Enhancing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action
A Dialogue Between UN and Non-UN Humanitarian Organizations

Geneva, Switzerland
12-13 July 2006

Overview of Consolidated NGO Views

10 July 2006

In advance of the UN-NGO dialogue on strengthening the effectiveness of humanitarian response on 12-13 July 2006, the three NGO consortia that participate in the IASC circulated a set of questions to the NGOs attending the dialogue.

This document provides an overview of the NGOs' consolidated feedback on a number of issues: relationships between the UN and NGOs and among NGOs; coordination; and (UN) humanitarian reform issues. It also presents a number of desired outcomes of the meeting.

RELATIONS: UN-NGOs
Issues that stand out in the NGOs' views on maintaining a relationship with the UN include: the inequality in the relationship; the competition for funding and (local) human resources; and the UN's politicisation, which impinges on humanitarian principles.

There is an increased awareness of the inter-dependence between UN agencies and a critical mass of international NGOs. There is also a need to look at the inter-dependence between all humanitarian actors and how they relate to each other. The current debates around UN humanitarian reform provide key opportunities for frank and open dialogue amongst international humanitarian actors. However, the sense of a continuing power struggle amongst UN agencies makes clear and practical outcomes difficult.

Comments/Suggestions:

• Doubts around the ability of reforms to defend humanitarian principles and space within the UN system, given that the concept of coherence is "the guiding principle" of UN missions. A UN/NGO collective response may jeopardise NGOs' independence and flexibility.
• A major challenge [of the relationship is] when organisations with different mandates, focus, and financial and human resource strengths jostle for projects and, in so doing, lose sight of the needs of the beneficiaries and/or are in competition with each other.
• UN and NGOs have very different approaches and philosophies to crisis response, which have not been well-bridged.
• All agencies have a need for individual profile and funding.
• Common challenges: lack of consistent quality of staff; lack of sustainable funding; lack of standardised accountability and transparency; lack of peer review or self-regulation; a need for a better regulatory framework; and equal/fair partnerships are rare.
• UN bureaucracy and modes of operation dominate, creating a feeling of subordination among some NGOs. The rhetoric of collaboration by some UN staff towards NGO staff can feel insincere and patronising. NGOs often find themselves on the periphery of meetings.
• Some NGOs characterized the UN culture as arrogant and aloof. Increasingly, NGOs are finding partnerships with UN agencies to be unappealing. The lack of practical and fair operational frameworks between UN agencies and NGOs has made the cost of partnership too high for many NGOs. The lack of cost recovery has put NGOs in the position of 'subsidizing' UN projects. NGOs are increasingly turning away from the UN for partnerships as practical financial problems linger unresolved.
• The existence of local capacity is often underestimated, undervalued, and in some cases even undermined. NGOs dependent on support and resources often do not speak up frankly, while the UN does not take local knowledge and resources seriously. There is a need for a strategic approach to the capacity-building of national NGOs.

RELATIONS: International NGOs - National NGOs
The issue of the relationship between international NGOs (INGOs) and national NGOs is of relevance to this meeting, as national/local NGOs' knowledge and presence are critical factors in making humanitarian response more effective. With regards to the relationship between international and national/local NGOs, the terms of the contract are often more in the interest of the international NGOs. A true partnership should include information-sharing, learning, and cooperation.

Comments/Suggestions:

• INGOs saying they do capacity-building is often lip service.
• Opportunities arise when INGOs take national NGOs seriously and provide them with the tools they request, not the ones that INGOs have available.
• INGOs often look upon local NGOs as lacking professionalism. Local NGOs are exploited for their knowledge of the local context.
• A sound collaboration starting from the needs assessment and continuing throughout the whole project cycle is essential for national ownership and sustainability.

National and local NGOs often have problems participating in coordination meetings, because of the language and jargon barriers; the disconnect between the international (or, even, capital) and local levels; and the lack of funding for national/local NGOs.

Comments/Suggestions:

• There is a lack of diversity of NGOs at the international level - partly due to constraints of national/local NGOs to allow them to organise in a representative umbrella organisation.
• There is a need to bring Southern national NGOs into dialogues at the international level.
• We must find more effective ways of including Southern NGOs in the international networks, and not just include token representatives. This inclusion has both funding and capacity implications.

COORDINATION
All NGOs recognised the need for coordination, although some noted that coordination draws time and attention away from action. Clearly, the major issue in this context is that coordination structures are UN-dominated, even though NGOs have the implementing capacity.

There seems to be a difference in views on the implications of coordination with the UN: some are prepared to accept the UN's authority and leadership in coordination, while the majority see themselves on equal footing with the UN agencies, working side by side.

A related issue that the meeting may wish to address is the tension between the need to establish a coherent agenda, as viewed by the UN, and the need for recognition of the diversity of approaches, with different mandates, objectives, means, and working methods.

There is convergence on the point that meetings are often 'UN-centric.' The widely recognised challenge is to make coordination more meaningful, as there is no lack of coordination structures and meetings.

Comments/Suggestions:

• The quality of individual and collective needs assessments and the sharing of assessment results between organisations remain far below the standards required to give the empirical basis for strategic decision-making and comparison. Without that, funding will not achieve its optimal impact.
• The best parts of coordination are the sharing of information deriving from assessments, a picture of who is doing what and where, and coordination on security measures.
• The problem is not a lack of coordination meetings, but the lack of a common understanding of issues and the lack of priority setting.
• Including NGOs in the IASC and other committees only has a limited impact - there is a need to go beyond committees, conferences, and workshops to form some systematic partnerships and serious policy advocacy roles.
• Coordination structures should also look at/include: the national authorities, the military, the international financial institutions, bilateral government donors, and the private sector.
• One of the constraints is lag time in setting up coordination structures: operational coordination should be established immediately in an emergency.
• It is preferable to build on preparedness and contingency planning, set up pre-crisis.
• Potential conflicting roles of UN agencies: as coordinator and implementer.
• NGO systems (for decision-making and funding) are highly decentralised.
• Need to concentrate on risk mitigation instead of crisis only, which requires a policy shift.

UN HUMANITARIAN REFORM PROCESS
Many NGOs noted the reform process as the domain of the UN. The clusters are viewed as being about the UN and UN-centric, although some suggested that more NGO participation could overcome this problem.

In suggesting opportunities for NGOs to set the reform agenda, several NGOs noted the work NGOs have done in setting up common benchmarks using agreed standards, such as Sphere. The weak emphasis in the reform on community-based approaches, vulnerability analysis (both before and after emergencies), and the lack of listening to beneficiaries, as well as the cross-cutting issues continuously "falling through the cracks," were also noted.

Comments/Suggestions:

• NGOs have felt like an afterthought in an otherwise elaborate plan. Rather than engaging constructively in these vital reforms with the UN, NGOs find themselves functioning as harsh critics and outsiders.
• The reform process has focused too much on international response and not enough on regional and in-country capacity.
• The implementation of the cluster approach represents a key opportunity for improving coordination.
• In consultation with a number of other field practitioners, one NGO found that the cluster approach is not known or adequately understood among the actual practitioners at the hub level. The cluster approach is by, and for, the UN.
• There are questions on why education was not selected as a cluster.
• Cluster participants should be examined to determine their motivations and level of commitment.
• Generalist NGOs often have expertise in community-based approaches, in working with cross-cutting issues such as gender, environment, HIV/AIDS, or age. The cluster system needs to be designed to ensure that generalist NGOs do not fall through the cracks.
• NGOs lead on accountability to beneficiaries. Without sufficient attention paid to listening, and accountability, to beneficiaries, humanitarian action will not achieve optimal relevance.
• The CERF should be directly accessible to NGOs, and the challenges around the CERF needs analysis methodology, governance, and efficiency must be resolved.
• The UN may increasingly be seen as a donor, controlling country-based pooled funding, which may lead to bureaucracy, delays, and less funds for NGOs, especially those not in the country.
• External monitoring of the CERF and cluster approach need to be addressed.

CONCRETE OUTCOMES DESIRED

• Annual meeting between UN and 15 selected "major humanitarian NGOs," with criteria developed for transparency, looking at issues of common interest.
• IASC structure systematically established at field level, in case of major emergencies.
• More coordination and collaboration during preparedness phases of major emergencies.
• Pressure donors and INGOs to implement the Good Humanitarian Donorship principles: ask for a timetable and progress reports on implementation.
• Make cross-cultural communication strategies, including translation and interpretation services mandatory in CAPs and other appeals.
• Enhanced coordination between IASC and NGOs would be really meaningful if local knowledge would be taken up to the international level.
• A regular mechanism to meet or consult between grassroots NGOs and UN agencies needs to be found that ensures diversity, but also continuity. A rotation of NGOs would most likely result in similar discussions every time, instead of a move forward.
• IASC-NGO country teams should be set up thoroughly in all regions, including preparation of action plans/coordination mechanisms and contingency planning.
• A list of minimum requirements of building up authentic partnerships is needed.
• Creation of a joint UN-NGO mechanism to monitor and review the implementation of the reform.
• Commitment to a joint piece of open learning work by UN and non-UN agencies. This could be a real-time evaluation of our collective response to the recent earthquake in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The IASC could commit to publishing this together with five key recommendations by the six-month anniversary of the earthquake.
• Commitment to relate humanitarian action better to rehabilitation and development.

* * *

Questions Asked to NGOs:

1. What, according to your organisation, are the opportunities and constraints in better responding collectively to humanitarian crises?

2. What, according to your organisation, are the opportunities and constraints in increasing humanitarian funding?

3. What, according to your organisation, are the opportunities and constraints in collaboration and coordination between the UN and NGOs at the international level?

4. What, according to your organisation, are the opportunities and constraints in collaboration and coordination between the UN and NGOs at the field level?

5. What, according to your organisation, are the opportunities and constraints in collaboration between the international NGOs and national NGOs internationally and at the field level?

6. What, according to your organisation, are the areas of the reform process, including the central emergency response fund (CERF), the cluster leadership approach, the strengthening of the function of the Humanitarian Coordinator, that need (further) attention from the UN, from the NGOs, or from both?

7. Based on the agenda and expected outcome as formulated therein, what do you see as concrete action points and/or recommendations coming out of the meeting?

8. What other comments or suggestions do you have?