UNICEF Consultation with
NGO Partners in Humanitarian Action
(Geneva, 13-14 December 2010)
Contact: Christine Knudsen, Chief Inter-Agency and Humanitarian Partnerships/EMOPS, UNICEF
Email: cknudsen@unicef.org, tel.: +41 22 909 56 23
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Background, Objectives of the Consultation and Follow Up ....................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Question and Answer Session with UNICEF Senior Management .............................................................. 9
Trends impacting on humanitarian action and partnership ..................................................................... 10
Models of partnership to enhance humanitarian action .......................................................................... 12
UNICEF’s revised CCCs and humanitarian capacity development ............................................................ 14
Capacity Development with and of National Partners .............................................................................. 15
Standby Partnerships................................................................................................................................. 17
The Revised PCA ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Global Partnership Agreements ................................................................................................................ 20
Identified Opportunities and Recommendations for Follow Up Actions .................................................. 21
Closing Discussions .................................................................................................................................... 23
Evaluation of the Consultation .................................................................................................................. 24
Annex 1
Agenda
Annex 2
List of Participants
Annex 3
Report on Participant’s Evaluation
Annex 4
Background Papers
 Guiding questions on humanitarian trends and implications for partnership
 UNICEF partnership case studies from Somalia, Haiti, and Pakistan
 ICVA's paper on opportunities and challenges for capacity development in national
contexts
 Findings from UNICEF's survey on the revised PCA
 Collected findings on the revised PCA from InterAction, Oxfam, and NRC
 Discussion paper on potential global agreements with UNICEF
2
Executive Summary
UNICEF Consultation with NGO Partners in Humanitarian Action
Geneva, 13-14 December 2010
Following two years of joint action on partnership with NGOs, the second UNICEF Consultation with NGO
partners in humanitarian action took place in Geneva 13-14 December 2010. It was designed to ensure that the
momentum towards increasingly meaningful partnerships between UNICEF and NGOs is sustained in
emergency response and to place the focus on putting partnerships into practice at field level.
This message was reinforced by Hilde Johnson, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director, who joined the meeting
by video and conveyed the message that UNICEF intended to continue to take the necessary steps to ensure
partnerships can deliver at field level for effective humanitarian action. Hilde Johnson also spoke of
UNICEF’s intention to work together with NGO partners in delivering humanitarian advocacy messages both
within and outside the sector.
The objectives of the consultation were to take stock of existing collaboration between UNICEF and NGO
partners in humanitarian action at all levels; review changes in humanitarian policy and practice since the
2008 Consultation; identify areas for strategic collaboration and improved operational outcomes and find
concrete ways to improve the work together in humanitarian action.
A joint practical and results-based Plan of Action, with a clear timeframe and allocation of responsibilities
between UNICEF and NGO partners will be developed as the main outcome of the consultation.
The consultation was prepared together with key NGO partners and in close collaboration with UNICEF
stakeholders in order to strengthen joint ownership of outcomes and recommendations. The discussion themes
that they agreed were as follows:

Policy: Current and future trends in humanitarian assistance, partnerships models and reform projects,
including discussions related to shared accountability within clusters and across membership.

Strategy: Revised CCCs and joint mechanisms for implementation and performance monitoring, national
capacity development of and with NGO partners.

Operations: Experience with the revised PCA and rollout; updates on internal processes leading towards
NGO global agreements.
Each of the thematic areas outlined in the Policy, Strategy, and Operational topics was introduced through
joint presentations from NGOs and UNICEF. Background notes for each session were also prepared by
UNICEF and NGO representatives and were distributed in advance of the consultation. Each paper included
background and critical issues relevant to the session, recommended next steps and key questions to drive the
discussions. These are annexed to this report.
The consultation was attended by 74 senior staff from NGOs, the Red Cross family, UN sister agencies and
UNICEF. The consultation was held at the end of a year where the humanitarian sector had been challenged to
respond to extremely large scale emergencies (e.g. Pakistan, Haiti) as well as sustaining capacity and response
elsewhere.
These challenges were expanded upon by the keynote speaker, James Darcy from the Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), who posed questions related to the need for additional capacity to respond which may add to
the momentum for new ways of working and collaboration.
3
Participants were in agreement that recent emergencies demonstrated how, collectively, the capacity available
had been well below that required for such massive operations. The meeting then focused on models and
mechanisms to enhance capacity and ensure more effective collaborative working. Participants were keen to
stress that risk transfer to NGOs should be avoided and that, instead, mechanisms for ensuring collective and
transparent risk management should be put in place.
Predictability of response including humanitarian partnerships has been a critical issue during 2010 and was
raised by UNICEF during the consultation (e.g. Pakistan and Haiti emergencies). It was repeatedly noted that
true partnerships cannot be forged overnight, and that a strong element of preparedness aligned with
emergency preparedness and contingency planning is required. For all organisations, particularly national
NGOs, this offers opportunities for capacity building prior to (and sometimes during) the emergency.
The administrative demands of the vast number of agreements with individual partners (international, national
and local NGOs) commonly managed by UNICEF at country level often preclude engagement in the more
meaningful expectations of partnership. Potential solutions, such as support to national NGO consortia at the
field level, were discussed during the consultation.
It was however agreed that clarity and transparency with regard to the nature of individual partnership is
essential to manage expectations. The continuum of transactional to transformational partnerships was
discussed and highlighted during the consultation. UNICEF and NGO Participants agreed that this was useful,
that the concept should be developed further, and that it should be used during discussions at country level. It
was thought to be helpful to those at field level that effective models of humanitarian partnership should be
outlined more clearly.
One ongoing theme was the challenge of communicating and moving the understanding of the flexibility of
agreements and the sense of partnership from the global level to the country level. The revised PCA needs to
be seen as a partnership tool rather than a contractual mechanism if they are to be truly effective. In addition,
many PCAs in emergencies signed in 2010 still use outdated formats. A number of tactics were proposed
during the consultation to address this and they are presented in the recommendations below.
UNICEF and NGO partners undertook a series of joint presentations to update all participants on progress of
key partnership tools. The rollout of the revised CCCs was explained and timelines clarified, the Standby
Partnership model was explained and potential lessons for effective partnership working were discussed, the
revised PCA was outlined and a detailed discussion on this was held. These discussions resulted in some
practical and clear recommendations which are listed below and an emphasis on roll out in emergency
contexts was agreed. UNICEF’s plan to clarify the structure and content of the potential NGO Global
Agreements was also shared as was a commitment to communicate progress.
It was agreed by the Plenary that the consultation had been valuable and should be repeated regularly.
The consultation concluded by agreeing a series of recommendations which, once approved by UNICEF
Management and NGO partners, will be translated into a joint UNICEF-NGO action plan which will require
the contribution of key actors.
Participants prioritised what they believed to be key, joint and feasible follow-up actions to inform the 2011
joint Plan of Action.
4
Key result area 1: Key changes required to enhance UNICEF-NGO partnership models in
humanitarian action are identified and implemented jointly, to be more prepared and responsive
UNICEF/NGO partnership toolkit in emergencies
 Develop UNICEF-NGO handbook and/or partnership toolkit in humanitarian action focusing on quality of
humanitarian partnership, UNICEF/NGO roles and responsibilities including
o
streamlined processes and procedures in emergencies (PCA options, best practices, etc)
o
ensure that the PoP are included in emergency preparedness planning
 Develop light framework/tool to monitor partnership performance, to measure the effectiveness of
UNICEF/NGO partnerships in emergencies
Principles of Partnership into practice
 Operationalize POP in preparedness plans and identify 3 countries to apply lessons learnt (e.g. GHP 6
case studies with 3 countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines)
 Raise awareness of PoP across UNICEF/NGO senior management, ensure inclusion in accountabilities
frameworks, JDs and performance appraisals
Clusters and NGO partnerships
 Update Guidance notes across all Clusters (including UNICEF) in addition to advocacy initiatives to the
IASC Principals
 Sustain NGO strategic and operational engagements in the Cluster Approach in order to
o
agree on collective responsibility for gaps and capacity to respond and fix problems
o
use systematically Clusters to effectively screen incoming NGOs in the field
o
collect good practices on performance of cluster coordinators and members
Enhance humanitarian partnership knowledge management
 Establish e-portal to allow NGO and UNICEF partners to access key partnership documents
 Collect best partnership practices in emergencies and disseminate across UNICEF and NGO
 Develop NGO database at sectoral level including organizational assessments (what works well, what
does not work so well)
Key result area 2: Capacity development is jointly initiated to strengthen revised CCC-based
emergency preparedness and response at national level
Joint capacity development strategy
 Develop rapid UNICEF/NGO capacity development toolkit including gap analysis
o to help identify new partners in large scale emergencies including local NGOs
o enhance national NGO consortia capacity in coordination.
 Promote UNICEF preparedness activities, contingency planning and joint inter-agency emergency
response training
o
to develop partnerships in advance and build in flexibility
o
to enhance predictable response and streamline contract agreement processes.
 Sustain capacity building efforts at the national level after initial emergency response a and ensure
stronger engagement in DRR
5
Revised CCCs
 Create a reference group to discuss how NGOs and UNICEF can roll out the revised CCCs for more
systematic strategic engagement together and identify additional partnership opportunities
o To identify a small number of countries (e.g. South Sudan, Somalia) to engage on CCC roll-out,
including capacity development analysis, and performance monitoring
o To develop joint UNICEF/NGO country specific humanitarian advocacy strategy (e.g. in South Sudan,
Somalia)
Result area 3: Specific areas of the revised PCA guidelines which require clarification are identified and
key actions implemented to further disseminate and streamline in emergencies
Develop a PCA toolkit and/or handbook (see also result area 1)
 Develop a handbook/toolkit which should include sections on pre-screening, contingency planning and
clarification on the use and implications of HACT
 Develop common PCA templates and encourage staff to utilise these.
Enhance knowledge management on revised PCA guidelines
 Update the FAQs on the revised PCA guidelines and disseminate across UNICEF and NGO
 Clarify with UNICEF Legal Office whether the revised PCA guidelines can be shared with NGO partners
to maximise the revised PCA roll out in 2011.
 Establish a website to include collection of best practices, monitoring of the rollout, interpretation of the
revised guidelines, clarification of what is allowable with regard to procurement guidelines
Train UNICEF staff and partners
 Identify critical countries (including emergency countries) for the revised PCA extended roll out
 Initiate training on the PCA to ensure a common understanding across UNICEF staff and NGO
 Invite NGO partners to participate in the revised PCA training.
Result area 4: NGO global agreements are explored and joint opportunities and risks identified and
next steps implemented up to June 2010


Inform NGO partners of the outcome of the UNICEF discussion on Global Agreements including joint
commitment to respond in emergencies
Clarify what global partnership agreements mean in terms of selection criteria, qualification, sectors,
clusters, requirements including risk management
Result Area 5: Communication is sustained to engage key humanitarian NGOs as strategic partners for
UNICEF in humanitarian action


Establish regular global consultations on humanitarian action with UNICEF/NGO senior management
participation (on a predictable schedule).
Establish partnership consultation/feedback mechanisms in the field (including regional levels) to
maintain communications, develop joint programme strategies and fix problems as they arise
6
UNICEF Consultation with NGO Partners in Humanitarian Action
Geneva, 13-14 December 2010
Background, Objectives of the Consultation and Follow Up
The first UNICEF global consultation with humanitarian NGOs took place in February 2008 in Geneva,
during which five priority areas for joint action were agreed1. Progress has been made on these areas for joint
action since 2009 including the development of the revised PCA which creates an opportunity to move
towards more strategic partnership agreements, regular informal consultations with partners including
engagement of key NGO partners in the Core Commitments for Children (CCC) revision process, and the
inclusion of the Principles of Partnership (PoP) within key UNICEF frameworks and management tools (such
as the revised CCCs, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Training Package, the Global Partnership
Framework, and the Programme Policy and Procedures Manual). The PoP will also be addressed in the new
UNICEF management system (VISION) where they are included as key performance indicators at Country
Office level.
The organisation has also adopted a new strategic framework for civil society partnerships in general which
was approved by the Board in June 2009. An ‘Agenda for Action’ was outlined and 6 key actions were
identified to start implementing this new global partnership framework.
Also, in 2009, UNICEF undertook a review of their partnership with NGOs in humanitarian action2. The
review included interviews with 40 people from NGOs and UNICEF and found that despite good progress
towards a more collaborative approach there were still some issues to be resolved and that many of these
related to further developments in business process. Together with this furthering of business process, the
review reiterated the need for ongoing strategic dialogue to ground partnerships in programme reality and
identify mechanisms for resolving problems. The majority of NGOs interviewed during the course of the
review requested a consultation similar to that undertaken in 2008.
The December 2010 consultation was attended by seventy four senior staff – thirty eight from NGO and other
humanitarian stakeholders (e.g. UN, Red Cross family), and thirty three from UNICEF (including senior staff
from HQs, RO and CO levels) The consultation was held at the end of 2010, a year, where UNICEF and
NGO partners, in common with the rest of the humanitarian world, had been challenged to respond to
extremely large scale emergencies (Haiti and Pakistan) as well as sustaining capacity and response elsewhere.
In recognition of this, an external speaker from the Overseas Development Institute was invited to challenge
the consultation participants by posing questions related to the trends and challenges that face the
humanitarian sector which may force new ways of working and collaboration.
Background Notes
Background notes for each session were prepared by UNICEF and NGO representatives and were distributed
in advance of the consultation. Each paper included background and critical issues relevant to the session,
recommended next steps and key questions to drive the discussions.
These are listed here and are annexed to this report:
1
1. Revision of the PCA. 2. Enhance consultation on humanitarian policy, including the revised CCCs.
3. Building NGO capacity in Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR). 4. Enhanced communication in emergencies. 5. Development of a global
partnership framework.
2
‘Enhancing the dialogue between UNICEF and non-governmental organisations in humanitarian action. 2009 UNICEF-NGO partnership review in
humanitarian action.’ Sida, L, UNICEF, 2009.
7






