. What we’ve
seen in the Grand Bargain process is that each signatory, including donors and also
agencies, are expected to submit what we call a self-report, where each signatory says what
they are doing to implement the Grand Bargain. In addition, the facilitation group is using
some independent sources to come up with a report on the Grand Bargain implementation
at a collective level and that information will become available for a signatory’s
meeting on June 20th. So there is that reporting mechanism in addition if you look at certain
elements of work streams, for example cash, there are outside groups who are keeping a
very close eye on how the Grand Bargain is being implemented. The second question on the process comes from
Evert; he said how are people in the field aware of the Grand Bargain? How can they get
involved? I have to admit that many people when we go to the field and we talk to them,
they haven’t really heard much about the Grand Bargain, or if they have they haven’t
heard the details. That’s why we’re trying to do things like this webinar, we have the
briefing paper there and once the secretariat has a staff person dedicated to reporting,
I think you’re going to see more communication projects coming out. So hopefully there will
be more awareness coming out about the Grand Bargain. The last question comes from Olivier in Switzerland,
who asks more about the role of the NGO consortia who are taking part in the Grand Bargain negotiations,
who are now involved in the implementation. We work very well with InterAction SCHR in
the Grand Bargain. I can say for ICVA, we’ve met with our members before and after the
meetings, we’ve been trying to through our finance-working group for example and our
donor conditions group, involve NGOs in the implementation. And we’re very happy to
see several individual NGOs have signed on to the Grand Bargain and have come up with
their own very specific, even targeted, commitments and they’re also submitting self reports
there. So we’re working them through different ways to promote NGO involvement in the Grand
Bargain. The last question I wanted to ask and it’s
going to go to each of our speakers, it’s coming from Anne in Switzerland who says,
we’ve been tackling a lot of these issues that are discussed in the Grand Bargain for
decades, and we haven’t yet been able to achieve what we want. What gives us hope,
what gives us optimism, that we will be able to achieve these commitments now? So let’s
go first to Sara with this question, about your optimism, then Jeremy, and then Anne.
So over to you Sara. Thank you Melissa, and that’s a very good
question. Indeed, much of what we have been discussing here today is not new, even though
we called it the New Way of Working. I think a couple of things are different today, or
several things are different today. We have an urgent urgency that is unprecedented. We
have most of crisis turning protracted. We have many protracted crisis compounding on
top of each other and the capacity of the humanitarian system to cope with the humanitarian
crisis is running out. So that’s an urgency in terms of looking at how to address this. Of course, to address these protracted crisis
has a political dimension that is beyond the humanitarian response, and therefore I think
it’s very good that some of the priority areas outlined by the new Secretary General
in terms of looking at prevention as the top priority going forward. The new Secretary
General has also called for reform of the UN development system, as well as reform for
the peace and security agenda following the review of the Peace Architecture, as they
call it. Member states have a very important role to play and they have adopted two twin
resolutions on sustaining peace which to a certain extent leads the way to discussion
amongst member states on how to address the political dimension of protracted crisis and
to make prevention the priority going forward. But that’s just one side of the story, the
other is how can we make sure that the incentives are there for the changes to happen. And since
we’ve been discussing this for a long, long time, the problems have been there for a long
time, what are the incentives that need to be put in place? And one of the elements that
I think the Grand Bargain has tried to tackle is cutting the silos in the financing system
to try to make it possible, in the first place, to engage over the various pillars that work
in the ecosystems that we share. I think another reality is that in the past,
partially because there were fewer protracted crisis, but partially also because the financial
situation was better, there was more funds in place or available. There wasn’t the
incentive to look at how we can do more for the buck. Now that is becoming a reality partially
because of the compounded and nature of protracted crisis, but partially also because the financing
situation of the world has shrunk somewhat. So those are a couple of the things that come
first to mind in terms of what is different now and why are we more optimistic to try
to resolve this issue at this time. The World Humanitarian Summit, of course, raised all
of this to attention and we’ve all signed off so it’s not longer voluntary, it’s
actually the objective that we all have to follow. Thank you Sara, over to you Jeremy. Thanks Melissa. So I think with regards to
the reporting work stream, some of the basic things that Sara mentioned that I think can
apply very broadly. I think the solid evidence base that I mentioned as part of the work
leading into the Grand Bargain and follow up as well has really provided a sound body
of evidence that people have been able to look through and get a practical idea of what
can actually be achieved if we harmonize reporting. And I think as part of the response to that,
a significant and growing number of donors have really come forward and expressed a strong
interest in being willing a harmonized reporting template. So not just a push from NGOs, even
a pull from donors to try and pull it forward. So we’ve got a strong critical mass of particularly
donors and other agencies really wanting to try this now. So it’s not a new concept
but I think we’re at a point where we’ve built towards a critical mass of partners
that are actually willing to take forward some very practical action and come to agreement
