SIRF Syria INGO Regional Forum

Transcription

1 SIRF Syria INGO Regional Forum NGO Feedback on RRP6 Process and Draft 1 31 October 2013 RRP6 Workshop Amman This feedback has been jointly prepared by NGO Country Fora at national level (Jordan, Lebanon and KRI) and Regional level

2 Feedback Overview In general NGOs have felt that the process has been significantly more inclusive The process and coherence between sectors/countries also improved from the last RRP Some remaining areas for improvement both in the upcoming month and for the next RRP process

3 Priority Principle 1: An evidence-based appeal, ideally based on information needs/gap analysis and further baselines. Review: In most countries and across many sectors, the needs analysis and secondary data review was conducted often after the objectives and the planning of the sector were completed There has also been an inconsistency on how indicators were selected (often it was decided to take the easiest to collect rather than the most relevant and informative)

4 Priority Principle 2: Host country/community needs and capacities are integrated into sector level analysis Review: Host communities and host countries needs were generally taken into consideration throughout targeted countries and in most sectors It is suggested that Lebanese vulnerable households and communities need to be more substantively integrated across all sectors and strategically across all types of intervention (humanitarian, mid-term, and development) Given the need to link relief and development funding, we recommend that these inputs remain when cutting the financial requirements, and that the cut doesn t result in a pure-focus on life-saving initiatives On a separate note, there will be a need to rapidly clarify how this will ensure non-duplication of resilience and development funding which will be included under the upcoming UN Regional Strategy and, more specifically, under UNDP umbrella

5 Priority Principle 3: Integrated with our knowledge of humanitarian needs and population movements in Syria. Review: Linkages between RRP and SHARP remain rather week, including: no comparable needs assessments across the region to inform both planning processes; insufficient reference and mainstreaming of vulnerable groups across the two plans; lack of common indicators and monitoring frameworks; Coordination/information sharing about location, number of IDPs and Refugees across borders remains limited, etc.

6 Priority Principle 4: Demonstrating meaningful partnership and inclusion, INGOs are included from the beginning of process and throughout the final document. Review: Participatory and inclusive approach substantially improved from the past RRPs reviews both at national and regional level. Differences were however still reported between different sectors and countries NGOs reported that there were in most cases short notice (e.g. 1 day) for meetings, last minute meeting day/time chances. Feedback requested with 1 day (sometimes just a few hours) turnaround times precluded a qualitative approach and feedback. NGOs reported that -also if included in meetings- NGO feedback was in numerous cases not taken into account (no feedback mechanism on this and questions remained unanswered). Main challenges concerning INGO inclusion in the planning and review process were reported in Lebanon and KRI Reported lack of a consistent approach by UN agencies in terms of inclusion of partner information and allowing for visibility of partners

7 Priority Principle 5: Built in flexibility with the mid-term review or in reaction to a specific events Review: Planning figures are not perceived as based on current trends for all countries. NGOs support UNHCR initial suggestion to continue keeping these planning figures flexible up to the last moment, in order to ensure that the most realistic figures are used at the time of publication. A revision of planning figures and related financial requirements could be conducted mid-way or upon a specific event.

8 Pending concerns and suggestions It could be useful to have cost-efficiency analysis of approaches also among countries (ex. Shelter approach, cash transfer programming, health approaches, etc.) for both camp and host community settings. Increased bench-marking of cost-efficiency criteria per sector, would also facilitate a more harmonised planning. Prioritisation and targeting according to vulnerability criteria is not clear and, as an outcome, not always well-planned in this first draft throughout the sectors and countries Focus on the expected/planned strategy for 2014, including specific methodologies for assistance delivery, has sometimes been not sufficiently reflected within the sector and inter-sectoral plans

9 Pending concerns and suggestions Inconsistencies among sectors on the definition of the different categories (at sector level) have taken place across the region, hindering the capacity to efficiently plan and to compare among sectors and among countries. Better definition of terms and trainings of UN and NGO staff is highly recommended to ensure more coherent guidance in the future There has been a lack of strategic discussion in certain countries and sectors, with respect to the context and the needs and potential evolution in 2014, also due to a lack of time. This has resulted for some sectors in unclear targeting criteria and incoherencies within and between sector plans and might result in negative impacts on the quality and cost-efficiency of response in More balance between time for sector inputs (now 2-3 weeks) and time for compilation/review (now 2 months) would have allowed much better coordination and planning and increased the strategic value of this document How the regional level feedback will be shared with partners and incorporated through a joint revision process (including the revision of financial inputs) at a country level?