Guiding questions on humanitarian trends and implications for partnership
UNICEF partnership case studies from Somalia, Haiti, and Pakistan
ICVA's paper on opportunities and challenges for national capacity development
Findings from UNICEF's survey on the revised PCA
Collected findings on the revised PCA from InterAction, Oxfam, and NRC
Discussion paper on potential global agreements with UNICEF
The dialogue sparked by these background papers is represented in this report together with agreements made,
unresolved issues, and areas of recommended identified action.
Objectives of the Consultation
The consultation held in Geneva on 13 and 14 December 2010 was designed to ensure that the momentum
towards increasingly meaningful partnerships between UNICEF and NGOs continued, and was sustained, in
emergency response.
The overall aim of the consultation was to improve the way UNICEF and NGO partners work together to
realize children’s rights in humanitarian action, and to help achieve more broadly children’s rights linked to
the MDGs. More specifically, the objectives were to:
 Take stock of existing collaboration between UNICEF and NGOs in humanitarian action at all levels
 Review of changes in humanitarian policy and practice since the 2008 Consultation
 Identify areas for strategic collaboration and improved operational outcomes
 Find concrete ways to improve the work together in humanitarian action
The consultation was prepared together with key NGO partners and in close collaboration with UNICEF
stakeholders to strengthen joint ownership of outcomes and recommendations. The discussion themes that
they agreed were as follows:
 Future of humanitarian assistance and reform projects including shared accountability within clusters and
across membership.
 Revised CCCs, joint mechanisms for implementation and performance monitoring, and capacity
development of, and with, NGO partners in national contexts.
 Operational discussions including a review of partnership forms including the stand-by partnership, the
PCA revision and rollout, and updates on internal processes leading towards NGO global agreements).
Follow Up
During the consultation, participants reviewed existing collaboration at both HQ and field levels, considered
areas for strategic partnership, and identified priorities. Following agreement of this summary report of the
consultation, a joint action plan with allocation of responsibilities will be prepared and submitted to UNICEF
senior management.
Expectations Expressed by Participants
Participants were encouraged to write down their expectations and concerns with regard to the consultation
meeting during the initial morning. These expectations and concerns were used by the facilitators to shape the
remainder of the programme.
8
Participants strongly expressed a hope that the consultation could focus on partnerships at the field level and
lead to a better understanding of complementarities and the necessary flexibility to suit different contexts.
There were repeated calls for the meeting to:
 develop constructive and actionable recommendations for follow up and for these recommendations to be
limited in number and hence extremely focused and concrete.
 lead to an enhanced efficiency of response
 provide a foundation for regular strategic dialogue between UNICEF and the NGO community.
A challenge for those facilitating the meeting was that approximately fifty percent of the concerns were that
the discussion would not be concrete enough while others worried that the discussion could be too general to
allow for clear, actionable recommendations.
Expected outcomes of the consultation
 A joint practical and results-based Plan of Action, with a clear timeframe and allocation of responsibilities
 Commitment to mutual dialogue and consistent engagement between UNICEF and NGOs for improved
humanitarian action and resolve the constraints that hinder this
 Effective process in place by which UNICEF and NGO partners can get to know each other better,
understand each others’ strategies, approaches, systems and procedures in emergencies
Introduction
Introductory remarks by both UNICEF Louis-Georges Arsenault and Manisha Thomas, NGO representative
from ICVA, agreed that the focus, both in the consultation and afterwards, needed to be on putting partnership
into practice at field level.
The focus at field level should be maintained by ensuring that the partnerships were strategic and prioritised
collective working even when there was no direct transfer of resources involved. The consultation would offer
opportunities to discuss ways of working and lessons learnt in collective working.
At the same time, it was recognised that processes need to be rolled out consistently at field level and that the
flexibility of UNICEF guidelines needed to be well understood in order to allow the space on both the
UNICEF and NGO sides to allow this strategic work to take place. A frank discussion of some of the
challenges, in the spirit of partnership, would allow priorities to be set and actions to be agreed.
Question and Answer Session with UNICEF Senior Management
The UNICEF Deputy Executive Director, Hilde Johnson, joined the meeting by video on Day 1 and was able
to address a number of key issues and questions posed by participants. A strong message was conveyed that
UNICEF intends to continue to make the necessary adjustments and changes to ensure partnerships can
deliver at field level and particularly in humanitarian action.
Hilde Johnson emphasised, in particular, the importance placed by UNICEF Senior Management on the
dependency upon partners to meet the revised Core Commitments to Children (CCCs), and the need for:
 additional clarity on clusters and the role of cluster partners and how UNICEF intended to push for this at
IASC level,
 stronger Humanitarian Country Teams,
9
 the intention of UNICEF to work with prospective global partners to define priorities for the global
agreements,
 and to receive clear feedback from partners on how the revised PCA guidelines are implemented at
country level.
Trends impacting on humanitarian action and partnership
The initial session on current and future trends in humanitarian assistance and partnerships was intended to
map out the state of the official system and pose questions with regard to adaptation and partnership in order
to ensure a more effective official response system.
The speaker, James Darcy of the Overseas Development Institute, indicated that the sector already knows a
great deal about the clear trends in natural disasters and are able to make predictions about short- to mediumterm food insecurity, conflict, pressurised migration, urban disasters, and population increase. The relevant
question for the consultation is whether the current official system has the capacity to respond to these trends.
The experience of 2010 which includes the responses to Haiti and Pakistan suggests that the official system is
struggling. It is important to question to what extent the role of the international system is correctly
represented in response. In a rapid onset emergency the majority of people who die do so immediately and the
value added of the official system is in providing support to survivors and perhaps in recovery. An increased
focus on prevention by official actors needs to be more of an imperative.
The current official response system was illustrated by use of the diagram below where the box represents the
official existing system while the circle represents the crisis context and the different actors therein. While this
is helpful in understanding the flow of official aid flows (now increasingly coming to NGOs via the UN), it
tells us little about the flow of unofficial aid (especially that which comes via the diaspora), or about the role
played by militaries, corporates, and others. Partnerships will need to take account of the role played by other
actors in order to ensure that they
continue to be relevant in
individual responses.
Relations between system and non-system actors
While trends in conflict are more
difficult to determine, trends in
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN
donor focus are clearer and
CRISIS CONTEXTS
‘SYSTEM’
demonstrate a fairly clear
Finance
Implementation
STATE
correlation
between
security
National & lo cal
government
International
UN
agendas
and
funding
priorities.
+
agents
donor
agencies
governments
This is also related to the
(humanitarian
ODA)
Crisis-affected
Red Cross/
Millennium Development Goals
communities
Common
Crescent
Funds
Movement
(MDGs) and a failure by fragile
Private
Non-state actors
individuals
states to meet these Goals. The
International
- Civil society: NGOs et c
NGOs
-- Other
Corporate etc
reality, illustrated by the graph
below, is that the 70-80% of
official humanitarian assistance is
spent on protracted crisis which,
in turn, means an operational
commitment by the UN agencies, Red Cross/Crescent Movement, and NGOs to these contexts. This
commitment has evident implications on the official system and the ability to then respond effectively in the
more traditional first phase emergency response. If the donor emphasis on stabilisation continues, then how
10
can additional capacity be built and retained either within the official system or in coordination with the
official system?
The increasing donor focus on accountability was also noted and questions posed about what is realistic to
expect in certain contexts. The issue of risk transfer by donors to operational agencies, institutionalised
through such mechanisms as pooled funding, may conflict with calls for more innovative approaches to be
developed and utilised.
Indications are that the system (in some contexts) will become more demand driven through an enhanced role
being played by affected State. Dependant on the conditions established by affected States and by new donors
bypassing the official system, agencies may feel increased pressure to demonstrate comparative advantage
individually and collectively. This may require new discussion and partnerships with States on a case by case
basis and thereby will give a new impetus to the ongoing dialogue about the PoP. Agencies will need to think
more broadly and to focus on collective reforms and upon delivery. In effect, partnership will become a
necessary precondition to effective response.
To date, the reform agenda has been about enhancing the status quo. The new drivers may demand a more
radical view of the system and a wider approach to partnership. There are policies, tools and coordination
systems set (for clusters or agency specific responses), but no agency, not even the collective UN agencies
together/UNICEF, can respond to increasingly complex emergencies, with scale, scope and frequency of
response needed.
What will be required is an understanding of larger drivers and implications for re-modelling humanitarian
action and partnerships. Meaningful partnership requires true shift in attitudes, practices, expectations and
shared commitments to results both from the UN (ie UNICEF) and the non UN (ie NGOs).
Participants broadly accepted the points made and agreed that new donors (such as China) will back affected
States thereby ensuring a new dynamic in the dialogue with the official system. This will require agencies
(and official donors) to work together more effectively including in preparedness and advocacy. What are the
implications for impartial delivery of assistance in such contexts, particularly when the affected State is a
11
strong state? How can tools such as International Disaster Response Law (IDRL) be used more effectively to
put in place working level agreements with States?
Participants also agreed that recent emergencies (such as the Pakistan floods of 2010) demonstrated that,
collectively, the capacity available had been well below that required. Is the answer an increase of capacity in
the official system – are agencies now too quick to take the role of first responder? To what extent are
organisations driven to do this through engagement with the media? Can common positions be defined and
held through partnership?
The following questions were posed by the keynote speaker to shape the remainder of the consultation:
1. Has the capacity of the international humanitarian system as currently constituted already been exceeded by
the scale and nature of needs? If not yet, will it soon be? If the answer is yes, should the humanitarian system:
(i) Seek to expand its capacity to fill the vacuum? Would this result in new agencies, new skills, bigger
agencies, or increased levels of contracting out?
(ii) Look to increase efficiency within the system through more effective inter-agency collaboration and
partnerships while considering whether collaboration & partnership actually increase or instead diminish
efficiency?
(iii) Build new alliances and partnerships beyond the specialised humanitarian sector with, say, the
commercial sector (international/local)? What would this be based on in terms of labour and skills and does
this mean that there are things the humanitarian agencies should stop doing and let others do?
2. Does the humanitarian sector need a fundamentally different kind of working relationship with host
governments, at least for natural disaster response and for preparedness/DRR? And if this is happening
anyway, how are organisations (collectively) trying to shape it?
What about our working relationships with local civil society? Do these need reshaping?
3. In the relationship between UN agencies and Red Cross/NGOs, are organisations playing to their respective
strengths? Are the roles complementary or are organisations getting in each other’s way? How would a
reallocation of roles answer questions of mandate, efficiency, legitimacy, credibility? Or is the bigger picture
being missed? Has current humanitarian reform run its course, and something bolder is needed?
4. How can Government, private sector and other capacity be utilised in a form that is supportive of traditional
partnerships?
Models of partnership to enhance humanitarian action
Dermot Carty, UNICEF EMOPS Deputy Director, introduced this session by presenting the background paper
based on recent experience in Pakistan and Aimee Ansari, Humanitarian Policy Officer of Oxfam
International, followed this by speaking on broader Oxfam experience of forming and maintaining
partnerships3.
3
UNICEF Haiti and Partners were invited to present in plenary however security issues in Haiti prevented them travelling. This necessitated the session
being revised. The background paper from Haiti is annexed to this report along with all the other background papers.
12
In Pakistan there had been a perception that the humanitarian system had failed to deliver. Yet, the WASH
cluster agencies have been delivering clean water to three million people per day and, more recently, to 4.5
million people per day. Now the WASH cluster is delivering clean water to more people than had access to it
before the floods began.
In UNICEF’s view, a clear need of partnership is for all partners to be aware of collective achievements and
work to describe these to all stakeholders and publicly. Expectations have not been managed well, different
actors and individuals have differing views on what might be expected of the clusters in terms of delivery.
This needs to be addressed. Experience suggests that currently cluster membership does not equate to
partnership and cluster members are not seen as stakeholders in the outcomes. From UNICEF’s perspective
this needs to evolve. There was a suggestion that membership of clusters needs to be formalised to ensure this
level of buy in.
UNICEF stated that partnership requires all actors to trust that the intent to move resources quickly in
emergencies exists and that capacity is mobilised as rapidly as resources allow. A challenge for the meeting
was to determine how organisations can truly establish this trust and ensure that predictability of response can
be managed. Currently in Pakistan, UNICEF is managing approximately 111 live agreements and it is not
possible to meet expectations of partnership for all of these.
There was then a focused discussion on the feasibility of NGOs organising themselves into consortia (as
funding umbrella organisations) or collectives. Different views were expressed as some NGOs were open to
the idea of participating in and leading consortia, while others maintained that it would be impossible to ask
one NGO to take on the risk of guaranteeing the accountability of others. The dilemma was frankly and
constructively discussed together with a clear articulation of the impossibility for UNICEF to continue to
manage individual partnerships at this scale. It was understood that this was an issue that underpinned many
other problems in terms of business management at field level, and that more discussion would be required to
move to a sense from UNICEF and NGO partners as to what might be possible.
During the debate there was a strongly articulated sense that true partnerships cannot be forged overnight and
that to make partnerships during a rapid onset emergency is challenging. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged
that, despite the challenges of operating in an emergency, the PoP should still apply albeit it adapted to the
need for speed of response. For example, the focus might be on results rather than on the alignment of
strategies.
It was frequently noted by participants that it is important to be transparent when the nature of the relationship
is a contracting one based on partner skills and the transfer of resources and that to be transparent about this
when it is the case is a more equal and respectful approach.
Oxfam noted that a partnership which is based on more than a contracting approach does demand trust which
needs to be built up over time, and will require such mechanisms as a common country strategy to be
discussed and agreed. It will likely require working together, or at least continuing to have dialogue, outside
of emergency responses. NGOs felt that there were lessons that they could bring to the table about how they
manage partnerships and build capacity in national NGOs. The Plenary agreed with this and felt that there
were such examples and that a process for sharing and building on these could be established.
There is a real need for all partners to understand the demands of partnership and understand clearly the
expectations of any contract. UNICEF and NGOS need to take equal responsibility for making the partnership
meaningful and sustaining the dialogue and both need to be flexible. There should be complementarity and
this complementarity should be clear to the partners.
13
During the debate it was mentioned that that for UNICEF, the purpose of partnership in humanitarian action is
multifaceted: to catalyse, mobilise and advocate (e.g. child trafficking, SCR 1612/1888, emergency
preparedness and contingency planning), to respond and deliver aid (e.g. revised CCCs-based interventions,
standby arrangements), to coordinate, to agree on norms and standards (e.g. cluster coordination; Sphere and
INEE), to increase reach and coverage (e.g. standby arrangements, capacity development of national partners),
to promote monitoring and reporting (e.g. revised CCCs performance monitoring framework), and to improve
intellectual exchange and knowledge (e.g. social cash transfers, ready-to-use therapeutic food).
A challenge clearly articulated was how to move the sense of partnership and the dialogue from the global
level to the country level. Organisations must find ways of ensuring that global agreements can be known and
be meaningful in terms of trust and relationships at the country level. Additionally an acceptable level of risk
management (for all partners) must be identified transparently which does not simply involve the transfer of
risk to NGOs.
The revised PCA needs to be communicated with realistic guidelines and senior management on all sides must
be involved. Currently the PCA is seen as a contractual mechanism as opposed to a partnership tool.
Partnership must be continuous with mutual investment in ensuring business as usual, and including
preparedness in this dialogue may help with this. There was a suggestion that two tiers of relationship could
be considered with UNICEF taking a global approach to the fifty or so NGO partners who could be
guaranteed to deliver in an emergency. This may require the establishment of a (UNICEF) management
information system to ensure that country offices could quickly access the information they needed about
UNICEF’s past and current relationship with a particular NGO globally. This could speed up the individual
risk management process.
Strategic partnerships where there may never be a transfer of resources were agreed to be important,
particularly with regard to preparedness and advocacy. However if the system is consumed by process this
will remain challenging and participants wondered if a global agreement would ensure more commitment and
give the NGO a tool to leverage engagement at the country office level. It was recognised that in some
contexts NGOs may not wish to have a formal partnership with the UN and that this should still be respected:
the lack of a formal agreement for collaboration does not prevent broader coordination, collaboration, and
partnership. Again, the establishment of global agreements may respect this and still give the relationship the
priority and time that it needed to ensure collective problem solving and planning.
The final consensus was that clarity on different models of partnership needs to be established and there needs
to be an understanding at country level that there is a menu of models of partnership from which to choose a
valid model. It may be simplest to distinguish between a collaborative model and one based more clearly on
an MOU and written agreement though both would need to exist under the values of the PoP.
UNICEF’s revised CCCs and humanitarian capacity development
The third revision of the CCCs was presented by Genevieve Boutin, Chief Humanitarian Policy in EMOPS, to
the Plenary. The CCCs have been revised with two major changes related to changes that have occurred in
the broader humanitarian context. First, the shift from humanitarian response to humanitarian action within
UNICEF. Second, the establishment of cluster responsibilities either as a lead agency or as a participating
member. The presentation demonstrated how the CCC benchmarks were aligned with global standards
including that of SPHERE and INEE and also focused on the explicit inclusion of the essential contribution of
partnership to ensuring effective and scaled delivery. UNICEF has made a number of commitments as part of
Humanitarian Reform, and the CCCs needed to be adjusted to reflect these in the core humanitarian policy.
14
The revised CCCs bring a stronger results focus to UNICEF humanitarian action for children, from a strategic
level of engagement with partners through to more specific actions that UNICEF will support directly. Each
sector contains specific strategic results, commitments, and benchmarks. It is explicitly recognised that the
ability to fulfil the CCS is tied to UNICEF’s ability to find and work with partners and to the ability of
partners to deliver on the ground.
The implications for country offices include: situation monitoring, advocacy, minimum preparedness, and to
build capacity in partners to address the CCCs. Dilemmas linked to this latter point include whether capacity
building of State institutions might affect (perceptions of) neutrality, how to know whether capacity building
is being undertaken for the right reasons or whether capacity building is being instrumentalised to transfer
risk, how to ensure that capacity building strategy is based upon transparent assessment and is collectively
agreed, and how to keep the capacity building processes simple and agile to support the response. The
principle of sustained support to capacity building over a period of time has been mainstreamed within the
CCCs.
The roll out of the new CCCs is not yet completed and this, coupled with the decentralised nature of UNICEF,
may prove frustrating for some partners. However many countries are already working with the revised CCCs
and Pakistan, for example, is reporting against the revised CCCs.
Capacity Development with and of National Partners
The session was informed by a background note prepared by Manisha Thomas, Policy Officer ICVA, which
discussed Local NGO/International NGO expectations of capacity development in humanitarian contexts,
capacity gaps and priorities, and the Global Humanitarian Platform’s review and discussions on new business
model of humanitarian action. UNICEF in the field, Hannan Sulieman, Deputy Representative in Somalia,
highlighted successes, challenges and activities in capacity development of national partners for improved
humanitarian response.
A presentation from Vladimir Hernandez, Director CFSI Philippines, began this session and described how
much of the capacity building on offer to national NGOs such as CFSI in the Philippines was project-centric
and functional. This could be beneficial to NGOs, for example, financial management review could be useful
if done in the right manner in terms of identifying areas of risk and improvement. However this would only be
the case if support was present to ensure that action was taken to mitigate the risk and to share the burden.
In general, a greater focus on policy development and advocacy in the Philippines would be beneficial. In
addition, preparation for representation at fora such as the UNCT or clusters is still needed to ensure to ensure
that the significant role played by national NGOs in response is recognised.
The downside to effective capacity building of national NGOs is that very often staff can then be lost to bigger
or international organisations – this be addressed through aligning capacity building and human resource
strategies. International organisations are often reluctant to highlight or profile the work of national NGOs in
fundraising or advocacy campaigns and yet providing these national NGOs with such platforms would be a
very effective form of capacity building – the question is whether international organisations are prepared to
stand back and offer this opportunity?
This presentation was enlarged upon by Manisha Thomas who maintained that few of the questions related to
NGO capacity building were new and related to the need to collectively assess the impact of capacity
development of NGO partners for emergency preparedness and response. This is especially important with
regard to national NGOs.
15
In the reorientation of international organisations from the delivery of aid to supporting the delivery of aid,
there is series of options on capacity building but there is also a need to adapt the approach to fit different
contexts. The theme of risk management was picked up again with a reiteration of the point that it is important
to ensure that international organisations are not simply passing on risk to international NGOs and from there
to national NGOs.
The challenge is how to make the restatement in the revised CCCS to capacity building translate to
programming. We should share mechanisms that have been effective in identifying opportunities to build
capacity and develop a clearer sense of what might this mean given the new emphasis that the sector is placing
upon preparedness.
Most challenging perhaps, in terms of the need of international organisations for profile, is an obligation to
ensure that the capacity built is at the forefront of a response. There may be implications for the commitment
to the responsibility of the affected State to lead the response which will need to be managed.
Finally, in a context where local actors are challenged to adhere to humanitarian principles, there may be
implications for capacity building.
The Plenary began with an agreement that many organisations make a verbal commitment to capacity building
but are not able to demonstrate that commitment. There was a suggestion that UNICEF and partners look at
mapping who is doing what at country level prior to the emergency in order to get a sense of strengths and
weaknesses. The suggestion that there might need to be internal advocacy with development colleagues and
with donors to promote the need for preparedness and capacity building was received more positively.
It was agreed that capacity building needs to have a longer term perspective and needs to be included in longer
term agreements when they are initiated at the country level. The building of INGO and national NGO
capacity need not be mutually exclusive.
Capability building must follow the needs and desires of the partners and therefore capacity assessments
should be done transparently and collectively. This also means recognising that national NGOs need the
financial resources even to engage in the process
One way to ensure that capacity building is not purely instrumental is by investing in staff with potential, and
ensuring that leadership training takes place. Then it is critical to plan to utilise this new capacity in response.
There is a risk that the focus is entirely on cluster countries and it is important to continue to support capacity
building in non cluster countries. At the same time it is essential to risk manage by working with Government
in cluster countries to ensure that they are involved in capacity building and that there is not tension as clusters
withdraw. Secondments in to Ministries should be considered as well as building on existing platforms and
activities.
Despite the richness of the discussion, the Plenary concluded that much of what had been offered was
comment rather than concrete recommendation. The critical question is to what extent capacity building can
be undertaken in the middle of a crisis and the majority feeling was that it was extremely challenging. The
solution was again seen to lie in preparedness and also integration within early recovery. The ethical dilemma
was centred upon effective risk management rather than simply risk transfer.
16
Standby Partnerships
The second day of the consultation opened with a presentation of different partnering models and operational
discussions. The first session featured Julien Temple, UNICEF EMOPS standby partnership manager, on
Standby Arrangements in order to outline the key lessons learnt and benefits derived from the partnership
model itself.
The original purpose of the Standby Arrangement is to maintain a pool of (pre-identified) operational
resources that can be rapidly deployed as a temporary gap filling measure to augment the capacity of a
country team in the immediate aftermath of the emergency. It is a complementary resource not a substitute for
UNICEF’s own resources.
The mechanism has been used for preparedness as well as for response. It has also been used to support the
cluster response. The partnership which has accompanied the deployment mechanism has, however, also
allowed for further leveraging of resources, efficiencies, and new collaboration.
In 2009, UNICEF undertook a review of the Standby Arrangements. This was due to: the growth in the
number of partners, the renewed emphasis on partnership within humanitarian reform and the cluster system,
and the new UNICEF Strategic Framework for Partnerships and Collaborative resources. It was not an
evaluation of deployment effectiveness but was intended, rather, to provide an assessment of the eighteen
partnerships which comprise the standby arrangements and how a shared strategic vision could be developed
for 2011-2015.
For the purposes of the consultation the two most important findings were as follows:
That the attributes which were purposefully built into the partnerships (and contributed to success) were: cost
effective, quick, flexible, predictable, built on partners’ strengths and their comparative advantage.
A second set of attributes recognised by the review were not necessarily in the original design of the Standby
Arrangements but have developed over time. They include the fact that though the Standby Arrangement is a
pragmatic tool, it goes beyond surge capacity and the partnerships which have developed within the group
have allowed for more innovation as well as collaboration in other areas. It appears that the Standby
Arrangement provided a vehicle for partners’ broader collaboration, strategic alliance, common practice,
development of shared standards, and good modeling of principled partnership.
Currently the Standby Arrangement is a unique model for partnership within UNICEF, was developed
together within partners, has very clear conditions
for secondment, and is based very clearly upon
Relationship Spectrum
common objectives (all these were mentioned by
many on Day 1 of the consultation as necessary
preconditions for effective partnership working).
TRANSFORMATIONAL
TRANSACTIONAL
o One party decides
o Co-generation of programme
Most of the Standby partners expressed an interest
o One party purchases (or donates) o Partners bring together a range of
a specific resource
complementary resources and
in enhancing the partnership towards a more
o Inflexible expectations and
competencies
contract with clear deliverables
o Ongoing discussions with organic
strategic or “transformational” approach. There is
decided at beginning
deliverables adapted to local, changing
o Limited interest or buy-in from
realities or unexpected events
already an annual consultation with Standby
partners beyond the contractual
o Transparency essential
agreement
o Risk and reward shared
partners which is made more productive by the
o Transparency not necessary
o Equity core to vision
o Risk and reward individually
intimate knowledge that the partners have of
mitigated
o Relationship must fulfil
UNICEF.
contractual obligation; equity not
needed
The following diagram was used by the team
conducting the Standby Arrangements review and
17
summarises neatly the spectrum of partnership that is under consideration.
The Standby Arrangement was briefly discussed by the Plenary who concluded that there was a sense that this
was one of the best models currently available to partners who could afford to participate. Mobility was
thought to be the key to the success of this arrangement and therefore partners needed to be contracted based
on their capacity to respond flexibly. It has been found to offer opportunities to donors who wish to contribute
but have some timing and other constraints and it also offers donors the opportunity to contribute to
preparedness activity.
Following the presentation, participants had a better understanding of UNICEF’s stand-by arrangement as a
highly effective global system complementing UNICEF staffing in emergencies. In addition, participants
also understood how UNICEF and NGO stand-by partners sustained a partnership consultation process to
better assess the results of engagement in partnerships and collaborative relationships, and if necessary, to
address outstanding stand-by partnership issues more consistently.
There is some desire to see scale up of this model but also concerns around the flexibility. Some of the
Standby Agreements are not active and there is a need to understand whether the capacity of partners was
correctly assessed in the first place and whether the objectives of the partner continue to match those of
UNICEF.
The Revised PCA
The revised PCA, effective as of 1 January 2010, was presented to the Plenary by Richard Morgan, Director
of UNICEF Division of Policy and Practice, in order to underline the strategic shift towards more strategic
partnership away from a simple service delivery or transactional relationship.
During this session, participants were made aware of the key changes in the revised PCA guidelines, roll-out
plan initiatives taken to date, and what will be the next steps to ensure adequate implementation of the revised
PCA and adherence across UNICEF and partners, particularly in humanitarian contexts.
The aim of the revised PCA is to determine and to achieve shared results from partnership. Also included in
the new PCA is the concept of capacity building particularly for national NGOs.
While there is a new PCA review process at country level, taking this out of the contract review committee,
the remainder of the key changes are in the categories of funding. UNICEF financial rules are still utilised, as
is the Harmonised Approach to Cash Transfer (HACT), and the regulations on cash advances and liquidation
within six months remain constant.
Roll out of the revised PCA to Country Offices is underway using various means and technology. Two
surveys of the revised PCA were then presented to the summary. The first was of 13 UNICEF Country Offices
by telephone while the second survey was presented by Jason Phillips, Deputy Director, IRC on behalf of
Inter Action members, IRC, NRC and Oxfam GB. Background papers presenting both surveys can be found in
the annexes of this report.
UNICEF Country Offices were very positive in development contexts though less so in emergency settings
where they said that they were not sufficiently prepared in terms of vetting partners. Some offices felt that
they had had difficulty in terms of preparing costs. It was noted that some field and sub-offices had given
authority to Country Offices to approve some PCAs and also that there needed to be a broader awareness of
the six month liquidation period.
18
The NGO findings began by acknowledging progress and noted that as the PCA involved many people in
many departments of UNICEF and partners (including finance and compliance) it was a good vehicle to
mainstream the concept of partnership throughout organisations. The NGO survey suggested that great
progress had been made in some areas, including that of indirect costs which had previously been the greatest
source of contention, and furthermore that it was a positive sign that there was no longer a barrier to longer
term relationships.
This latter presentation highlighted that the key issue of contention now was about the functionality (rather
than the concept) of the PCAs – in other words that there continue to be significant delays in some countries
to agreement of PCAs and to the transfer of funds, and the new PCA is not being used in the majority of
humanitarian contexts.. Typically, when the proposal is submitted, there are lengthy negotiations, including on
issues that have been resolved in the new PCA, and a way must be found in emergency contexts to move
beyond this. In conclusion, the NGO survey found that more needed to be done to educate on this way of
working.
As the discussion moved to Plenary, focus was on this last point regarding the length of time required to
process PCAs and transfer funds. UNICEF made the point that in Pakistan there are currently 111 PCA
agreements and in Zimbabwe there are 182 PCA partners in Child Protection alone. UNICEF then reiterated
the point that, for them, it will be necessary to find a way to more effectively manage this number of partners
at a local level or it will not be possible to make progress on all the other issues that have been identified. As
many of the PCAs entail relationships with local organisations there is a strong (and time consuming) capacity
building role. UNICEF will need to return to the investigation of the feasibility of umbrella roles for larger
NGOs and will look for partners to work with them on this. The Country Representative (CR) informed the
meeting that in Somalia the office was hiring someone to process and manage PCAs for the office. This is
another possible solution.
The Plenary agreed that more roll out of the revised PCA at Country Office level would be desirable. It would
also be necessary for existing partners to be regularly updated on the process (due to staff turnover). It was
proposed that regular partnership meetings should take place between UNICEF and those funded through
PCAs at country level.
Following group work, the Plenary concluded that there is a need to gather practice on how the PCA can be
facilitated in emergencies and questioned whether the available flexibilities are known and trusted at Country
Office (Rep and Programme Officer level). It was agreed that the issue of umbrella PCAs should be examined
as should the possibility of multi-sectoral PCAs.
Based on feedback from participants (UNICEF and NGO partners), key and joint actions were identified to
further disseminate the revised PCA guidelines both internally and externally, and what specific areas of the
revised guidelines would require clarification and additional guidance
It was felt that preparedness planning with partners to outline potential roles and PCAs could be helpful in
speeding the process and that standby arrangements (as already used in Ethiopia) could streamline the process
once initial approval is given. These examples should be collected, shared and mainstreamed.
The Plenary felt that it was good to have a focal point at country level to deal with PCAs and that it would be
excellent to have a tool box of good PCAS that have worked by sector, and by partner, to act as templates for
the Country Office in order to give confidence and speed decision making.
There was also a series of suggestions for more strategic approaches to the problem: for larger INGOS to be
vetted at the corporate level rather than at country level to acquire a global prequalification, utilise a
19
contracted help desk following the ECHO example, publicise the website/global helpdesk4, better knowledge
management and sharing of good practice, standard procedures in the PCA to be better utilised, standard
templates, joint risk and capacity assessments, development of annual workplans and proposals, joint
contingency planning with an emphasis on preparedness where the main partners would be pre-identified, and
finally again the suggestion of consortia.
The latter was greeted cautiously by the NGOs (despite the fact that it is already happening in many countries)
who felt that the emphasis for now should remain on UNCEF as the problem identified related to PCA
implementation. It was also mentioned that umbrella grants imply a transfer of transaction costs which has to
be offset.
The discussion was concluded by agreeing that the trend was towards streamlining and good practice and that
more could be done to more effectively promote what is already in place (for example there are already multisectoral PCAs) while information is collected and KM examples are created. To be effective in an emergency
context tools need to be put in place to ensure planning and pre-screening.
Global Partnership Agreements
The consultation was also an opportunity to update on UNICEF progress made on the proposed global PCA
agreements and to solicit feedback from NGOs on the goals and objectives for global agreements, as per the
commitment expressed in the revised PCA Guidelines (2009). A presentation was delivered by Kate Rogers
and Liza Barrie of the UNICEF Programme Division, and a debate on the proposed global PCA agreements
followed.
UNICEF has not yet defined the structure or content of Global PCA Agreements. They will not be a panacea
however they will be based on the following Guiding Principles:
 Enhance the quality of civil society partnerships
 Respect UNICEF’s existing hierarchy of accountabilities
 Build on existing precedents across the UN system.
A survey of mechanisms used by other UN agencies has been undertaken and lessons include:
 that it is important to respect the existing hierarchy and accountability framework which state the Country
Representatives are responsible for country level partnership,
 that awareness had to be paid to potential complications resulting from the decentralisation and/or global
networks of NGOS to understand where responsibility for agreements might sit within the hierarchy (in other
words to be certain that a headquarters always has the entitlement to make commitments on behalf of
members or decentralised offices),
 that the current basic cooperation agreements between UNICEF and Governments does not mention
NGOs and that this may need to be addressed.
Examples of the modalities include:
 Prequalification system
 Institutional contracts
 Long-term agreements
 Fast-track policies and procedures
 Letter of intent.
4
Currently assistance can be sought by emailing pcaguidance@unicef.org.
20
In early 2011 the Office of the Executive Director will convene UNICEF Directors to discuss feedback from
the humanitarian consultation, the PCA’s performance, and possible modalities for global agreements and
UNICEF will convene a small group of NGO partners to discuss recommendations for global agreements.
UNICEF intends to reach on internal agreement on the purpose and scope of global agreements by June 2011.
In Plenary, NGOs fed back on their expectations of a global agreement citing as important that it would speed
up current process for approvals and transfer of resources. The benefit should be in formalising good
intentions and conveying the message on partnership within organisations thereby expediting process. In cases
such as Haiti, UNICEF and global NGOs should have a global arrangement which allows them to operate on a
one pager at the outset of a response if the parameters are discussed in advance.
Identified Opportunities and Recommendations for Follow Up Actions
The afternoon of Day 2 was devoted to the discussion of opportunities that had been identified in Plenary and
the development of concrete follow up actions. Following the original agenda, participants worked in three
groups and then brought their recommendations back to Plenary. Building on the information generated so far
this session was designed to:
1) recommend a list of joint actions which could be implemented in the short term which would bring quick
wins to our humanitarian partnerships, particularly at the field level and
2) continue the development of the key elements of a UNICEF-NGO partnership strategy in emergencies with
a longer term focus on upstream and humanitarian policy issues.
The Plenary collectively agreed on the most effective approach for developing the follow-up action plan.
Participants prioritised what they believed to be key, joint and doable/feasible follow-up actions to inform the
2011 joint Plan of Action.
These are as follows:
Key result area 1: Key changes required to enhance UNICEF-NGO partnership models in
humanitarian action are identified and implemented jointly, to be more prepared and responsive
UNICEF/NGO partnership toolkit in emergencies
 Develop UNICEF-NGO handbook and/or partnership toolkit in humanitarian action focusing on quality of
humanitarian partnership, UNICEF/NGO roles and responsibilities including
o streamlined processes and procedures in emergencies (PCA options, best practices, etc)
o ensure that the PoP are included in emergency preparedness planning
 Develop light framework/tool to monitor partnership performance, to measure the effectiveness of
UNICEF/NGO partnerships in emergencies
Principles of Partnership into practice
 Operationalize the POP in preparedness plans and identify 3 countries to apply lessons learnt (GHP 6 case
studies with 3 countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines)
 Raise awareness of PoP across UNICEF/NGO senior management, ensure inclusion in accountabilities
frameworks, JDs and performance appraisals
Clusters and NGO partnerships
 Clarify the Cluster Approach and update Guidance notes across all Clusters (including UNICEF) in
addition to advocacy initiatives to the IASC Principals
21

o
o
o
Sustain NGO strategic and operational engagements in the Cluster Approach in order to
agree on collective responsibility for gaps and capacity to respond and fix problems
use systematically Clusters to effectively screen incoming NGOs in the field
collect good practices on performance of cluster coordinators and members
Enhance humanitarian partnership knowledge management
 Collect best partnership practices in emergencies and disseminate across UNICEF and NGO
 Establish e-portal to allow NGO and UNICEF partners to access key partnership documents
 Develop NGO database at sectoral level including organizational assessments (what works well, what
does not work so well)
Key result area 2: Capacity development is jointly initiated to strengthen revised CCC-based
emergency preparedness and response at national level
Joint capacity development strategy
 Develop rapid UNICEF/NGO capacity development toolkit including gap analysis
o to help identify new partners in large scale emergencies including local NGOs
o enhance national NGO consortia capacity in coordination both at national and sub-national levels
 Promote UNICEF preparedness activities, contingency planning and joint inter-agency emergency
response training
o to develop partnerships in advance and build in flexibility
o to enhance predictable response and streamline contract agreement processes.
 Sustain capacity building efforts at the national level after initial emergency response a and ensure
stronger engagement in DRR
Revised CCCs
 Create a reference group to discuss how NGOs and UNICEF can roll out the revised CCCs for more
systematic strategic engagement together and identify additional partnership opportunities
o To identify a small number of countries (e.g. South Sudan, Somalia) to engage on CCC roll-out, including
capacity development analysis, and performance monitoring
o To develop joint UNICEF/NGO country specific humanitarian advocacy strategy (e.g. in South Sudan,
Somalia)
Result area 3: Specific areas of the revised PCA guidelines which require clarification are identified and
key actions implemented to further disseminate and streamline in emergencies
Develop a PCA toolkit and/or handbook (see also result area 1)
 UNICEF to develop a handbook/toolkit which should include sections on pre-screening, contingency
planning and clarification on the use and implications of HACT
 UNICEF to develop common templates and encourage staff to utilise these.
Enhance knowledge management on revised PCA guidelines
 Update the FAQs on the revised PCA guidelines and disseminate across UNICEF and NGO
 Clarify with UNICEF Legal Office whether the revised PCA guidelines can be shared with NGO partners
to maximise the revised PCA roll out in 2011.
 Establish a website to include collection of best practices, monitoring of the rollout, interpretation of the
revised guidelines, clarification of what is allowable with regard to procurement guidelines
22
Train UNICEF staff and partners
 Identify critical countries (including emergency countries) for the revised PCA extended roll out
 Initiate training on the PCA to ensure a common understanding across UNICEF staff and NGO
 Invite NGO partners to participate in the revised PCA training.
Result area 4: NGO global agreements are explored and joint opportunities and risks identified and
next steps implemented up to June 2010
 Inform NGO partners of the outcome of the UNICEF discussion on Global Agreements including joint
commitment to respond in emergencies
 Clarify what global partnership agreements mean in terms of selection criteria, qualification, sectors,
clusters, requirements including risk management
Result Area 5: Communication is sustained to engage key humanitarian NGOs as strategic partners for
UNICEF in humanitarian action
 Establish regular global consultations on humanitarian action with UNICEF/NGO senior management
participation (on a predictable schedule).
 Establish partnership consultation/feedback mechanisms in the field (including regional levels) to
maintain communications, develop joint programme strategies and fix problems as they arise
Closing Discussions
The meeting was closed by Louis-Georges Arsenault from UNICEF and Ed Schenkenberg of ICVA who
remarked on the growing sense of commitment, communicated by those in the meeting, that an investment
into sustaining partnerships and relationships would contribute to improved humanitarian response. LouisGeorges Arsenault stressed the huge commitment to this that existed at the UNICEF Senior Management level
and also UNICEF’s desire to continue to learn and to partner effectively with NGO in emergency
preparedness and response.
Louis-Georges Arsenault noted that out of the consultation had come two very strong themes. First of all that
it was important for all partners to ensure a comprehensive mindset change within their organisations in order
to engage with more purpose, and secondly that organisations need to better operationalise the partnership
framework in emergencies.
The consultation had reinvigorated the sense that capacity development needed to be on the agenda of every
agency when working at the national level. This now has a new urgency given the need for improved
humanitarian response on the ground and stronger action for climate change adaptation and disaster risk
reduction. New and more varied operational partners need to be engaged especially around preparedness and
contingency planning.
While UNICEF - like all large organisations - faces challenges in moving system changes forward, it is
committed to progress on the joint actions identified. Next steps will be:
23
a) A rapid circulation of the outcome report before Christmas 2010 so that the implementation plan can be
agreed early in 2011.
b) Validate the critical actions that will be implemented by UNICEF and those undertaken jointly with NGO
partners.
c) Invite NGO partners including NGO consortia to join and support implementation of the actions.
Evaluation of the Consultation
Participants were invited to complete an evaluation form. Twenty one completed forms were received. Of
these, nineteen agreed5 that the workshop objectives were adequately covered while eighteen agreed the
content was what was needed as a first step to enhancing dialogue. Thirteen agreed that the workshop met
their own objectives while no participant felt that their own objectives (personal or organisational had not
been met).
Participants overwhelmingly (eighteen) felt that the workshop was the correct length with just enough
participants. Eighteen participants agreed that the programme was well paced with nineteen participants
finding the background materials useful.
Recommendations offered by participants with regard to future consultations included the need for such
UNICEF/NGO consultation should be organised every 18 months / annually, to ensure more UNICEF field
level presence and invite more national organizations, to discuss operational matters in the field particularly
during rapid onset emergencies. Finally, UNICEF/NGO background papers should include country level
experience working in clusters.
5
Note that for the purposes of this summary ‘Agree’ means both ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. The full analysis can be seen in Annex 3.
24
Annex 1: UNICEF consultation with NGO partners in humanitarian action, 13-14 December 2010
AGENDA
Day 1: 13 DECEMBER
Time
08:30-09:00
Topic
Presenters
Registration at CCV and morning coffee
Introduction and welcoming participants
Opening remarks
09:00-09:30
Louis-Georges Arsenault, UNICEF
Manisha Thomas, ICVA
Christine Knudsen, UNICEF EMOPS
Review of Agenda
Linda Doull, Merlin
Discussion theme: Humanitarian Policy Development
Current and future trends in humanitarian assistance and partnerships
09:30-10:30
10:30-10:45
Discussion of drivers of evolving humanitarian contexts and implications for
humanitarian action and partnerships; opportunities and challenges
Coffee break
UNICEF-NGO partnership models and humanitarian assistance
10:45-13:00
James Darcy, ODI / HPG
Key lessons learnt from the field and key changes required to enhance UNICEF/NGO
partnership models
13:00-14:00
Lunch break
14:00-14:30
UNICEF-NGO partnership models and humanitarian assistance (contd)
Dermot Carty, UNICEF EMOPS
Aimee Ansari, OXFAM GB
Rapporteurs from group works
Discussion theme: Strategic partnership in humanitarian action
UNICEF’s revised CCCs and humanitarian capacity development
Opportunities and challenges in revised CCCs framework and what approach to
national capacity development
Genevieve Boutin, UNICEF EMOPS
14:30-16:00
Opportunities and challenges in NGO capacity development
NGO expectations and key obstacles to address for more meaningful capacity
development at the national level
Manisha Thomas, ICVA
Vladimir Hernandez, CFSI
16:00-16:15
Coffee break
16:15-17:15
Open discussion forum with UNICEF Deputy Executive Director
Hilde F. Johnson, UNICEF
17:15-17:45
Opportunities and challenges in NGO capacity development (contd)
Rapporteurs from group works
17:45-18:00
Conclusion of Day 1
Louis-Georges Arsenault, UNICEF
18:00-19:00
Cocktail at CCV
Day 2: 14 DECEMBER
Time
08:30-09:00
Topic
Presenters
Morning coffee at CCV
Discussion theme: Operational partnership in humanitarian action
Lessons learnt on operational partnership practices from surge capacity
09:00-09:30
Julien Temple, UNICEF EMOPS
Key lessons learnt and best operational practices from the standby partnership model
Update on the revised PCA and next steps
Richard Morgan, UNICEF DPP
Progress made since 2008, opportunities and challenges, next steps
Jason Phillips, IRC
09:30-10:30
10:30-10:45
Coffee break
10:45-11:30
Update on the revised PCA and next steps (contd)
Rapporteurs from group works
Exploring future opportunities on NGO partnership agreements
11:30-12:30
Liza Barrie, UNICEF PD
Update on UNICEF’s survey on global partnership agreements and next steps
12:30-14:00
Lunch break
Ways forward to strengthen partnership between UNICEF and NGO partners in humanitarian action
Joint opportunities and recommended follow-up actions
14:00-15:30
Next steps and working towards a strategic partnership approach
15:30-16:00
Closing statements
Louis-Georges Arsenault, UNICEF Ed
Schenkenberg, ICVA
Annex 2: Consultation between UNICEF and Humanitarian NGOs, 13-14 December 2010, Geneva, Switzerland
List of Participants
Name
Firstname
Title
Office
Emails
NGOs
Mr
Gonnet
Thomas
Operations Director
Action contre la Faim
tgonnet@actioncontrelafaim.org
Ms
Israel
Anne-Dominique
Senior Nutrition Adviser
Action contre la Faim
adisrael@actioncontrelafaim.org
Mr
Ali Gardo
Ismael
Director
APDA, Ethiopia
cf ICVA
Mr
Baker
Jock
Programme Quality & Accountability Coordinator
Care International
baker@careinternational.org
Ms
Bell
Jacqueline
Technical Advisor, Training Partnership for IAWG on RH in Crises
Care International
jbell@careinternational.org
Mr
Hernandez
Vladimir
Director for Philippine Programme
CFSI, Philippines
cf ICVA
Ms
Starup
Kathrine
Senior Protection Advisor
DRC
kathrine.starup@drc.dk
Mr
Schenkenberg
Ed
Coordinator
ICVA
ed.schenkenberg@icva.ch
Ms
Thomas
Manisha
Policy Officer
ICVA
manisha@icva.ch
Mr
Charny
Joel
Vice President for Policy
InterAction
jcharny@interaction.org
Ms
Pack
Mary
Vice President of Domestic and International Affairs
International Medical Corps
mpack@imcworldwide.org
Mr
Phillips
Jason
Deputy Vice President, Field Operations
IRC
jason.phillips@theirc.org
Ms
Doull
Linda
Director, Health & Policy
Merlin
doull@merlin.org.uk
Ms
Beytout
Coline
Advocacy and Humanitarian Officer
MSF International
Coline.BEYTOUT@geneva.msf.org
Ms
Vasset
Magnhild
Deputy Director, International Programme Department
NRC
Magnhild.Vasset@nrc.no
Ms
Solheim Nordbeck
Heidi
Institutional Donor Adviser
NRC
Heidi.SolheimNordbeck@nrc.no
Ms
Spence
Arnhild
Resident Representative
NRC Geneva
arnhild.spence@nrc.ch
Ms
Williams
Tess
Humanitarian Funding Coordinator & UN Donor lead
Oxfam GB
TWilliams@oxfam.org.uk
Ms
Ansari
Aimée
Humanitarian Policy Advisor
Oxfam International
aimee.ansari@oxfaminternational.org
Mr
Owen
Gareth
Emergency Director
Save the Children UK
g.owen@savethechildren.org.uk
Ms
Buswell
Misty
Senior Advocacy Advisor, Deputy Head of Office
Save the Children Geneva
misty@savethechildren.ch
Mr
Hofmann
Charles-Antoine
Executive Secretary
SCHR
ca.hofmann@ifrc.org
Mr
Leblanc
Jean Marc
Wash Advisor
Solidarités
JmLeblanc@solidarites.org
Ms
Rakotomalala
Sabine
Child Protection Advisor
TDH
sra@tdh.ch
Ms
MacLeod
Heather
Associate Director GRRT Technical Team
World Vision International
heather_macleod@wvi.org
UN and others
Mr
Daniel
Helle
Multilateral Organisation, Legal Division
ICRC
lboudreault@icrc.org
Ms
Charlotta
Relander
Head of Sector, Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement
ICRC
crelander@icrc.org
Mr
Eccleshall
Simon
Head, Disaster Services Department
IFRC
simon.eccleshall@ifrc.org
Mr
Lawry-White
Simon
Chief, IASC Secretariat
OCHA
lawrywhite@un.org
Ms
Hassan
Randa
Humanitarian Affairs Officer
OCHA
hassan50@un.org
Mr
Scott
Niels
Chief, HRSU
OCHA
scott2@un.org
Mr
Darcy
James
Senior Fellow Researcher, ODI/Humanitarian Policy Group
ODI London
j.darcy@odi.org.uk
Mr
Doyle
Bernard
Head, Inter-Agency Unit
UNHCR
DOYLE@unhcr.org
Mr
Risi
Adelmo
Senior Inter-Agency Coordination Officer
UNHCR
RISI@unhcr.org
Mr
Demiroz
Cagatay
External Relations Officer
UNHCR
DEMIROZ@unhcr.org
Ms
Tymo
Darlene
Deputy Director
WFP
darlene.tymo@wfp.org
Mr
Kaatrud
David
Director of Emergencies
WFP
david.kaatrud@wfp.org
Ms
Sleeuwenhoek
Tanja Ellen
Technical Officer, Alliances and Partnerships, SPR, HAC
WHO
sleeuwenhoekt@who.int
UNICEF
Ms
Aguilar
Pilar
Snr. Advisor, Education in Emergencies (Programme Division)
UNICEF GVA
paguilar@unicef.org
Ms
Aliko
Blerta
Early Recovery Specialist, RRRS, (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
baliko@unicef.org
Ms
Andrea
James
Emergency Specialist
UNICEF WCARO, Geneva
ajames@unicef.org
Mr
Arsenault
Louis-Georges
Director (EMOPS)
UNICEF NY
lgarsenault@unicef.org
Ms
Barnett
Catherine
Child Protection Cluster Coordinator (Programme Division)
UNICEF GVA
cbarnett@unicef.org
Ms
Barrie
Liza
Chief, Civil Society Partnership (Programme Division)
UNICEF NY
lbarrie@unicef.org
Ms
Bill
Laura
Emergency Specialist
UNICEF APSSC, Thailand
lbill@unicef.org
Ms
Boutin
Genevieve
Chief, Humanitarian Policy Section (EMOPS)
UNICEF NY
gboutin@unicef.org
Mr
Carty
Dermot
Deputy Director (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
dcarty@unicef.org
Mr
Davin
Thomas
Regional Chief Emergency Preparedness and Response
UNICEF MENARO, Jordan
tdavin@unicef.org
Mr
Fellows
William
Global Cluster Coordinator, WASH (Programme Division)
UNICEF NY
wfellows@unicef.org
Ms
Golaz
Anne
Snr. Health Advisor (Programme Division)
UNICEF GVA
agolaz@unicef.org
Ms
Haque
Yasmin
Director of Operations
UNICEF Southern Sudan
yhaque@unicef.org
Ms
Hofmeister
Marika
Emergency Specialist, IAHP (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
mhofmeister@unicef.org
Ms
Ippe
Josephine
Global Cluster Coordinator, Nutrition (Programme Division)
UNICEF NY
jippe@unicef.org
Ms
Ishihara
Tomoko
Intern, IAHP (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
tishihara@unicef.org
Ms
Johnson F.
Hilde
Deputy Executive Director
UNICEF NY
hjohnson@unicef.org
Ms
Knudsen
Christine
Chief, Inter Agency and Humanitarian Partnerships (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
cknudsen@unicef.org
Mr
Le Pechoux
Michel
Chief, Early Warning and Preparedness (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
mlepechoux@unicef.org
Ms
Madi
Kirsi
Deputy Regional Director
UNICEF CEE/CIS
kmadi@unicef.org
Mr
Morgan
Richard
Director (Division of Policy and Practice)
UNICEF NY
rmorgan@unicef.org
Mr
Nguyen
Quoc Dang
Emergency Specialist, IAHP (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
qnguyen@unicef.org
Mr
Nuguid
Joselito
Deputy Director, Operations (Supply Division)
UNICEF DAN
jnuguid@unicef.org
Mr
Omol
Shadrack
Chief, Field Operations & Emergency
UNICEF Ethiopia
somol@unicef.org
Ms
Peugeot
Heidi
Emergency Specialist
UNICEF TACRO, Panama
hpeugeot@unicef.org
Ms
Reddick
Moira
Consultant, Report Writer IAHP (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
moira@raddick.org.uk
Mr
Rehman
Asim
Regional Emergency Specialist
UNICEF CEE/CIS
arehman@unicef.org
Ms
Rogers
Katherine
Project Manager, Civil Society Partnership (Programme Division)
UNICEF NY
kroger@unicef.org
Mr
Spalton
Antony
DRR Specialist, RRRS, (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
aspalton@unicef.org
Ms
Sulieman
Hannan
Deputy Representative
UNICEF Somalia
hsulieman@unicef.org
Mr
Temple
Julien
Manager, Emergency Surge Capacity, IAHP (EMOPS)
UNICEF GVA
jtemple@unicef.org
Ms
Tobin
Vanessa
Representative
UNICEF Philippines
vtobin@unicef.org
Ms
Van Kalmthout
Ellen
Global Cluster Coordinator, Education (Programme Division)
UNICEF GVA
ekalmthout@unicef.org
Annex 3: Participant’s Evaluation Form
(21 responses)
Please circle/ indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
1.
Workshop overall objective was
adequately covered
1
18
1
2.
Content was what I needed to
discuss as a first step to
enhancing dialogue
2
16
3
3.
Programme was well-paced
3
15
3
4.
Pre-workshop materials and
background documents were
useful
9
10
1
5.
Participants were encouraged to
take an active part
13
6
6.
The workshop met my
individual and/or my
organization’s objectives
2
11
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1
1
7
Please rate the following, as applicable (5=excellent to 1=poor)
7.
Meeting space
17
4
8.
Meals/refreshments
15
5
9.
Overall organisation
15
5
10. Was the workshop length:
correct?
18
11. Were there: just enough participants? 18
1
too short?
1
too long ?
1
too few?
1
too many ? 0
12. What are the 3 most important things you discussed/ learnt during the workshop?

Broader/better understanding of UNICEF, PCA, CCCs, Principles of Partnership, CD, Global
partnership agreement,

Different model of partnership (standby)

That the meeting gave a few concrete follow-up points at country level.

Obstacles posed by decentralised UNICEF structure.

Perceptions NGOs have of UNICEF

Relationship/Perceptions of donors’ role within humanitarian community

Complexity of coming up with practical solutions
13. Recommendations











More national organisations
Keep small groups to manageable size
Think about a process of prioritization to come up with a concrete number of actions.
Necessity to strengthen the discussion on mutual accountability and how we take ownership/foster
‘collective’.
Partnership issues around the cluster can be incorporated and/or be arranged as a separate discussion.
Proper presentation on the experience on the cluster approach – achievement and challenges in a
structured manner.
Country level experience/background documents should have included clusters
CD discussion was interesting but could have narrowed down
More awareness from UNICEF’s side of what it wants to achieve from global partnership agreement
This consultation should be organised every 18 months / annually.
Make the UNICEF Executive address to the opening session
14. Comments





In all the discussions it seemed the need for change/adaptation is solely on UNICEF part and very little
on NGOs.
Hilde Johnson’s intervention was helpful.
Difficult on the PoP actions to get more concrete things out.
Main value from the 2008 consultations was the follow-up on concrete issues, such as the PCA, which
has created greater trust and a better operating dynamic.
Felt we were getting into some big issues at the end of Day 2 – wonder if we could have structured
consultation to have gotten theses big issues out sooner.
Please rate the individual workshop sessions(11 response)
5 = Excellent
3 = Average
Session
Delivery or
Presentation
Content
5 4
3
Welcome and introduction
8
1
Agenda review, Fears and
Expectations
3 2
3
Current and future trends in
humanitarian assistance and
partnerships
3 5
3
Experiences of
UNICEF/NGO collaboration
–partnership models in
humanitarian assistance
2 7
1
Discussion with DED Hilde
Johnson
2 5
4
DAY 1
1 = Poor 0 = Does not apply x = blank
2
1
0
x
5
4
3
9
1
1
2
5
2
2
2
6
3
1
8
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
Exercises
0
x
5 4 3 2 1 0 x
2 7
3
2
UNICEF revised CCCs and
opportunities and challenges
in NGO capacity development
6
2
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
1 3
1
6
DAY 2
Lessons learnt from standby
arrangement
4
5
1
3
5
1
2
Update on the revised PCA
2
6
3
1
7
1
2
Future opportunities on NGO
partnership agreements
2
5
3
2
3
4
2
Joint opportunities,
recommended follow up
actions and next steps
2
4
5
1
3
3
Wrap up and closing
2
4
2
2
5
1
3
1
3
4
5 2 1
3
1 3 4 1
2
Annex 4: Background Papers
CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS IN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND PARTNERSHIPS
James Darcy, ODI
As a sector we are currently facing a range of new challenges and opportunities in humanitarian action.
These will require us to develop new ways of working and developing and utilising our capacity. In
addition, we are required to undertake this development while we are engaged in responding to ever
higher levels of need globally.
Based on a presentation which will touch on a range of changes to the external operating environment, as
well as implications of these changes for the international humanitarian system and community of
humanitarian actors, there is an impetus for us to explore new forms of partnership and collaboration in
humanitarian action.
The following key questions will be introduced to drive the opening discussion:
1. Has the capacity of the international humanitarian system as currently constituted already been
exceeded by the scale and nature of needs? If not yet, will it soon be? If the answer is yes, should the
humanitarian system:
(i) Seek to expand its capacity to fill the vacuum? Would this result in new agencies, new skills, bigger
agencies, or increased levels of contracting out?
(ii) Look to increase efficiency within the system through more effective inter-agency collaboration and
partnerships while considering whether collaboration & partnership actually increase or instead diminish
efficiency?
(iii) Build new alliances and partnerships beyond the specialised humanitarian sector with, say, the
commercial sector (international/local)? What would this be based on in terms of labour and skills and
does this mean that there are things the humanitarian agencies should stop doing and let others do?
2. Do we need a fundamentally different kind of working relationship with host governments, at least for
natural disaster response and for preparedness/DRR? And if this is happening anyway, how are we
(collectively) trying to shape it?
What about our working relationships with local civil society? Do these need reshaping?
3. In the relationship between UN agencies and Red Cross/NGOs, are we playing to our respective
strengths? Do we have complementary roles or are we getting in each other’s way? How would a
reallocation of roles answer questions of mandate, efficiency, legitimacy, credibility. Or are we simply
missing the bigger picture? Has current humanitarian reform run its course, do we need something
bolder?
How can Government, private sector and other capacity be utilised in a form that is supportive of
traditional partnerships?
UNICEF PAKISTAN MONSOON FLOOD EMERGENCY: CHALLENGES TO
APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF PARTNERSHIP IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION
Background
During the monsoon season of 2010, Pakistan experienced the worst floods in its recorded history. The
disaster is one of the largest ever experienced globally. Given the slow progression of the floods from
Khyber Pakthunkhwa in the north-west to Sindh in the south, return is already well underway in most
flood-affected districts, though people are still being rescued in parts of Sindh. As a result, different parts
of the country require a different mix of relief and recovery support.
Given the scale and complexity of the emergency, the ongoing emergency response and recovery activity
will require the combined efforts of all humanitarian actors, working in coordination and support of the
Government and the people of Pakistan. In total, from the onset of the flood emergency up to end
November 2010, UNICEF Pakistan has signed 111 new partnerships agreements (55 Small-Scale
Funding Agreements and 56 Partnership Cooperation Agreements), with 72 organisations posing new
issues related to working in partnership at this scale with existing and with new partners.
Critical issues / key highlights
Critical issues fall into two categories: cluster coordination and implementation with NGO partners.
Cluster Coordination The scale, geographic spread, and evolving nature of the emergency was a
significant challenge for effective coordination. With the clusters established in 5 sub-national hubs, as
well as at the federal level, it took some time to mobilise sufficient human resources for all four clusters
(WASH, Nutrition, Education and Child Protection sub-cluster) in all locations.
At the federal level, the UNICEF-led clusters have successfully coordinated the preparation of cluster
response strategies and the cluster inputs for the inter-agency flash and revised appeals. Cluster partners
have been actively involved in Strategic Advisory Groups and Technical Working Groups within their
respective clusters, and a number of capacity building initiatives have been rolled out through the cluster
partners at the sub-national level. At the district level, UNICEF was not able to directly provide
dedicated resources for coordination, and has requested cluster members to respond to this need. In Dadu
district for example, Care is the focal point agency for the WASH cluster
In some areas, weaknesses in the overall response have been attributed both to gaps in coordination
capacity and to gaps in the implementation capacity of cluster partners.
Implementation with NGO Partners. As stated above UNICEF Pakistan has signed 111 new
partnerships agreements with 72 organisations, for a total value of US$ 28.1 million (of which the
UNICEF contribution is US$ 26.4 million). Out of these 72 NGO partners, 53 are national or local
organisations. Although this is a considerable achievement, a review of the existing partnerships
highlighted a number of issues:
Timeliness and Availability of Resources The funding response from international donors was initially
both slow and limited, which severely constrained scaling up with partners. As of end August, UNICEF
had received US$ 35 million, out of which US$ 21 million was earmarked for WASH. As of 23 rd
November, UNICEF had received US$ 132.8 million, just 53% of the funds required to provide relief
and early recovery services through to August 2011.
UNICEF has to have a Partnership Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or a Small-Scale Funding Agreement
(SSFA) with an organisation in order to be able to channel resources to them (be it supplies or funds).
Within one month of the start of the flood emergency, UNICEF had activated its contingency WASH
PCA with Oxfam, and signed 16 SSFAs and 10 PCAs. However, a recent review noted that the
development of PCAs for the flood response took on average 5 weeks (from initial discussions to
having a signed PCA), with on average a further 3 weeks to transfer funds over to the partner.
In line with the revised PCA guidelines and due to the emergency needs, UNICEF staff did make
extensive use of Small-Scale Funding Agreements to kick start the flood response, as these can be
developed and approved more quickly than complete PCAs. For example, supply packages for nutrition
interventions were channelled to a number of NGOs in this way, while discussions on a more
comprehensive agreement were being held.
Geographic Coverage of the Floods The gradual evolution of the floods challenged the humanitarian
community to respond simultaneously with rescue, relief and early recovery activities. It also led to some
areas – such as Khyber Pakthunkhwa – being comparatively better served than others, as humanitarian
actors focused their initial attention on those areas that first emerged as severely affected.
Humanitarian agencies have struggled to identify sufficient capacity and resources, especially technical
experts, and to link up quickly and effectively with local capacities already on the ground. This
particularly applies to provinces such as Punjab and Sindh (where the vast majority of humanitarian
actors did not have a significant presence or established partnerships prior to the floods) and in
Balochistan (where problems of access and security have made it difficult to scale up as rapidly as was
required). On a number of occasions, UNICEF channelled requests through the Global Clusters for
international organisations to move resources from KPK and expand their presence in the south.
Engagement with Partners UNICEF received hundreds of unsolicited proposals from a wide variety of
organisations, with significant variations in quality of proposals and relevance to UNICEF’s mandate.
This was at a time of considerable pressure to begin delivery, therefore there was no opportunity during
the initial stages of the response for engaging more strategically with key partners to develop and
achieve common objectives.
A more strategic approach began to come into play a few months after the onset of the emergency, when
there was more time to review joint priorities and programmes. An open dialogue with implementing
partners was initiated which included consultations on results based monitoring and field monitoring
plans with partners at the provincial level.
Inevitably, when working on such a large scale and in light of the challenges expressed above, there
were some problems in maintaining productive working relationships. Frustrations caused by
miscommunications around funding, as well as slow disbursement of funding, have been very difficult
for all actors and work is now required to transparently discuss these and work to improve matters.
Capacity of UNICEF staff The arrival of new/surge UNICEF staff during the emergency response
without knowledge of existing agreements or of the numerous organizations in Pakistan has complicated
working relations with both Government and NGO partners. During the PCA development process,
discussions with the same partner were undertaken by various people within the section/office, including
people at different levels (hub office, field office, Islamabad). It was not always clear who was
responsible for what, with sometimes quite different agreements/conclusions being reached with the
same partner and different UNICEF staff members. These mixed/contradictory messages then took
additional time to clarify and resolve.
New staff, and in some cases existing staff, were also not familiar with how to develop partnership
agreements and the related rules/regulations, and in particular on how these could be applied in an
emergency situation. While SSFA were successfully used as a quick way to start implementing
programmes, the limitations of SSFAs were not fully understood by UNICEF staff or partners (SSFAs
have a value less than US$ 20,000 in terms of funding and/or the equivalent value of supplies as a single
or cumulative set of transfers related to the partnership to an individual civil society organisation in a
calendar year).
Capacity of NGO partners Due to the previously ongoing IDP crisis, as well as the security situation in
some areas of the country, there is a wide variation in the presence of NGOs in different provinces, in
particular INGOs. In many provinces in Pakistan, UNICEF is reliant on a limited number of partners
(either Government departments or NGOs). During the emergency response, these partners were
inundated with offers of partnerships and funds. In some cases, NGOs may have overcommitted both in
terms of geographical coverage, as well as areas of response (sectors beyond their technical experience
and /or expertise). The quality of programmes being implemented may be suffering as a result.
Within UNICEF’s existing financial systems, a partner must submit receipts for funds received within 6
months. If a partner’s accounting practices/capacity is therefore not able to ensure timely financial
reporting, no additional funds can be channeled to that partner. This happened with a number of partners
in Pakistan as a result of funds provided prior to the floods – thereby further limiting partnership options.
Many partners have limited time and capacity to conceptualise and write good proposals quickly, leading
to delays while clear results and monitoring framework are developed, errors corrected (in particular in
budget calculations), and the document finalised by UNICEF staff who are also under time and capacity
pressures.
For Nutrition and Child Protection especially, UNICEF has struggled to find sufficient partners with
technical expertise. As a result, UNICEF has had to undertaken capacity building activities with local
partners during the midst of the emergency response.
Working with other partners A major partner for UNICEF both in development and emergency contexts
is the Government. In particular, the Provincial Ministries of Health were the main partner for UNICEF
Health programmes during the emergency response, and through them a number of large-scale
interventions have been successfully carried out.
UNICEF also decided early on in the emergency to contract the private sector to carry out specific
service delivery functions, such as water trucking and delivery of supplies, for a quicker and more costeffective response. This proved to be a controversial decision which some partners questioned.
Recommended Next Steps
 Opportunities for developing international and national NGO partner capacity in sub-national cluster
coordination in Pakistan should be explored together.
 UNICEF PCO must proactively engage with partners in analysing strategic programme and
geographic priorities, and in developing PCAs based on this rather than simply receiving proposals.
UNICEF PCO should ensure open two-way communications, including on transparency regarding the
selection of partners, the prioritisation of projects and allocation of resources.
 UNICEF PCO could explore allocating ‘focal points’ for negotiations/oversight of particular
partnerships to facilitate discussions with each partner, and to ensure that UNICEF provides one
consistent view to partners.
 As part of contingency planning for the next emergency, PCO should ensure that the NGO
assessments are up to date for key partners, develop standard templates covering CCC response for each
sector (standard ‘package of activities’, indicators, budget lines, costed supply list, etc) which can then
be adapted as needed, and should expand the use of contingency PCAs for different geographical areas
and sectors. Clear SOPs for the activation of these agreements should be established to limit delays in
advancing resources in the event of an emergency.
More broadly:
 UNICEF should document good practices in using contingency PCAs in different contexts and should
actively promote/institutionalise this as part of emergency preparedness.
 UNICEF should follow-up on the dissemination of the revised PCA guidelines, to ensure that staff
understand these and have the skills/capacities to apply the guidelines in both development and
emergency contexts.
 UNICEF could explore options for a flexible tool that allows the rapid transfer of supplies to partners
in emergency contexts (above the SSFA limit of US$20,000).
Key questions to drive the discussion
How can UNICEF and key international partners ensure that they are working to maximum efficiency
and that the demands of partnership (e.g. review of proposals) do not impede aid delivery efficiency at
the onset of emergency response?
How can UNICEF and key international NGO partners work together more effectively to build capacity
of national and local organisations for overall emergency response management (including cluster
coordination) and in specific technical areas of emergency response (e.g. Nutrition in Emergencies,
Child Protection, etc)?
How can we ensure open and transparent dialogue is maintained – even during stressful periods of
emergency response – to minimise miscommunications and mistrust, and foster shared expectations?
How can Government, private sector and other capacity be utilised in a form that is supportive of
traditional UNICEF/CSO partnerships?
UNICEF, HEARTLAND ALLIANCE, AND BPM: PARTNERSHIPS IN HAITI
UNICEF Haiti, Heartland Alliance and BPM
Background
In the chaotic aftermath of the January 12 2010 earthquake, leadership and coordination were major
challenges as much of the local leadership were destroyed or crippled. The impact of this crisis was felt on
the very entities that would otherwise have been best positioned to respond: the Government of Haiti, the
UN, and the numerous non-governmental organizations already established in country.
A good example of this is the Brigade Protection des Mineures (BPM), the social service arm of the
Haitian National Police, which was created in 2003 with the support of UNICEF. Following the earthquake,
BPM required additional capacity in order to extend their work to prevent, investigate and respond to child
abuse and exploitation throughout Haiti. UNICEF therefore sought a partner who could support BPM
capacity in addition to implementing their own programme.
UNICEF forged a partnership with Heartland Alliance (HA) early in the earthquake response in order to
work on family tracing and reunification (FTR), anti-trafficking, and youth and community mobilization in
camps. Though HA had made only a few reconnaissance missions to Haiti prior to the earthquake it was in
the process of developing plans to address some of these pre-existing child protection issues. Although HA
was a lesser known CSO and not among UNICEF’s established Child Protection partners, its small structure
with little bureaucracy allowed for greater flexibility that produced quick results, especially on FTR and
allowed for support to BPM. HA has technically strong and motivated staff, all of whom speak French and
the majority of whom are Haitian.
HA and BPM cooperated in Child Trafficking Prevention and Response and in particular:

HA and BPM, with financial and technical support from UNICEF, established and maintain physical
presence at key locations at the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti to screen for and respond
to child trafficking cases.

HA and BPM agents work side-by-side, employing strategies to screen individuals crossing the border
and handling referral of suspected child trafficking cases, among other activities such as maintaining drop-in
centers to provide hot meals, structured activities and psychosocial support to vulnerable children.
Critical issues / key highlights
The Child Protection Sub-Cluster, co-led by UNICEF and the Social Welfare Ministry (Ministere des
Affaires Sociales et du Travail), was established in Port-au-Prince 3 days after the January earthquake. The
Child Protection Sub-Cluster and Working Groups identified strategies, largely oriented by UNICEF’s Core
Commitments for Children in Emergencies (CCCs). This yielded prioritization of key interventions and
identification of gaps.
Key Challenges
There were some key challenges shared by the main actors in Child Protection, namely:

Lack of capacity of the Social Welfare Ministry which was co-leading the CP Sub-Cluster with
UNICEF.

Problems in reaching consensus around vital and timely questions of coordination and
implementation.

Deployment of international staff without the right profile.

High turnover of international staff deployed, including both Cluster and Programme staff on
UNICEF’s side.

Lack of demonstrated leadership and capacity by some partners.
Highlights
Several highlights from the partnership illustrate how partners were able to move forward and mitigate some
of these challenges:

Focusing the partnership on qualitative and quantitative results. For each project, HA established
common understanding of the results and were clear on indicators which were tracked over time. Indicators
ranged from number of children reunited with families to number of law enforcement agents trained,
providing information on constraints affecting results and where opportunities or linkages exist. These were
reported to both the UNICEF Child Protection Programme and to the Sub-Cluster.

Addressing coverage issues through the Sub-Cluster. For FTR, there was weak coverage in the
Northeast department because the NGO working in this area was not able to mobilize a response. HA
identified this gap and used the Sub-Cluster forum to advocate for it to begin work in this area. Using a
transparent approach of first negotiating improved division of labour among cluster members, it was then
acceptable among for the UNICEF Child Protection Progamme to provide technical and financial support to
HA to work in this area.

Sharing of innovative approaches within the Sub-Cluster Working Group. HA was able to
innovate on FTR system to reunite families at a faster rate than any other NGO, quickly moving from
registration to comprehensive tracing and reunification. This approach was shared with the FTR Working
Group via HA’s contributions to the design and implementation of inter-agency FTR trainings so that other
actors in FTR could learn from HA’s innovations.
Lessons Learned
In addition to partnership highlights, several key lessons learned stand out:

Despite improvements overall in using the Cluster Approach, there are still challenges in terms
of providing a strong coordination function and ensuring government leadership even with a co-lead.
This has proved to be particularly the case at the local level.

Capacity development can be enhanced by leveraging complementarity among partners for more
comprehensive approaches. For example when the number of GoH agents present at border areas was
lower than expected, rather than hire more HA staff to fill these gaps, HA sought to collaborate with CSOs
through joint patrols and knowledge sharing.

Especially in a humanitarian context, it is important for partnerships to be based on equality and
flexibility; in an evolving emergency context, the implementing partner should be encouraged to
propose project modifications based on evidence and lessons learned. HA and UNICEF worked together
to adapt projects on three occasions which were justified by changing conditions, lessons learned and
feedback from partners and stakeholders. This makes the partnership more agile in responding to new
features of an issue or gaps in the response.

Partners can use each other’s networks and resources to access new groups of vulnerable
individuals. HA is currently distributing supplies provided by UNICEF to prevent cholera in RCCCs as a
way of starting to connect with centres working with separated or orphaned children. This gives HA access
to new groups of potentially vulnerable children who could eventually benefit from FTR, psycho-social or
other interventions depending on needs identified.
Recommended Next Steps
Social services in Haiti have a very limited national budget and restricted and highly centralized human
resources. Strengthening this sector will require long-term efforts from diverse actors in the areas of
advocacy, capacity development and interim service delivery. Such initiatives need to simultaneously
contribute to capacity of civil society and government actors.
Short-term

Partners should look to leverage existing resources to strengthen capacity, encourage on-the-job
training, enhance transparency, etc.

Further technical and financial support should be channeled from UNICEF to partners to support the
reform of social services.

UNICEF needs to use its networks to promote the impressive work of BPM and HA to facilitate
opportunities to diversify their partnership base.
Longer-term

UNICEF and partners need to determine a strategy at the Child Protection Sub-Cluster level to
transition from emergency to development, including a strategy to transfer Cluster Coordination to a
structure focusing on development.

Due to the absence of a nationally recognized curriculum and degree for social work, UNICEF and
partners should support the government in designing and rolling out curriculum for social work.
Key questions to drive the discussion
In these kind of contexts, what are the challenges in identifying effective new partners and quickly securing
new organizational partnership. What kind of flexibility is required within existing practice? What criteria
should be used for partner selection?
In contexts such as Haiti where local capacity has been devastated by the emergency how can UNICEF and
partners ensure that remaining local capacity is supported and placed at the forefront of the response?
In cases of wide-scale and widespread humanitarian need, such as that following the January 2010 Haiti
earthquake, how can best practices and knowledge management i.e. lessons learnt be quickly transferred
between partners?
UNICEF SOMALIA PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDY IN INSECURE ENVIRONMENTS
Hannan Sulieman, UNICEF Somalia
I - Background
UNICEF, through its partners, supports over 80% of the public health, water, nutrition and basic education
services in Somalia and thus has considerable influence, effective relationships and networking/ partnerships
with major sector partners such as EU, DFID.
UNICEF’s main gateway to reach the most vulnerable Somali children and women is through partnerships
with over 100 national and international organizations. However, high levels of insecurity pose serious threats
to our partner’s access and safety and raise the question of whether the humanitarian imperative of being on
the ground outweighs the cost of doing further harm and endangering staff, partners as well as the population
we serve.
Despite the environment, highly committed partners still find it possible to build resilience and capacity and
ensure the provision of social services amongst the conflict affected and displaced, especially in areas where
there is local leadership, community engagement and support from the international community.
There is a significant dilemma around the ethics of “transferring risk” to partners for the implementation of
sensitive activities such as the Security Council Resolution 1612 Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism
(MRM), community mobilization on protection, advocacy on prevention of child recruitment, etc. An
evaluation of MRM indicated that NGOs involved in protection monitoring felt the UN should be playing a
larger role in protecting staff of national and international NGOs and suggested the allocation of a percentage
of the budget for security measures.
II - Critical issues / key highlights
The lack of government in Somalia has translated into UNICEF relying heavily on NGOs to reach the most
vulnerable population and often working directly with communities
Humanitarian space in South and Central Somalia where 70% of the population resides continues to reduce.
Between October 2008 and September 2010, 18 humanitarian organizations (NGOs and UN) have stopped
activities due to their direct expulsion by armed groups or as a consequence of interference in their programs.
This interference ranges from ‘taxation’ and extortion to the seizure of compounds, supplies and assets. Some
stopped organizations maintain that they will return imminently and do not want to be replaced and others are
less clear. Often, new actors have replaced those who have stopped activities due to the urgent humanitarian
needs.
Inter-agency coordination and cooperation on humanitarian access is challenging. Agencies take different
positions when balancing the humanitarian imperative to address humanitarian needs with the implications
and costs (financial, risk to personnel, threats to humanitarian principles). The Inter Agency Standing
Committee (IASC) developed a Position Paper on Humanitarian Presence in South and Central Somalia 6 to
govern the manner in which these expulsions are dealt with by the humanitarian community in order to
balance the humanitarian consequences of the “stoppage” with the practical and principle issues at stake. The
Paper, clarified the humanitarian community’s position on taxation and other forms of interference. The UN
Country Team (UNCT) Policy on Humanitarian Engagement agreed in November 2009 outlines the process
by which UN agencies would jointly review decisions to suspend activities. However neither of these
processes are consistently applied. Finally, the NGO Red Line Paper prepared in November 2009 identified
6
IASC Negotiation Ground Rules, agreed in March 2009
three forms of taxation as a ‘red line’ and underscored the importance of staff safety and information sharing
on security and access negotiations.
UNICEF focuses on strengthening the capacities of local NGOs. Given UNICEF’s unique role in Somalia of
being the major provider of social services, large-scale technical trainings are organized [across the border or
in the northern areas] to strengthen the capacity of the national “civil servants/social service providers”. This
implies higher cost and complex logistics. Despite these efforts, institutional and human resources capacities
among local partners are still quite weak.
One critical issue is the delays in partnership agreement processing particularly in cross-border operations as
full responsibility for a particular partnership rests with more than one office due to the partners being located
in different locations with different authority levels (Kenya and/or Somalia), and the constant relocation of
UNICEF staff.
Lessons learned:

Need to apply rigorous risk management practices to ensure consistent approach.

Investment in services without institutional strengthening has limitations and there is a need to support
sector standard and policy formulation and strengthening of government. A formula for the engagement of
civil society in this element is critical for crisis/fragile situations.

Build on NGO-UNICEF strong community relations to keep staff and assets safe: being in Somalia and
listening to its people is crucial to response.

Improve fund-raising mechanisms through the use of evidence based programme information and
improve coordination of activities and mobilization of resources. Joint global advocacy that is issue or country
focused would be helpful.
III - Recommended Next Steps
1. Emphasize that capacity building in emergencies must be jointly initiated.
2. Ensure a united front and common stance to issues such as taxation, diversion of relief supplies to
warring factions, purchase of security services from warring fractions, and the assistance of only certain sides
of the conflict.
3. Emphasize the need to further streamline the coordination structures from their current formation to a
more strategic sector approach and to “move” more of the coordination and decision-making to Somalia –
starting with the northern regions.
4. Develop a common database on CBO/NGO partners to map and understand the scale and scope of our
current partnerships (this was a key recommendation from the joint UN Risk Management mission).
5. Improve joint communications on partnership work, including media/ press work and advocacy where
there is a need to work on common models for joint UNICEF-NGO resource mobilization strategies in
emergencies and include NGOs in policy dialogue.
6. Develop joint emergency training/ orientation packages and increase NGO participation in UNICEF
early warning and preparedness system in emergencies.
7. Ensure improved learning and best practice by putting in place a mechanism to share best practices in
emergencies.
8. Initiate a peer review type process between UNICEF and its NGO partners.
IV - Key questions to drive the discussion
1.
The
following
clause
has
been
introduced
into
the
PCA
as
per
global
guidance:
Para 30. “Partner agrees to apply the highest reasonable standard of diligence to ensure that the supplies
and equipment and money provided by UNICEF under this Agreement (a) are not used to provide support to
individuals or entities associated with terrorism; (b) are not transferred by Partner to any individual or entity
on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999),
available at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267 ; and (c) are not used, in the case of money provided
by UNICEF, for the purpose of any payment to persons or entities, or for any import of goods, if such
payment or import is prohibited by a decision of the United Nations Security Council taken under Chapter VII
of the Charter of the United Nations.”
There are possible implications to the above as copies of these implementing partner agreements will be
shared with non-state regional authorities which closely monitor UNICEF activities in Central South Somalia
in a highly in-secure environment. UNICEF and indeed the UNCT in countries of such environments (e.g.
Somalia, parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) will need to weigh up the risks for not highlighting this in
partner agreements, which may include reduction in donor funding due to lack of due diligence, or
reputational risk. This needs to be discussed with the ERM focal divisions in the various UN agencies or
Humanitarian Country Teams, and include NGO partners in the discussions.
2. UNICEF Somalia is exploring ways to allow for joint programming or more coherence and integration
across sectors in the PCAs, particularly for child survival but also applicable to other sectors. This is
challenging given the structures and capacities of NGO partners; different pace of the various programmes,
different needs for PCA amendments; and other operational issues. We need views from NGOs on how this
can be applied.
3. Many NGOs work in the most disadvantaged areas. In view of UNICEF’s equity approach, it is even
more critical we collaborate on Information Management; evidence gathering (e.g. localized immunization
rates; malnutrition levels; livelihoods opportunities for nomadic communities, etc.) and appropriate
programming. How can we best develop a joint action plan to help us move forward on this?
4. How can we move to a more coherent approach on managing risk in line with the application of
humanitarian principles and ensure that agreed processes are more consistently applied?
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN NGO CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT7
Manisha Thomas, ICVA
I - Background
The principle of building on or developing local/national capacity is well accepted, but the reality is that
international organisations often respond to humanitarian needs in a manner that overlooks local/national
capacity. For several years now, humanitarian organisations have talked about the need for “a fundamental
reorientation from supplying aid to supporting and facilitating communities’ own relief and recovery
priorities.”8 In reality, however, that “fundamental reorientation” has yet to take place.
Given the changing nature of disasters that will require humanitarian responses – for example, disasters
resulting from climate change or increasing food insecurity – the need to adequately build on local capacity
takes on a greater urgency. The terms capacity development/ building might be more usefully referred to as
“building our disaster response on local capacities.” When discussing issues related to capacity
development, the Principles of Partnership (PoP) – equality, transparency, responsibility, results-oriented
approach, and complementarity – can provide a helpful framework.
II - Critical issues
When discussing how to build our disaster response on local capacity and how we can support local and
national NGOs in their role as “providers of first resort,” there are a number of issues that must be
addressed.
Partnership It is important to pay more than lip service to the understanding that local organisations and
local knowledge have capacities and enormous value. Actually applying the Principles of Partnership is
sometimes challenging, particularly when it comes to human resources. Many local/national NGOs lose
their staff to international NGOs and international NGOs lose their staff to UN agencies. The reality is that
the levels of staff compensation cannot be competed with between these ‘levels’ of organisation.
 How can the concept of equality between organisations be reinforced in the field, especially when it
comes to more challenging issues like human resources?
 How can international organisations review their policies, procedures and structures to ensure that they
are responsive to the needs of local/national NGOs?
Identifying Capacities There is little emphasis on identifying and ensuring that (unique) capacities or
capabilities are assessed and recognised. International organisations often go into a humanitarian response
with a “set menu,” which affects what they recognise as capacity.
 How can we shift attitudes to ensure that assessments look at local capacities?
 How can local organisations support international organisations to ensure that local knowledge and
expertise is integrated into a coordinated response plan?
7
Most of this paper is taken directly or heavily inspired from a previous draft paper entitled Draft Concept Note for Regional GHP
Workshops on the Theme of Building and Sharing Capacity that was developed for the Global Humanitarian Platform in 2008 by Jamie
McGoldrick (OCHA at the time), Robert Mister (IFRC at the time), and Manisha Thomas (ICVA) and from the UNHCR-NGO Consultations
2010 Rapporteur’s Report.
8 Telford, John and John Cosgrove. Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Synthesis Report, TEC,
2006, p. 110.
 What are the differences in building on capacity in the midst of an emergency and prior to an
emergency? Can we build on capacity if it has not been identified and assessed and a relationship has not
been built before a humanitarian response is required?
Building Real Capacity Capacity development that helps prepare organisations to respond to disaster should
build on the capacity that exists. One of the key aspects of capacity development is about strengthening and
sustaining local organisations and local staff. A practical way to build upon local capacity is to consider
how to support national NGO participation in key decision-making forums, such as Humanitarian Country
Teams.
 How can we ensure that international organisations build on existing capacity in their partnerships?
 Should humanitarian organisations be building capacity or should development organisations be playing
a role and, if so, how do we get them to play this role?
Resource Constraints In almost every discussion on capacity development and working with local capacity,
the issue of funding is raised. For many local/national NGOs, developing fiduciary and financial
management capacities requires funds in itself and without such capacities, they are often overlooked for
funding.
 Are there ways to address this issue of funding by, for example, ensuring that a percentage of funds
spent on emergency response goes towards local organisations?
 Is there a mechanism by which assessed capacity and required funding of local organisations can be
taken into account before funding needs of international organisations are addressed?
 Are there mechanisms that could be devised so that funds could flow to local/national NGOs without
increasing the financial risk to donors, for example through intermediary organisations?
 How can international organisations explore possibilities for devolving decision-making power for
resource allocation to local NGO consortia to increase local ownership, national coordination capacity,
sustainability and adaptability to local situations?
Changing Who is in the Driver’s Seat By building on local capacity, many international organisations
would feel that they have to “step out of the spotlight” and take a “backseat” or supporting role to local
organisations.

Is this step back necessarily the case and, if so, are international organisations prepared to take a
different, more challenging, and potentially crucial role where they support and facilitate other
organisations’ work and, therefore, do less direct implementation?
III - Next Steps
The UNICEF-NGO consultations present an opportunity to tackle some of these persisting questions and
challenges. Perhaps the most contentious issues are the last two as international organisations will be forced
to take on more of a supporting role rather than a direct implementation role. By taking more of a back seat,
international organisations may find that their “visibility” is potentially reduced: are international
organisations (UN and NGOs) willing to accept this step back in a climate in which fundraising and
communication departments call for ever higher levels of organisational visibility?
INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REVISED PCA GUIDELINES
Richard Morgan, UNICEF DPP
I - Background
Revised guidance on UNICEF Programme Cooperation Agreements (PCA) and Small Scale Funding
Agreements (SSFA) with Civil Society Organisations (CSO) was issued in December 2009. An initial assessment
was conducted across 13 Country Offices (CO) in both humanitarian and development contexts on how the
revised guidance has been implemented and to solicit their views on the effect of the guidance on partnership
relations and doing business with UNICEF.
II - Critical issues / key highlights

Due to the broad range of programmatic and operational issues which must be addressed in applying the
revised PCA guidelines, UNICEF Country Offices, especially those in humanitarian settings, were challenged to
find the time to train staff, orient partners, and adapt practices and develop tools to fit local circumstances. COs
in development settings were able, to a large extent, to implement the required changes resulting in better support
for capacity development of CSOs and strengthened partnerships.

During the PCA preparation phase, UNICEF COs, especially in humanitarian settings, faced the dilemma
of quickly identifying a large number of new partners (mainly national NGOs) and vetting them with respect to
their integrity, and capacity for programme implementation and financial management. Variable interpretation by
UNICEF and partners led to delays in concluding PCAs, especially with respect to the application of acceptable
charges (especially staff salaries) for indirect programme support costs (IPSC) and indirect programme costs
(IPC). In negotiations which ensued, UNICEF was seen as being too conservative while partners were seen to be
making unreasonable demands. In a similar vein, tensions developed over the valuation of IPSC which could
become quite high whenever supplies made up a significant proportion of the PCA, especially when it was
perceived that there was no commensurate increase in the level of effort or responsibility by the partner.

Limited partner capacity (mainly national NGOs) to develop coherent and results-based programme
documents with justifiable budgets for programme activities was also cited as a factor reducing the speed for
finalising and quality of PCAs. However, many COs acknowledged that collaborative efforts in general to
develop PCAs required significant investments of staff time – which was in short supply in humanitarian settings.

UNICEF internal management processes for reviewing PCAs have improved. Nevertheless, it was
acknowledged that high value PCAs developed by Zone Offices still required review and approval by the main
office.

During implementation of PCAs, some tensions arose when partners were either not fully informed of or
failed to take into consideration the requirement to liquidate cash advances (known as HACT 9) within 6 months
or face an end to additional payments. In development settings, HACT procedures were found to be helpful in
promoting capacity development and fostering a ‘partnership perspective’ rather than a contractual one.

Questions from COs and partners around the interpretation of the revised PCA guidelines have been
answered by UNICEF Headquarters via a global mailbox. However, a number of areas have been suggested for
improvement including: a) making provisions for developing ‘umbrella agreements’, and, b) clarifying the
9
Harmonised approach to cash transfers to implementing partners
conditions to select the simpler PCA (generally valued at less than $100,000) versus the more complex form. To
increase ease of use, several COs developed their own templates depending on the complexity and urgency of the
interventions (setting out the expected results, strategies, activities, budget and workplan), while others
developed Standard Operating Procedures and simple checklists.
With respect to Global Agreement (GA) between UNICEF and INGOs, some COs suggested that they might
serve to reduce the time and effort required to vet INGOs (although the time required to complete a short
checklist, as required by the revised guidance, is already minimal). One CO in a humanitarian setting, suggested
that GAs could be useful to pre-determine specific thematic areas of engagement and the division of
responsibility. Developing standard packages of intervention modalities based on global norms (e.g. CCCs,
Sphere) might also reduce the time required to prepare the PCA programme document.
III - Recommended Next Steps

The first year has seen apparent progress in PCA partnerships overall, particularly in development
contexts.

The overarching conclusion of this assessment is that to be effective, programme guidance must be
matched by timely and parallel efforts to strengthen UNICEF staff (Regional and Country Office levels) and
partner capacity (e.g. knowledge and skills for improved programme planning, financial management and
coordination) in parallel with more efficient and effective internal systems (IT and management). More time and
consistent effort will be required to increase these capacities.

Results from COs in development contexts suggest that the emphasis placed on forward looking
partnerships and capacity development, as underscored in the revised guidelines, are strategies which will
improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of our joint responses in humanitarian settings.
IV - Key questions to drive the discussion
1 - What additional resources and action are required to ensure a more effective implementation of PCAs in
humanitarian settings?
INGO PERSPECTIVES ON THE REVISED PCA AND NEXT STEPS
InterAction, OXFAM and NRC
I - Background
The new Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and attendant Guidelines which took effect in January 2010
mark an important step in the evolution of strengthened partnership between UNICEF and the NGO community.
The product of almost two years of consultation and review, they aspire to not only simplify and clarify the
administrative and financial components of UNICEF/NGO project based relationships, but to set forth a new
vision and modalities for enhanced partnership at more strategic levels.
Over the course of the last 12 months NGO partners in the USA and Europe (i.e. Inter-Action members, NRC and
OXFAM) have actively monitored the rollout of the new PCA and been in close contact with the managers of
their field programmes to gauge the state of the relationship with UNICEF. Now that it has been almost one year
since the introduction of the new PCA, it is both timely and appropriate that UNICEF and its NGO partners
convene to jointly review progress on its global implementation and to identify areas in need of further
deliberation or clarification.
II - Critical issues / key highlights
Based on the feedback from NGO partners in the field and their respective HQs, the following constitute the
critical issues identified about the new PCA and its rollout:
In general the new PCAs and the underlying principles within the Guidelines were favorably received in the
field and reinforce what are systematically very strong on-the-ground relationships

Coverage of indirect costs; a shift in the tenor of the relationship from contractor to strategic partner; the
possibility for partners to more actively take part in joint strategic programme development; the possibility of
longer time frames for agreements; and an emphasis on the importance of the capacity development of local
organisations were among the areas most noted in this regard.
Utilisation of the new PCA format for concluding agreements in 2010 has been inconsistent across countries:
some countries continued to use old versions

As an example, one of the NGOs surveyed noted that the new PCA had not been used in 41% of the
countries where agreements were signed after January 1, 2010. The old PCA or a completely different template
was used in 5 out of 12 countries where the NGO had agreements signed during the survey period.
Delays persist in many countries with the conclusion of agreements, the receipt of funds, and the provision of
agreed upon contributions-in-kind, and lengthy negotiation processes are taking place to ensure inclusion of
indirect administration costs in line with the PCA rules and regulations

To some extent it remains unclear if and how further clarification of the new PCA guidelines may
ameliorate these points, as they pertain to systems and processes outside of the PCA framework itself (i.e. supply
and procurement, cash management, CAP funding success).
Education of partners on the new PCA and Guidelines at all levels (HQ and field) was scant and remains a real
need (on both the NGO and UNICEF sides)

There were positive and well received efforts made in several countries to provide inter-agency support on
the new PCA; however, most often support was provided on a project by project basis in the course of agreement
negotiations.
Further clarity is required for some PCA clauses and underlying business processes. Examples where
improvement is needed include:
-
Confusion around narrative and financial reporting timelines;
Lack of narrative application and reporting templates;
The requirement for submission (or retention for review) of original receipts when liquidating cash advances
create labour-intensive processes for partners and often lead to loss of receipts;
Confusion around which costs are allowable and belong in which cost category (Direct Programme Support
vs. Indirect Programme vs. Programme) results in lengthy negotiations with partners;
Lack of clarity on when and how the Harmonised approach to cash transfers to implementing partners
(HACT) may be applied in a given country.
Although the document outlining changes: “UNICEF Programme Cooperation Agreements and Small Scale
Funding Agreements with Civil Society Organisations,” was issued by UNICEF in November 2009, specific
global guidelines for NGOs on the PCA and checklists on how to apply for UNICEF funding may be needed.
This would help ensure consistency internally and externally for both NGOs and UNICEF at the country level.
The more strategic opportunities for strengthened partnership presented by the new PCA approach have yet to
be seized

Despite the removal of the two year limit on duration of agreements, no agreements beyond two years are
known to have been concluded in 2010. Little, if any, support from UNICEF to INGO partners went to directly
fund local institutions. Strong communication and engagement around specific project proposals remains a
hallmark of the field relationship, but little ground has been gained in developing joint strategies and programme
plans in countries of operation.
It remains difficult, especially in the case of multi-sectoral projects, to engage with UNICEF in the field as a
single entity.

A clear channel for NGO communication into the UNICEF mission in-country is sometimes lacking, raising
questions about who in the UNICEF office is ultimately responsible, and accountable, for NGO partnership in
general and successful project delivery in particular.
III - Recommended Next Steps

Introduce the new PCA in all UNICEF country operations.

Ensure a dialogue at country level by establishing inter-agency forums in countries of operation to discuss
and disseminate the PCA and Guidelines.

Clarify main PCA clauses and business process points that continue to impede smooth implementation and
negotiation of agreements, and make that guidance available to both UNICEF and NGOs, including:
o
Providing clear indications of narrative and financial reporting deadlines in the PCA;
o
Establishing standard templates for applications and reports (in line with existing UN agency templates);
o
Organising visits of UNICEF staff to the partner offices to verify original receipts;
o
Developing clear regulations and guidelines for what UNICEF can cover in terms of overhead costs with
amounts established to guide agencies.

Identify, standardise, and/or operationalise ancillary forms of partnership agreements which reflect the
differing contexts in which we work: i.e. standby agreements for cooperation in emergencies and framework
partnership agreements concluded at HQ-HQ levels.

Identify paths by which UNICEF/INGO partnership can be more effective in developing the capacity of
local institutions.

In order to strengthen the strategic partnership under the PCA, establish clear mechanisms in countries of
operation whereby NGO partners can participate more fully with UNICEF in needs assessment and joint, multiyear program development.
IV - Key questions to drive the discussion

What are the key hurdles to consistent application of the new PCA across all countries and how can they
best be addressed?

What examples of best practice could be highlighted in the field of dissemination and education around the
PCA at country level? How can they be brought to scale or replicated in other locations?

Which sections of the PCA remain in need of clarification or further guidance to enable consistent
interpretation and enhanced working relations between UNICEF and NGOs?

How can UNICEF and NGOs work together better to contribute to a more timely conclusion of agreements,
remittance of cash advances, and provision of in-kind supplies and equipment?

How can UNICEF and NGOs better engage around strategy and joint program development in-country as
intended under the PCA?

What is the best way for UNICEF and NGOs to engage with one another around multi-sectoral projects?
What examples from the field could demonstrate practical ways to enable this? How can accountability for project
success best be ensured in this context?
PROSPECTS FOR UNICEF / INGO GLOBAL AGREEMENTS
Liza Barrie, UNICEF PD
I - Background
During the process of revising the PCA in 2009, UNICEF agreed to explore the possibility of global
agreements with select NGO partners in 2010. This background paper will update partners on
UNICEF’s discussions on global agreements and will highlight findings from a paper on the same
subject, which was prepared by the Civil Society Partnerships Section (CSP) at UNICEF HQNY.
II - Critical issues / key highlights

Calls for global agreements between UNICEF and NGOs are motivated by, among other things,
concerns about operational problems affecting partnerships at country level and a desire for strategic
partnerships at the global level.

While the content and structure of the global agreements remain undefined at the moment, there is
a strong sense that these agreements will focus on operational as well as strategic aspects of
collaboration between UNICEF and participating NGOs.

Any decision UNICEF makes in relation to global agreements should also build on the practices
and experiences of other UN agencies.

CSP prepared a background paper that outlines the recent history of the discussion on global
partnership agreements between UNICEF and NGO partners, reviews UNICEF’s existing mechanisms
for collaboration with civil society, and examines the mechanisms developed by other UN and bilateral
agencies to manage operational partnerships with NGOs. Drawing on the experience of other UN
agencies, the paper identifies several modalities that could be adapted and applied to UNICEF’s
operational partnerships with NGOs.

Within the UN system, there is no standard practice in relation to global partnership agreements
with NGOs. UNICEF currently uses a number of formal and informal agreements to expedite
operational partnerships at country level. These include: prequalification procedures (Haiti);
contingency PCAs (Pakistan); letters of cooperation (Pakistan); letters of intent; stand-by arrangements;
and long-term arrangements. Other agencies expedite the partnering process at country level through:
prequalification procedures; institutional contracts; long-term agreements; fast-track policies and
procedures; and letters of intent. The design and purpose of these agreements vary according to each
agency’s mandate and organisational structure.

Careful consideration will have to be given to the question of selection criteria for global
agreements with UNICEF.
III - Recommended Next Steps
Specific recommendations for global agreements and next steps will be discussed during the
UNICEF/NGO humanitarian consultation.
IV - Key questions to drive the discussion

What do NGOs perceive to be the goals and objectives for global agreements with UNICEF?

What has been the experience of NGOs that have worked with other agencies or global
organisations under the framework of long-term agreements, fast track procedures, or similar types of
partnership modalities?

What are the strengths or weaknesses associated with such arrangements?