on how to pilot things. So it’s a good opportunity to take advantage of at this point in time. Thank you Jeremy, over to you Anne. Thanks Melissa. I think we do have reason
to be optimistic and I think perhaps the first thing to point to in the context of the Grand
Bargain and the work stream on more support and funding tools to local and national responders,
is the wording of the commitments. And they are really strong. I mean the target of 25%
by 2020 is fantastic, if anybody had said we would have that target two or three years
ago, I wouldn’t have believed it. It’s only real target in terms of number in the
Grand Bargain commitment. So I think it does give us something to work towards. I think also the fact that national actors
have been so vocal in calling for this has really, and that you guys will continue to
ensure that this happens, is really another reason to be really optimistic. And I think
that donors and the humanitarian committee in general has recognized really that we do
have to change and we do have to work in more efficient, more enabling ways that deliver
better outcomes. I think also that there is more transparency
in the system now and we have better tools for that to measure and know what’s going
on so I think that we can hold ourselves and others to account. I think there’s lots
of room for optimism but I think it really requires the concerted effort in all of us
to be willing to change and in holding ourselves and our fellow signatories to account to live
up to the commitments we’ve made. Thank you Anne. And just from my perspective
at ICVA I wanted to say that ICVA’s members have been to get predictable, sustainable,
adequate funding for years, we’ve been very involved in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee
finance task team working at the working level on many of the issues raised in the Grand
Bargain and we were struggling to get some momentum until the high level panel at their
credit really elevated the visibility and the political momentum behind it. So we do
see that this is the first process that brings together the donor side, the agency side to
come together around some of these issues. We do need to keep an eye on the trends, for
example what we’re seeing in Lebanon with cash, what will happen with needs assessments,
are we seeing increased reporting requirements, we will need to keep an eye on that but we
have a huge opportunity here. And I’ll just close on my part by giving a big thanks to
you all as speakers, we thank all of ICVA’s members who have been participating in all
of these webinars and who have been very active in all of the aspects of the Grand Bargain.
For example, we didn’t get a chance to really dig deep today on things like cost structures,
something that NRC has been very involved in, but we do have lots of examples that we’ll
try to explain through our briefing paper and other opportunities to get you more connected
there. I did want to thank PHAP for helping us on this webinar and a big thanks to James
Shell for his support in preparing these with PHAP. Over to you, Angharad. Great, thank you Melissa. And thank you so
much, it’s been a great series and such a pleasure to co-host with you and thank you
for your very able moderation of the Q and A’s in particular, very much appreciated
by all. Also from our side at PHAP a warm thank you to all of the speakers in today’s
session as well as all of you as very active participants. Great to see all of your input.
And once again, just want to highlight that we will be working together with all the team
at ICVA to ensure that as many of the question that came in are responded in writing in the
follow up, so you’ll have that as ongoing resource. Also to just let you know that all
of the recordings and mentioned resources during today’s event will be available in
the coming days on the event webpage and once translated there will also be subtitles as
Markus mentioned in the chat in both French and Arabic, so do keep an eye out for those,
they should be available in the next two to three weeks. There will also be from ICVA
a whiteboard video on the topic and that will be coming and again mentioned in follow up
email communication. And now as we’re coming to an end on this
series of humanitarian financing I’d like to provide a quick reminder about the resources
available from previous sessions. You can see the banners there on the PowerPoint slide,
you can access all of the recordings, again with the translations into French and Arabic
as well as the related resources on the relevant event pages. You can get right to them now
by clicking on those banners, those are active links. I would like to really emphasize as well the
availability of the recording from the last session we did. This was on private funding
available to NGOs and the other resources including, there was quite a long list of
follow up questions that our guest experts on private funding kindly provided answers
to in writing. So you can follow the links there to get all of those resources. Then last but not least, and looking forward,
I’m very happy to announce that PHAP will continue this fruitful collaboration with
ICVA, the two organizations will be working together to produce for you a new learning
stream. This will be focusing on the topic of humanitarian coordination and the role
of NGOs. So look forward to that, which will be starting in the coming months that will
be both through the Spring and Fall of this year. So very much looking forward to a new
series of interactive sessions aimed to professionals who are working in both international and
national NGOs to develop a better understanding of the various humanitarian coordination mechanisms
that are out there and how NGOs can engage in them at different levels. So with that, thanks once again to all of
our participants for active participation, to the teams here at PHAP and ICVA for all
of their work in preparing today’s event and of course to all our speakers for their
valuable input on the different Grand Bargain work streams. Please do take a moment now
to fill in the survey to give us some feedback following the event and with that this is
Angharad Laing and the teams from PHAP and ICVA signing off from Geneva, thanks very
much and looking forward to next time.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *