CAP 2014 Briefing for Protection Cluster Coordinators
UNHCR, 11 Sept 2013
10:00 – 12:00
Rationale for changes to CAP:
 To bring CAP in line with IASC TA and Humanitarian Program Cycle (HPC) – focus on more
empirically-based, strategic and prioritised humanitarian response (ie shift from project-based
approach to more integrated program approach)
 To make the HPC an ongoing process with distinct components that support field decision-making
throughout the year, rather than a one-off, labor-intensive CAP
 To address concerns raised re:
o Inadequate attention to inter-sectoral identification, analysis and prioritisation of need
o Lack of attention to the development of strategic objectives
o Disjointed monitoring systems
o Concern among donors that CAP process had become a ‘wishlist’ of projects as opposed to a
strategic document to guide collective humanitarian action. Criticism re quality of CAPs and
highly speculative nature of many project proposals
o CAP – as both a process and a document – became too ‘heavy’
Update on key changes/CAP transformation through the Humanitarian Program Cycle (HPC):
 Elements of HPC are not completely new – similar to the elements that previously formed part of
the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP).
 Each ‘chapter’ of the CAP is now separated into a series of distinct, sequenced, connected
processes and products with a new expanded timeframe:
1. Needs analysis (Humanitarian Needs Overview - HNO)
2. Strategic Planning (Strategic Response Plan - SRP) comprised of country strategy + cluster
response plans
3. Resource Mobilisation (OCHA Geneva will produce an annual consolidated appeal/overview
of all SRPs for inter-agency advocacy and fundraising purposes)
4. Country-level response monitoring
 HCTs will produce HNO and SRP and publish online
 No need for a separate appeal document and no need for coordinated project planning/project
sheets, but if countries wish to pursue coordinated project planning:
o Planned projects should be aggregated into 1 project per organisation per cluster (eg all
protection activities of a single organisation presented in a single program outline). If
donors are interested, can negotiate bilaterally and prepare detailed project proposal on
specific components/activities as required (as was the case before).
o Simplifications will be built into the OPS project sheets (ie. minimal information; no lengthy
narrative; simply key activities, target locations, beneficiary numbers, timeframe)
o Flexibility in timing of project planning – eg. can be done progressively throughout the year
whenever an organisation is ready to present its implementation responsibilities for peer
review and publishing (as key estimates based on activity costing method will already be
published in SRP – see below);
o Can choose to develop projects only for top priority actions – no need to detail every
cluster activity in a planned project.
 Still need to encourage organisations to register project details on OPS & FTS to track funding (ie.
for project monitoring purpose rather than project planning purpose)
 Not sure how Gender Marker will be applied to the new process/products. Challenge to ensure
gender mainstreaming into projects across sectors. Need to emphasise gender mainstreaming in
bilateral negotiations with donors. Application of GM depends on extent to which donors require
it.
 No more mid-year reviews. This is replaced by regular response-monitoring based on an agreed
IASC monitoring framework
1

Proposed timeline for new process (see table 1 in attached HPC Guidance doc) may be adapted to
country contexts, for example:
o Multi-year SRPs with phased multi-year objectives, but with budget-planning for one year
only
o Timeline following the country’s hazard cycle (ie not mandatory to follow Jan-Dec timeline).
Can develop country-specific appropriate timeline to align with post-harvest surveys/food
insecurity data collection
2014 CAP
 20 countries targeted with focus on:
o Humanitarian Needs Overview reflecting inter-sectoral analysis and prioritisation of needs
by the in-country humanitarian community
o Country strategy component of the strategic response plan
 Every humanitarian operation should complete a HNO and country strategy with estimated budget
at minimum
 Strongly recommend that countries budget realistically/accurately – do not inflate budget to cover
unexpected events as the required cluster funding can be changed/updated at any time, as needed.
 New approach will be standard in all countries by 2015
Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO)
 The HNO is a stand-alone, comprehensive analysis of the crisis and associated needs including
prioritisation of needs. It is prepared in-country in advance of the SRP. It should result from
coordinated/harmonised assessments and joint analysis
 Engagement of partners in prioritising needs is essential. At minimum, must be structured
discussions among humanitarian stakeholders leading to identification and prioritisation of intersectoral needs. An optional prioritisation tool (heatmap) may be used to support this process
 Initial draft of HNO should be ready by 23 Sept, final version by 30 September
 HNO leads to next key step in process: shared vision and prioritisation of humanitarian action in
country strategy. Strategic planning – not cluster-driven but based on priority needs identified in
HNO
 Guidance for preparation of HNO was circulated to field in August
 Level of analysis contained in HNO will vary from country to country; OCHA recommends that at
minimum, HNO should drill down to 2nd level administrative unit. All clusters should collaboratively
set parameters for level of analysis/coverage.
 Registry of humanitarian indicators available online including key indicators applicable in most
crises. Clusters can choose to use indicators from registry if applicable.
Strategic Response Plan (SRP)
 The SRP is comprised of:
(i) Country Strategy
(ii) Cluster/Sector activities including estimated costs per activity – similar to CAP cluster
response plans but simplified (ie specify activities, caseloads, locations). Key activities
should be grouped against strategic objectives. Budget component – need to determine
funding requirement for each cluster (previously determined through coordinated
project planning). New recommended method – take cluster list of key activities and
output targets, and assign an approx. average unit cost (eg per beneficiary/per output),
resulting in initial estimate of cluster funding requirement. Encourage clusters to
experiment with this method of activity costing first. Then, if still wish to do
coordinated project planning, can do so as well.
 Agency-specific projects are no longer needed at this stage
 Draft country strategy due by 22 October, final by 29 October
 Cluster/sector activities and estimated cost draft due by 22 Nov, final by 29 Nov
2

Updated package of guidance for SRP including cluster response planning, to be circulated to field
by end-Sept
Prioritisation tool - heatmap:
 Using a prioritisation tool (eg heatmap tool) is the initial entry point into the needs analysis – it is
one part of the HNO. Heatmap provides the first visual scaling of the sectoral severity of needs but
is not in itself a decision-making tool or a determinant of needs – just a starting point to open the
conversation/inform strategic, thematic, and geographic priorities
 In your cluster, first determine indicators for your heatmap – select indicators that best represent
entry points for discussion in your context
 Caution in using heatmap tool:
o heatmap does not take into account coverage or capacity of partners in the areas that may
be identified as highest need locations
o need to ensure heatmap is used correctly to avoid distortion of results, leading to strategic
priorities which do not accurately reflect situation on the ground
o need to ensure that certain sectors/needs don’t get over-emphasised simply because of
higher quality data
o need to qualitatively review heatmap results
 Use of prioritisation tool is NOT a mandatory step in 2014; must use in 2015
Challenges for protection clusters
 Difficult to assign cost per activity for protection activities, particularly CP and GBV activities –
costings per outcome/per beneficiary/per unit. Recommend that GPC develop a tool to indicate
how to cost different protection interventions across countries and across activities – generic
costings
 DRC, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe have some experience in costing out GBV and CP sub-clusters;
could be used as a guide for generic costings
 Recognition that many activities are not amenable to a per unit cost. In these instances, can
provide a lump sum costing (as long as it’s not too ‘lumpy’ such that it lacks transparency). As long
as budget is needs-based and reflects number of beneficiaries and capacity of agencies, then it
should be possible to defend it
 Afghanistan – challenges in encouraging NGO activities to align with CHAP. Not clear to what
extent donors are requiring NGO protection activities to be aligned with CHAP. Funding of national
NGOs determined more by donor preferences than by alignment with CHAP strategic objectives.
 Rigorous needs analysis – challenging for protection cluster as often no nation-wide surveys that
can serve as basis for protection interventions. Often limited to relying on figures such as no. of
displaced; no. of casualties; mine action data – and extrapolate protection needs and risks from
this. Need more qualitative needs assessment information but constrained by access issues.
 Strategic objectives for cluster response plan should not be silo’ed according to AoRs but should
capture all aspects of protection needs
3