CHAPTER B:
Coordinating Humanitarian Action at Country Level
Bulo Burte , Somalia, 2023. Photo: OCHA/Tobin Jones
Bulo Burte , Somalia, 2023. Photo: OCHA/Tobin Jones
1. Establishing Humanitarian Coordination Mechanisms
With the increasing impacts of climate change compounding existing risks and fragility globally, it is a priority for HCs to ensure that appropriate humanitarian coordination mechanisms are planned as part of ongoing preparedness efforts. Effective preparedness means that when an international response is required, these mechanisms can be stood up quickly. This will involve adapting existing structures to the specific needs of the humanitarian response and, where necessary, setting up new structures if gaps in coordination and response exist. Humanitarian coordination mechanisms should be conceived and maintained in a way that supports and complements national preparedness and response led by the Government.
Key roles of the HC
Setting up an Effective Country-Level Humanitarian Coordination Architecture
In consultation with national authorities and humanitarian actors, and considering the context, available resources, and existing capacities and mechanisms, the HC is responsible for determining the most adequate and efficient coordination ‘architecture’. Its purpose is to ensure that all actors34 responding to the emergency work together to achieve shared strategic objectives, and that humanitarian programmes are designed and delivered in a principled, effective and complementary manner. Effective coordination helps to avoid a chaotic and fragmented response.
34 It is critical for the HC to understand the mandates of actors involved in the response (community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, national and foreign militaries, local/national and international NGOs, the national and foreign private sector, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement [IFRC, ICRC, National Societies], UN entities, and neighbouring and other States) and their adherence to humanitarian principles. Although each actor has different mandates, accountabilities and cultures, the HC must strive to ensure coordination among them.
The types of coordination mechanisms established, their duration and their location (national, subnational) depend on the scale and complexity of the response as well as the type of crisis. At the start of a crisis, it is important for the HC to highlight the importance of emergency responders’ engagement in coordination mechanisms, not only to ensure the quality and efficiency of the overall response, but also in terms of the value added of information-sharing and joint planning to their own programmatic work.
Established coordination structures should be light and focused on how humanitarian actors collectively meet the priority needs of affected people, without duplication or gaps.
As far as possible, the coordination architecture for international responders builds on, plugs into and complements existing national- and local-level mechanisms, avoiding creating separate or parallel structures.35 Contextual and flexible approaches will allow for the adaptation of coordination structures over time, including an increased role for local and national actors36 and/or development partners as the situation moves from emergency to recovery.
> For details on localizing the response, see section B.8 (Localizing the Response).
35 In conflict situations in which the State is a party to the conflict, humanitarian coordination may need to happen with limited State involvement to ensure that affected people have access to humanitarian protection and assistance, independent of whether the State controls the territory on which they reside.
As the humanitarian architecture is being established, it is essential that the HC maintains dialogue with national counterparts and ensures they support the international mechanisms for the preparedness for and response to humanitarian emergencies, and that they understand how international roles and responsibilities complement national efforts. Transparency is essential for maintaining effective coordination and collaboration with national counterparts leading the response efforts.
Typically, the humanitarian architecture includes one, some or all of the following:37
37 In refugee situations or mixed situations involving IDPs and refugees, UNHCR plays an integral role in the humanitarian architecture – see section A.3.
38 See ICCG Standard Terms of Reference: www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites.pdf
In addition to the HCT, ICCG/ISCG and clusters, the HC, with the HCT, may establish other coordination groups to support, for example, needs assessment and analysis, CVA, humanitarian access, humanitarian civil-military coordination, risk management, and the establishment of OCHA-managed CBPFs, among others.
In setting up humanitarian coordination in a new emergency, the HC should endeavour to ensure that all UNCT/HCT members have a solid understanding of the rationale for establishing humanitarian coordination and the steps being taken to put it in place, ensuring common messaging on this issue is followed.39
39 In many cases, UNCT members may be unfamiliar with humanitarian principles and coordination mechanisms. To avoid mixed messaging coming from UNCT/HCT members, the HC, with OCHA’s support, should ensure the leadership team is well briefed on this issue and that key messages are in place to answer questions from national counterparts, donors, NGO partners and staff members.
The humanitarian coordination architecture in any given country is adjustable. The HC is accountable, together with the HCT, for ensuring that what was established at one point in time is, in fact, still the optimal configuration for the context and, above all, meets the coordination and response needs.
IASC guidance requires that the HC/HCT conducts an annual review of the coordination architecture, where the humanitarian leadership in country reflects upon and, if necessary, adjusts the mechanisms in place. This can entail deactivating clusters, adjusting subnational coordination or setting up new entities, as necessary. OCHA’s role is to support the HC/HCT in this process.
The HC should impress upon the HCT, cluster lead agencies (CLA), clusters and OCHA the need to have pragmatic transition plans in place, which include the transfer of any coordination responsibilities to a national counterpart.
Edward Kallon – Humanitarian Architecture
The Humanitarian Country Team
A HCT is set up at the outset of a humanitarian crisis to bring together operationally relevant actors in a humanitarian response. This will include the country directors (or equivalent) of relevant UN agencies, NGOs (national and international) and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement.
The HCT is chaired by the HC (and in some cases the RC where a HC has not been designated), and it is the highest-level international humanitarian body in the country. It is primarily responsible for strategic decision-making, and to facilitate the centrality of protection and adequate, efficient and needs-based response and preparedness. The HCT’s membership is governed by the IASC Standard Terms of Reference.40 The HC should ensure that the size of the HCT is limited to allow for effective decision-making, with the main criteria being operational relevance.
40
https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/...
The UNCT and HCT coexist; they do not replace each other. The RC, RC/HC or HC is responsible for ensuring complementarity between the two entities. The HC may also decide to set up a separate forum to facilitate information-sharing with the broader humanitarian community or with donors.
Following its initiation, the HCT’s immediate decisions will address urgent operational humanitarian matters. The HC and HCT will need to decide quickly on which additional coordination structures and expertise, if any, are required to support the response (e.g. through sector-based coordination mechanisms such as clusters – see below).
OCHA supports the HC to make sure that an appropriate architecture is put in place, in line with the IASC’s guidance and procedures. As secretariat to the HCT, OCHA also supports the HC in his/her coordination function, ensuring that effective links are made with other coordination bodies, such as the ICCG/ISCG.
Resources
Jamie McGoldrick – HCT
Clusters and Cluster Lead Agencies
Clusters 41
41 Note that in some contexts the use of the term ‘cluster’ may be undesirable; the term ‘sector’ is used instead.
Clusters bring together UN and non-UN partners actively involved in relief efforts. The clusters’ primary function is to coordinate the delivery of assistance among the various actors working in specific sectors (e.g. health, food, nutrition) while ensuring adherence to the centrality of protection. At the request of the HC/HCT, one or more of these sectoral groups may be formally activated as clusters by the IASC when a context analysis deems that (i) response and coordination gaps exist in a particular sector due to a sharp deterioration or significant change in the humanitarian situation, or (ii) existing national response or coordination capacity is unable to meet needs. Cluster activation should be considered if the IASC activation criteria are met.42 OCHA’s role is to support the HC through the cluster activation process.
42 See p.10 IASC Cluster Coordination Reference Module.
Clusters are activated in consultation with the Government and the HCT, and they require the endorsement of the IASC EDG. Clusters can also be established at the subnational level depending on the nature and scope of the emergency and the needs of the response.43
43 Where subnational/area-specific clusters are established, the national-level cluster normally focuses on policy issues and strategic planning, while localized clusters are tasked with local planning and implementation.
Each cluster is chaired by a Cluster Coordinator who is appointed by the CLA. The Cluster Coordinator’s role is to promote an effective and coherent response by operational actors in a given sector. S/he provides leadership and works on behalf of the cluster as a whole, facilitating all cluster activities, and developing and maintaining a strategic vision and operational response plan. S/he also ensures coordination with other clusters in relation to inter-cluster activities and cross-cutting issues.44
44 The CLA also appoints a Cluster Information Management Officer to work with the Cluster Coordinator to support intra- cluster coordination and, in collaboration with OCHA and through the Information Management Working Group, to contribute to inter-cluster coordination (see more information on this below).
Clusters are intended to be temporary structures in support of national sectoral coordination. Any international coordination support and responsibilities should eventually be transferred to national counterparts as soon as capacity permits, thus ensuring cluster transition and deactivation.
Cluster Lead Agencies
Each cluster is led by a CLA responsible for running and staffing the cluster. The CLA is an agency/organization that formally commits to take on a leadership role within a particular sector or area of activity. CLAs/clusters are also the primary entry points for collaboration with line (sectoral) ministries, and HCs’ first point of call for any issues relating to their sectoral area.
The CLA serves as the Provider of Last Resort, i.e. it commits to do the utmost to ensure an adequate and appropriate response. This means calling on all relevant humanitarian partners to address critical gaps in the response, and if this fails, committing to filling the gap itself (or advocate for resources or access to do so). All clusters have six core functions – standardized actions against which they must deliver and monitor performance annually (e.g. supporting service delivery, informing HC/HCT strategic decision-making, planning and implementing cluster strategies).45
45 The six core functions are described in the IASC Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at the Country Level.
Humanitarian Cluster System
The selection of CLAs ideally mirrors global arrangements). In rare instances this is not possible, and other organizations may be in a better position to lead46 based on their coordination-and-response capacity, operational presence and ability to scale up. The HC should encourage all clusters to have an NGO Co-Chair to enhance coordination, wherever feasible.
46 UNHCR is the CLA for the Global Protection Cluster. However, in disaster situations or complex emergencies without significant displacement, the three protection-mandated agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF and OHCHR) will consult and, under the HC’s overall leadership, agree which of them will assume the role of CLA for protection. In the case of service clusters (logistics, emergency telecommunications), the global CLA usually takes on the role of CLA at country level because service clusters require technical expertise that other agencies may not possess.
Heads of CLAs are accountable to the HC and ERC for their cluster’s performance, and for ensuring that sectoral coordination mechanisms are established and properly supported. In this regard, it is essential for the HC to hold CLAs accountable for the functioning of their clusters, including ensuring that adequate staffing is in place (Coordinator and IM Officer) to deliver effective results. Possible actions include:
Where country-level actions are not proving fruitful, the HC may also request to brief the EDG on key challenges, including CLA accountabilities. A direct discussion with the EDG Chair (Director of OCHA’s Operations and Advocacy Division) is another means to ensure HQ-level engagement on the issue.
Regarding CLAs’ participation in the HCT, heads of CLA agencies not only represent their agency but also the cluster itself, and they are expected to bring a broader operational perspective to the table.
Resources
Inter-cluster/Sector Coordination
When two or more clusters are activated (or where sectors but not clusters are in place), the HC and HCT are responsible for establishing an ICCG/ISCG.47 The ICCG brings together all active clusters (or sectors) to collaborate on the operational response: closing delivery gaps, eliminating duplication and ensuring an impartial, people-centred approach.
47 For ease of reference here, the term ‘ICCG’ will be used and denotes both inter-cluster and inter-sector working groups.
This is done by reaching a shared understanding of needs, informed by a robust protection and gender analysis, and agreeing on a joint strategy. The ICCG plays a critical role in developing the HRP48 and informing the HC/HCT of key strategic concerns requiring resolution at the leadership level. At the same time, the HCT guides the ICCG’s priorities, offering strategic direction to enable coherence in operational response, and it tasks the ICCG as required.
48
See section B.4 (Humanitarian response analysis and planning) for details on the Humanitarian Response Plan.
The ICCG is accountable to the HC and reports to the HCT through OCHA, which chairs the ICCG. Specific working and advisory groups on cross-cutting, inter-cluster/thematic issues (such as AAP, etc.) can be established directly under (and report to) the ICCG or the HCT.49
49 Chairs/Co-Chairs of such bodies are active members of the ICCG or HCT, respectively.
The ICCG provides operational direction and support to subnational coordination groups, and it plays a necessary role in tracking and monitoring the response. Based on the context and specific coordination needs of the response, the ICCG may be replicated at the subnational level and/or for a specific geographic area.
Resources
NGO Coordination
Local, national and international NGOs deliver a significant part of humanitarian assistance, and they are integral partners in ensuring that humanitarian action is coordinated and effective in reaching people most in need.
> For more details on the role of NGOs, see section A.3 (NGOs).
NGOs primarily coordinate their operational planning with other stakeholders through the clusters, sectors or other existing working groups. The HC can help to ensure clusters proactively include NGOs and support their participation, including through the use of local languages, if needed, and ensuring they are adequately represented in HRPs and other planning and fundraising documents. The HC should encourage all clusters to have an NGO Co-Chair to enhance the coordination and contextualization of the response.
At a response-wide level, NGO networks or forums play an important role in supporting and coordinating the work of NGOs. NGO forums are voluntary groupings of local, national or international NGOs, or a combination of these. In protracted settings, or where disasters are recurrent, NGO forums often become well established over years or even decades, and they establish independent relationships with Governments, donors and other partners. In other settings, forums may emerge, scale up or down, or disband, depending on the requirements of NGOs working in the response.
NGO forums provide their members with a range of support, including coordination, collective advocacy, partnership-building, capacity-strengthening and strategic representation. This diversity in size, representation and focus means it is vital to invest in effective engagement with NGO forums. In most cases, they are supported by a small secretariat team and led by an elected governing body or steering committee. It is important for the HC to have a good understanding of the membership and representative scope of the major NGO forums, and to consider them strategic allies in the overall coordination architecture. In preparedness settings, it is important to establish a list of key CSOs and NGOs working in different response sectors and geographic regions to allow for rapid coordination during an emergency.
Wherever possible, the HC should encourage that NGO forums – adequately representing local/national and international NGOs, either jointly or separately – are represented in the HCT, alongside individual NGOs, so that collective NGO positions or perspectives inform the priorities of the overall response. It is important to note that no UN agency, including OCHA, has responsibility for NGO coordination. Therefore, there is no substitute for direct and sustained engagement with NGOs – both from the HC and through the HCT.
The HC should champion and advocate for the importance of NGO coordination with the host Government and donors. NGO forums are often informal groups without legal registration, and they face associated risks due to Government actions that may restrict the space for NGOs to assemble freely and establish suitable governance-and-accountability mechanisms, and to ensure inclusive membership/participation of the local and national NGOs.
To function effectively, NGO forums require adequate resourcing. This may be provided in part by their members, but it often requires additional support from donors. Advocacy by the HC can prove invaluable in this regard.
Resources
Cash Coordination
The use of CVA is growing across humanitarian contexts, offering a response modality that can provide significant benefits and help meet basic needs, supplement household incomes, reinvigorate local markets, promote financial inclusion, protect livelihoods and help local economies to recover. Particularly when it is provided with minimum restrictions, cash can put decision-making in the hands of the recipients and offer connections to longer-term development assistance via social protection linkages.
The IASC Cash Coordination Model was approved in March 2022 by the IASC Principals. It places accountability for cash coordination with the ICCG/ISCG. Where CVA constitutes, or has the potential to constitute, a proportion of the response, the HC and HCT may establish a dedicated Cash Working Group (CWG) as a subgroup of the ICCG/ISCG.
The CWG aims to effectively coordinate the delivery of CVA by multiple actors across the response to maximize resources, avoid duplications, address unmet needs, increase effectiveness and enable programmatic coherence. It is also responsible for systematically integrating CVA, particularly multipurpose cash transfers, into humanitarian response and preparedness plans – wherever feasible and appropriate – to ensure coherence and avoid duplication of efforts.
In IASC settings,50 leadership of the CWG should be systematically shared between at least two Co-Chairs – including one ‘non-programmatic’ Co-Chair. In all IASC settings where OCHA has an office, OCHA is responsible for providing the non-programmatic Co-Chair(s) for these groups. The programmatic Co-Chair(s) should be elected through a transparent process, and they should include local and national leadership wherever possible.
50 When clusters are activated and an international humanitarian response system is established.
Cash coordination should prioritize the participation, inclusion and representation of all actors in the response – a principle enshrined in the cash coordination model. CWGs may comprise representatives of clusters/sectors, national and international NGOs, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, UN agencies, national and subnational authorities, donors and financial service providers, where appropriate.
Cash coordination activities – supporting sectoral and multipurpose cash assistance – must be in line with the overall intersectoral operational priorities of the response (as set by the ICCG or ISCG). Given CVA’s inherent benefits and its potential to link to longer-term development, it is important to establish a common understanding of the feasibility and appropriateness of using CVA in general, and multipurpose cash in particular; the potential to link humanitarian CVA with national social-protection mechanisms while leaving no one behind; and the use of CVA as part of anticipatory financing mechanisms.
The IASC-endorsed cash coordination model is built on the principle of localization, enabling more inclusive coordination with greater participation of national and local actors, and helping to ensure that decisions regarding cash interventions are made closer and with greater accountability to the crisis-affected population. Efforts to ensure a collaborative and coherent approach should be encouraged to better assist affected populations in a principled and dignified manner. This should be done in a way that improves complementarities, synergies and accountabilities among response actors. Additionally, a range of technical measures may also support greater coherence in the implementation of the cash response, such as developing a minimum expenditure basket, collaborating around the use of financial service providers and harmonizing transfer rates, among others.
The HC should promote a common understanding of the feasibility of different response options as part of strategic planning processes, including advocating for the consideration of CVA as a default response option alongside in-kind items and services, where feasible and appropriate. Where appropriate, the HC should also advocate for stronger links between humanitarian cash actors and national social-protection mechanisms by leading efforts to coordinate with development actors (including the World Bank) and national Governments around a common vision, objective(s) and workplan. This includes promoting the consideration of CVA as part of anticipatory financing mechanisms, where feasible and appropriate. The HC should ensure that cash coordination mechanisms are well resourced, represent all sectors and promote activities in line with the overall priorities of the response.
Resources
Gustavo Gonzalez – Cash assistance
Humanitarian, Development and Peace Collaboration (HDPC)
HCs have a leadership role in initiating, coordinating and facilitating collaboration between humanitarian, development and, where relevant and appropriate, peace actors.
HDPC is highly context specific. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, though there are basic tenets to the collaboration that can be applied in most, if not all, countries with a HRP. Collaboration between humanitarian, development and peace actors should be viewed in the context of existing mandates and be based on the complementarities and synergies among humanitarian, development and peace action. The extent of HDPC will also depend on the type and severity of the emergency; in situations of acute armed conflict, where saving lives and protection are the overriding immediate priorities, opportunities for humanitarian-development collaboration and its links to peace may be more limited.
Under the HC’s leadership, the general framework for strengthened HDPC encourages actors to define a set of common priorities based on a shared understanding of needs and vulnerabilities. These priorities should guide coherent humanitarian and development collaboration, underpinned by flexible and multi-year financing objectives. An example is strengthened humanitarian-development collaboration approaches in support of durable solutions, in line with the UN Secretary-General’s Action Agenda on Internal Displacement.51 Additionally, development donors and IFIs should be encouraged to scale up financing during times of crisis and in challenging contexts to complement humanitarian action and address underlying drivers.
51
www.un.org/en/content/action-agenda-on-internal-displacement
As part of global efforts to better leverage humanitarian, development and peace resources, the UN established the Joint Steering Committee to Advance Humanitarian and Development Collaboration (JSC). Since its creation in 2017, and following a light review in 2021, the JSC has been reinstated as a UN internal mechanism that aims to address institutional and systemic barriers that hinder HDP collaboration, and incentivize and support more effective HDP collaboration at the country level.
The JSC is co-chaired at the Assistant Secretary-General level on a rotational basis by OCHA, DCO and PBSO as the three entities mandated to support the DSRSG/ RC/HC, as well as UNDP. OCHA and DCO serve as the secretariat to the JSC. The JSC reports to the UNSDG as well as the Executive Committee of the Secretary-General. Some of the JSC’s immediate priorities are to delve into strategic issues and systemic bottlenecks in support of (and informed by) country-level priorities.
Additionally, the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has recommendations on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (linked below) that provide a policy framework for engaging with key donors on this.
Resources
UN Integration
Integration is the bringing together of UN entities across pillars to enhance the individual and collective impact of the UN response, concentrating on those activities required for sustaining peace. The 2023 UN Integrated Assessment and Planning policy establishes the minimum requirements for the conduct of assessments and planning where an integrated UN presence (i.e. a country team and a multidimensional peacekeeping operation or field-based special political mission) is in place or is being considered, regardless of whether this presence is structurally integrated. The policy focuses on UN activities aimed at sustaining peace, as identified in each particular context and in line with respective mandates. UN activities in areas other than sustaining peace fall outside the scope of the policy.
During the integrated assessment-and-planning process, a country-specific business case will guide decisions on the level and depth of integration (e.g. related to structural, programmatic and funding arrangements) required among the different entities in specific areas. It is crucial that at a minimum, all entities and organizations share a common analysis and agree on a set of common strategic objectives to prevent, reduce and resolve violent conflict and sustain peace.
In all cases, integration arrangements should support joint analysis, coordination, complementarity and coherence among humanitarian, peace and security, development and human rights actors. While humanitarian action can support sustaining peace, its main purpose remains to address life-saving needs and alleviate suffering. Accordingly, most humanitarian action is likely to remain distinct so as not to challenge the ability of UN and broader humanitarian actors to deliver according to the humanitarian principles. However, humanitarian activities related to the protection of civilians, durable solutions to internal displacement and early recovery may be included in the UN integrated strategic approach based on a joint analysis of context, risks, costs and benefits elaborated in the business case.
The integrated approach and integration arrangements should allow for UN and broader humanitarian actors to deliver according to humanitarian principles and facilitate effective humanitarian coordination with all humanitarian actors.
Refugee Response Coordination
As set out in GA resolutions, UNHCR is mandated to lead the refugee response, including carrying out sectoral inter-agency coordination, contingency planning, response and resource mobilization, and finding durable solutions. As such, it is the lead agency accountable for refugee protection and seeking solutions within the UN system, and for engaging a wider array of stakeholders. Importantly, UNHCR also has a supervisory role: it is the UN entity accountable for ensuring States’ adherence to internationally accepted standards vis-à-vis refugees and stateless people, and for strengthening States’ protection capacities.
Refugee responses are protection focused and multisectoral, geared to allow refugees to exercise their legal rights deriving from international refugee law. Being outside their home country means that refugees often face increased difficulty in meeting basic needs, leading to increased levels of vulnerability.
Within a country context, the UNHCR Representative speaks for the High Commissioner on matters pertaining to UNHCR’s mandate and carries out the coordination responsibilities. In situations involving large refugee movements, the Representative coordinates UN and NGO partners in articulating a Refugee Response Plan, which serves as an advocacy and joint resource mobilization tool.
Global Compact on Refugees
In 2016, the world began to look afresh at refugee responses and agreed in the New York Declaration52 to adopt more comprehensive approaches that engaged a broader array of stakeholders. The subsequent implementation of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework – now embedded in the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR)53 – also informs UNHCR’s coordination accountabilities. The GCR recognizes the importance of national ownership and the need to employ a multi-stakeholder and partnership approach in which UNHCR, consistent with its mandate, plays a supportive and catalytic role. It provides a blueprint for Governments, international organizations and other stakeholders to ensure that host communities get the support they need and that refugees can lead productive lives.
52
www.unhcr.org/584689257.pdf
53
www.unhcr.org/the-global-compact-on-refugees.html
In line with the GCR, UNHCR is committed to work with RCs, HCs and UNCTs/HCTs to advance national development priorities and ensure no one is left behIn line with the GCR, UNHCR is committed to work with RCs, HCs and UNCTs/HCTs to advance national development priorities and ensure no one is left behind. This collaborative work includes encouraging development actors to intervene on behalf of refugees and in support of host communities, and to work with States to include refugees in national development plans.ind. This collaborative work includes encouraging development actors to intervene on behalf of refugees and in support of host communities, as well as to work with States to include refugees in national development plans.
Coordination arrangements
When a complex emergency takes place and a UNHCR-led refugee response is under way or imminent, UNHCR leads refugee response planning in a manner coherent with the overall humanitarian response led by the HC. This is set out in the 2014 Joint UNHCR-OCHA Note on Mixed Situations – Coordination in Practice,54 reconfirmed by the ERC and the UNHCR High Commissioner on 5 June 2018. It provides a detailed overview of the division of responsibilities between the UNHCR Representative and the HC in these situations.
54
www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/joint_unhcr_-_ocha_note_on_mixed_situations.pdf
Extract from the Joint UNHCR-OCHA Note on Mixed Situations – Coordination in Practice
Refugee response plans
UNHCR leads the development and implementation of and resource mobilization for inter-agency refugee response plans (country specific) and/or regional refugee response plans (to respond to a significant refugee influx into several countries). These response plans are a coordination tool that establishes a common strategy and provides the host Government and donors with an overview of the inter-agency response, including the resource requirements. In the contexts of HRPs, a dedicated refugee response chapter is included.
Comprehensive response framework
As requested by the host country, UNHCR supports Governments to establish and support national, regional and international arrangements for the application of the comprehensive refugee response framework. These frameworks should engage a broad range of stakeholders, as envisaged by the GCR, and will be context specific.
As recognized in the GCR, population movements are not necessarily homogeneous and may be of a composite character. Some may be large movements involving refugees and others on the move; other situations may involve refugees and IDPs. In certain situations, external forced displacement may result from sudden-onset natural disasters and environmental degradation.
In mixed situations involving refugees and IDPs, as defined by the UNHCR-OCHA Joint Note, the HCT is responsible for developing a common strategic response plan to address issues around internal displacement, ensuring alignment and complementarity with response plans coordinated by UNHCR.
>
See section B.8 (Developing Durable Solutions for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons) for details on developing durable solutions for refugees and IDPs.
Resources
Migrant Response Coordination
Whether they are living in, transiting through or returning from a crisis-affected country, migrants are among the most vulnerable people during conflicts and natural disasters. Furthermore, crises prompting large-scale population movements can create conditions that require life-saving humanitarian assistance. However, the current humanitarian coordination system, largely framed around the IASC cluster system and the Refugee Coordination Model, does not systematically account for migrants’ needs, including when in mixed settings with IDPs, asylum-seekers and refugees. In 2016, the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants was convened to discuss a more robust international response to large population movements. It resulted in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and it set in motion the development of two compacts: the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which reiterated the need for enhanced cooperation on international migration in all its dimensions,55 and the GCR. (see above).
55 With a view to supporting the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, the UN established a Network on Migration to ensure effective, timely and coordinated system-wide support to Member States. In carrying out its mandate, the Network will prioritize the rights and well-being of migrants and their communities of destination, origin and transit. IOM serves as the coordinator and secretariat of the Network, which, as of May 2023, includes 43 regional- and country-level coordination platforms established under the leadership of HCs.
Migrants are identified as a population of humanitarian concern in an increasing number of HNOs/HRPs, refugee response plans, refugee and migrant response plans, and other types of inter-agency strategic planning processes.56 However, the humanitarian coordination approach specific to those crises has been largely addressed through ad hoc structures coordinated at the country or regional level.
56 As of 2023, 17 of the 41 inter-agency response plans (41 per cent) included in the Global Humanitarian Overview included references to migrants as populations of humanitarian concern. However, gaps remain not only in recording the number of migrants affected by crises but also in the analysis of their needs.
In line with a growing number of precedents, effective responses are based on the needs and concerns (as opposed to the status) of migrants and other affected populations, the capacity of Governments to respond and the operational context. Migrants’ needs should be mainstreamed into existing humanitarian coordination frameworks before considering alternative arrangements. As a last resort, dedicated coordination mechanisms can be established by using a migrant response platform model to ensure an effective and holistic response to meet migrants’ protection and assistance needs.
These platforms cover the specific needs of migrants and people of concern who are not accounted for in existing in-country coordination mechanisms. In mixed settings involving migrants, IOM and UNHCR coordinate with other UN agencies and stakeholders to ensure that assistance is complementary with broader humanitarian response operations, as outlined in the IOM/UNHCR Framework of Engagement, which both organizations signed on 30 June 2022.
2. Negotiating and Facilitating Humanitarian Access
Humanitarian access is critical for establishing operations, assessing needs, monitoring assistance, moving goods and personnel to where they are needed, and enabling affected people to benefit from assistance and access basic services.
Facilitating and coordinating efforts to establish and maintain safe, timely and unimpeded access is central to the mandate of HCs.
What is Humanitarian Access?
Humanitarian access refers to humanitarian actors’ ability to reach crisis-affected people, as well as the affected population’s ability to access humanitarian assistance and services. Rapid and unimpeded access is a fundamental prerequisite for effective humanitarian action. An understanding of the international legal framework (including IHL, IHRL and UN GA resolution 46/182) is critical for framing the access conversation.
> For details on IHL and IHRL see section A.2.
The HC is responsible for leading the development of a strategic and coordinated approach to access. Joint reflection and common strategies are critical. The HC may decide to establish dedicated coordination structures to support the analysis and assessment of humanitarian access. When relevant and/or requested by the HCT, this could include a Humanitarian Access Working Group.
The HC has a key role in building a coherent evidence-based narrative on access, built on quantitative and qualitative analysis and systematic monitoring of access constraints. Encouraging HCT members to report on access constraints (including bureaucratic impediments) is critical in this regard. The HC is also responsible for advocating for safe, timely and unhindered humanitarian access with all parties (including non-State armed groups). This involves engaging in high-level humanitarian advocacy and negotiations and humanitarian diplomacy, and promoting compliance with and respect for humanitarian principles and relevant international law.
Resources
Bureaucratic and Administrative Impediments
Bureaucratic and administrative impediments refer to administrative practices and policies that affect humanitarian organizations’ ability to reach people in need in a timely and unfettered manner. These may be intentionally restrictive (such as restrictions on the import of aid equipment or security equipment required for the response) or unintentionally burdensome (such as onerous donor funding application-and-reporting processes, or cumbersome administrative procedures to approve or register organizations). Humanitarian action can be impeded by the administrative practices adopted by donors, host Governments and non-State armed groups controlling territory where people in need reside, and by partnership agreements between UN or INGO donors and local NGOs.
NGOs tend to be disproportionately affected by bureaucratic and administrative impediments. Foreign NGO workers are often subject to residency, labour and other requirements of the host State. The lack of privileges and immunities means that INGOs often need to comply with more stringent administrative requirements to operate legally and safely.
In many countries, CSOs are regulated by domestic legislation and operate within a national legal framework. Ideally, these frameworks help streamline bureaucratic and administrative processes. However, in some contexts they have the opposite effect, at times contrary to international law and humanitarian principles. Common impediments include convoluted or opaque processes for NGO registration, withholding or delaying visa approvals for international staff, or restrictions on the movement of relief items into and within the country. The need for some form of travel authorization to conduct work in specific areas is a common means of limiting the provision of assistance and accurate needs assessments by NGOs. In some cases, these also affect UN and ICRC operations.
The HC should be prepared to speak out and lead collective action to counter the imposition of bureaucratic and administrative impediments by the Government, donors and non-State actors. This could involve regular discussions in the HCT on developing a common understanding of the range, nature and impact of bureaucratic and administrative impediments, and an associated action plan to address them. To be effective, these efforts should engage with and learn from the NGO community, particularly by engaging NGO forums, to ensure efforts are informed by current operational realities. The HC should ensure partners’ coordinated and systematic reporting of bureaucratic and administrative impediments through Humanitarian Access Working Groups. Where efforts at the national level may not be sufficient to resolve such impediments, the HC could request support from the ERC and IASC Principals for high-level advocacy to resolve the impediments andfacilitate effective humanitarian response.
Resources
Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination
Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination (UN-CMCoord) is the essential dialogue and interaction between civilian and military or armed actors in humanitarian emergencies. Through systematic engagement, UN-CMCoord aims to promote humanitarian principles, avoid competition for resources, minimize inconsistency and, where appropriate, pursue common humanitarian goals.
UN-CMCoord can be applied across all contexts, from natural disasters to conflicts and complex emergencies, including migration crises and pandemic response, and in preparation for the potential effects of climate change. Conflicts and complex emergencies have become increasingly protracted and require sustained and substantive dialogue with parties to conflict. Many of these emergencies are characterized by persistent failures to protect civilians, multiple constraints to humanitarian access, and the need to engage with a myriad of armed actors with different profiles and motivations.
UN-CMCoord can support HCs in many ways:
57 Voluntary systems to share the geographic coordinates of aid operations (humanitarian missions as well as permanent and temporary humanitarian sites) with military forces as a means of reducing humanitarian casualties and protecting humanitarian missions in areas of active hostilities.
The HC may be the primary interlocutor with the most senior levels of national militaries, armed elements and other parties to conflict, and/or the senior leadership of domestic and bilateral military support in natural disasters. The HC is responsible for providing direction across the HCT on engaging with military and armed actors. This involves ensuring coherence across a wide range of issues, including, but not limited to, the use of armed escorts; negotiating humanitarian access with armed actors; ensuring positive protection outcomes; influencing the behaviour of armed actors (reminding them of their obligations to IHL) in an effort to prevent the deliberate targeting of health facilities, schools and other protected sites; and the appropriate use of military assets to fill an identified gap in the humanitarian response.
Armed or Military Escorts for Humanitarian Convoys
As a rule, humanitarian organizations, including those of the UN, should not use armed escorts. However, there may be exceptional circumstances in which the use of armed escorts is necessary as a last resort to enable immediate humanitarian action and address critical life-saving needs. Before deciding on such exceptions, the humanitarian community must consider the immediate and longer-term consequences. Before opting to use armed escorts, all possible alternatives should be considered. ‘Last resort’ is when no other option is available to facilitate access and the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to meet critical humanitarian needs.
Using armed escorts may carry serious risks for humanitarian organizations and affected populations both in the immediate and longer term.
“The resort to armed escorts comes with certain risks: If armed escorts consist of military actors that are party to a conflict, they can draw attack from other parties, thus exposing humanitarians and their beneficiaries to harm. The use of armed escorts, whether military or civilian, can also undermine perceptions of humanitarians’ neutrality and independence, in turn jeopardizing community acceptance and staff security, and hindering access to civilians in need. Therefore, armed escorts should only be used in exceptional circumstances as a last resort, and consequences and alternatives should always be considered first.”
UN Secretary-General’s Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, para. 85.
A robust context analysis and actor-mapping identifying the access and security risks of using armed escorts is an important tool in identifying such risks.
Depending on the nature of the humanitarian organization, escorts are used as a last resort to help mitigate the risks associated with humanitarian movements, such as armed attacks. These are authorized at the discretion of the specific humanitarian organization (if non-UN) and where the HC and HCTs (for humanitarian organizations) are encouraged to forge a common position for the humanitarian community. The Designated Official decides exclusively for UN staff and assets. However, it should be noted that UN use of armed escorts will likely impact the non-UN actors that do not use escorts, including most NGOs. Military escorts may include UN forces conducting peace operations (governed by Security Council decisions), other international forces, State forces, non-State groups or State-aligned groups.
The deployment of armed escorts is subject to the principle of last resort. The IASC Non-Binding Guidelines on the Use of Armed Escorts for Humanitarian Convoys provides guidance to HCs and HCTs in navigating the decision-making process for the humanitarian community. UN agencies’ use of armed escorts will require a security risk assessment/security risk management process58 that considers, but is not limited to, the following criteria:
58 This includes a Programme Criticality Assessment – see section B.4.
Humanitarian and military vehicles should remain distinctly separate. Other than the vehicles, weapons and personnel providing the escorts, the convoys should remain exclusively humanitarian. It is important to bear in mind that non-UN organizations have their own rules and decision-making processes for the use of armed or military escorts for humanitarian convoys. NGOs are never bound by the UN’s security framework. Some NGOs will have subscribed to the Saving Lives Together Framework.
Deployed UN humanitarian civil-military coordination officers (see below) can act as an intermediary between the humanitarian community and the military when requests for military or armed escorts are considered.
Resources
Humanitarian Diplomacy
Humanitarian diplomacy is the use of high-level engagement to influence the parties to armed conflicts and their sponsors to pursue humanitarian objectives. It requires nurturing relationships at the highest level to pursue the realization of humanitarian goals.
Humanitarian diplomacy can be used for different purposes:
Humanitarian diplomacy differs from but is supported by public and private advocacy. Humanitarian diplomacy relates primarily to private and confidential political engagement to seek agreements on humanitarian issues, while advocacy is a coordinated strategy to influence decisions. Public or private advocacy could be mobilized as an instrument in support of humanitarian diplomacy efforts.
Humanitarian diplomacy and humanitarian negotiations are interdependent. Humanitarian diplomacy is a broader instrument under which humanitarian negotiations fall. Effective humanitarian diplomacy on access requires the use of humanitarian negotiations; likewise, humanitarian negotiations on access greatly benefit from the use of humanitarian diplomacy, increasing their chances of success. Both can be undertaken simultaneously by different stakeholders at different levels.
The Humanitarian Negotiations Unit (HNU) sits within OCHA. It provides on-demand support to HCs on the conduct of humanitarian diplomacy, including through assisting with conflict and political analysis, operational support and advisory support.
Negotiation Analysis and Strategy
OCHA’s mandate (UN GA resolution 46/182) provides legal basis and includes negotiations among the tools to facilitate access. Before initiating negotiations, it is important to understand the operational context and conflict dynamics, and to map key stakeholders and their motivations. Higher-level negotiations that seek longer-term engagement should first focus on building trust among the negotiation teams. Negotiators should frame the conversation away from incentives not to create a transactional relationship and clearly communicate red lines. OCHA’s HNU can provide analytical and advisory support remotely and in country, as required.
The practitioner’s manual on Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups provides a nine-step generic framework that can be applied to humanitarian negotiations.
It is important to be aware that while negotiations can help facilitate humanitarian access, they can also have unintended or unanticipated consequences for humanitarian organizations:
Resources
Sanctions and Counter terrorism Measures
The implementation of sanctions and counter-terrorism measures targeting local actors by the host State, donors or other States can have an important impact on humanitarian operations and access. Sanctions regimes may prohibit or require authorization (‘licences’) for certain humanitarian activities, or for the export of items and services necessary to humanitarian operations (which often entails lengthy, cumbersome and complex procedures). Humanitarian organizations and private partners may incur heavy penalties in case of aid diversion to sanctioned entities. As a result, private sector organizations (including banks) may be reluctant to provide services in support of humanitarian operations in countries affected by sanctions. Donors and, in some instances, host States have adopted a zero-tolerance policy on aid diversion to sanctioned groups and individuals (including through funding cuts, no-contact policies with certain groups, requests for information on beneficiaries, beneficiary vetting or prohibitions on implementing programmes in certain areas).
In some countries, there have been disinformation campaigns presenting humanitarian operations as a potential source of support to ‘terrorist groups’. Humanitarian organizations have been expelled, and staff have been intimidated, arrested and even prosecuted upon accusations of support to terrorism, based on the mere fact that they provided assistance in areas beyond Government control. In several countries, counter-terrorism laws criminalize interactions with groups considered ‘terrorist’, potentially including humanitarian organizations’ engagement to negotiate access.
Sanctions and counter-terrorism measures have also reinforced the risk of the politicization of humanitarian assistance. Some States have asked humanitarian organizations to speak out on the socioeconomic impact of sanctions to discredit sanctions as a political tool; donors and counter-terrorism actors have pushed for humanitarian activities to be designed or presented as counter-terrorism activities or redress for victims of terrorism; and donors and sanctions actors have considered humanitarian organizations as information providers for sanctions implementation. Such practices generate a perception that humanitarian action is not neutral and impartial but serves a political agenda. This can have repercussions on acceptance, the safety and security of staff in the field, and the ability to access all people in need.
The adoption of a transverse humanitarian carveout across UN sanctions regimes by the Security Council (resolution 2664) and similar provisions in domestic sanctions regimes are important steps. However, the overall humanitarian exemptions framework remains complex, piecemeal and subject to interpretation, and it fails to remedy all legal risks for humanitarian organizations as well as banks and companies involved in the assistance-delivery chain.
In some contexts, these measures have resulted in major delays or even the cancellation of programmes; restricted key humanitarian activities (e.g. the impartial provision of medical care, engagement with sanctioned groups for humanitarian purposes or protection activities for detainees); prevented access to areas where sanctioned groups have influence; or restricted access to local vendors, contractors and implementing partners. Humanitarian staff have also faced intimidation, threats and other forms of violence following accusations of supporting sanctioned groups.
HCs have a key role in ensuring documentation on how sanctions and counter-terrorism measures affect the operations of humanitarian organizations in the HCT, and in sharing this information with OCHA HQ to inform potential advocacy for remedial measures. HCs also have a responsibility to advocate with relevant interlocutors – host Governments and/or donors and other Member States – to ensure that sanctions and counter-terrorism measures do not prevent timely humanitarian access and impartial, needs-based humanitarian assistance. HCs are encouraged to seek support, advice and guidance from OCHA HQ on these sensitive matters.
HCs also have a responsibility to ensure that all actors within the UN system and the humanitarian community take precautions to maintain a clear distinction between humanitarian action on the one hand, and counter-terrorism objectives or activities, or any other political agenda or mandates, on the other.
Resources
3. Implementing the Humanitarian Programme Cycle
The Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) is an operational framework developed by the IASC. It sets out the sequences of actions to take to prepare for, manage, deliver and monitor collective humanitarian responses. It details the processes for developing the evidence base, brings key actors together to determine a collective response, and ensures that programmes adapt to changing circumstances and respond to affected populations’ needs. Essentially, it helps HCs to answer four basic questions: Who needs what and when? Where are they? How is this best done? Who will do it?
Key roles of the HC
Elements of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle
The HPC consists of five steps, each of which logically builds on the previous and leads to the next (see figure on the next page). Successful implementation of the HPC depends on comprehensive emergency preparedness, effective coordination with national/local authorities and humanitarian actors, and systematic information management.
In 2019, the HPC templates and guidance were revised in line with consolidated best practice and commitments made at the World Humanitarian Summit and Grand Bargain. They reflect the complexity of the environments in which humanitarian practitioners work, and the depth of analysis that is required and expected.
The enhanced HPC approach emphasizes the importance of a people-centred, inter- sectoral analysis of the humanitarian consequences of a crisis and the associated response, helping programmes to arrive at a prioritized and evidence-based plan.
Humanitarian Programme Cycle
Resources
Coordinated Needs Assessments and Joint Analysis
A needs analysis provides the evidence base and foundation for the HPC. The analysis should always be based on a desk review of existing secondary data, from which a quick situation analysis can be derived, as well as an understanding of the information gaps that exist. A decision can then be taken on whether and how additional data needs should proceed.
Matthias Naab – Joint Analysis
Sudden-onset disasters
In sudden-onset disasters and contexts that may lead to an IASC Scale-Up activation,59 a Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (or alternative rapid assessment based on coordinated assessments) is implemented. This consists of a situation analysis within the first 72 hours, followed by a multisector assessment and report within the first two weeks. This inter-agency approach enables actors to reach, from the outset, a common understanding of the situation and its likely evolution. Based on the assessment’s findings, humanitarian actors can develop a joint plan (including a Flash Appeal), mobilize resources and monitor the situation. The results of the rapid assessment also inform and support the design of subsequent needs assessments and analysis, which are often more detailed and operational in focus.
59
See section B.5 (Emergency Declarations) for details on this.
The situation analysis provides an initial assessment of the scope and severity of an emergency, and an initial understanding of the required response. Based on a review of secondary information by the HCT (led by the HC), it draws on baseline information gathered during the preparedness phase and initial information from affected populations, national authorities, CSOs, other implementers and clusters/sectors. This is the first step towards setting overall objectives for the response plan that takes shape during the first 30 days of a large sudden-onset emergency. It also enables the IASC Principals to take key decisions relating to scale, leadership and required capacities. It is instrumental in initiating a collective and coordinated process of assessment and decision-making, recognizing that local ownership and national engagement from the start are crucial to the quality of the response.
Protracted or slow-onset crises
In protracted or slow-onset crises, which characterize most humanitarian situations, needs assessments and analysis are anchored within the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO). The IASC Operational Guidance on Coordinated Assessments outlines the agreed approaches and protocols that inform a coordinated assessment approach. It recommends that the HC establishes coordination mechanisms for cross-cluster/sector needs assessment and analysis, such as an Assessment and Analysis Working Group (AAWG).
Once a secondary data review has been conducted, the AAWG, in collaboration with the ICCG and with guidance from the HCT, will decide whether a joint needs assessment (such as a multisectoral needs assessment) is required, or whether harmonized in-depth sectoral assessments better serve the information requirements.
Using the Joint Intersectoral Analysis Framework (JIAF),60 the data and information from assessments can be used to answer key questions about the humanitarian conditions, namely which geographical areas and population groups are most affected or at risk as a result of the crisis; who and how many people need humanitarian assistance, and at what level of severity; what are the immediate and underlying structural causes; and how are the needs expected to evolve. This analysis in the HNO will then inform planning for the most likely scenario in the HRP.
60 The JIAF is a set of protocols, methods and tools used to classify the severity of humanitarian conditions (including humanitarian needs) resulting from a shock event or ongoing crisis; identify the main drivers and underlying factors; and provide actionable insights for decision-making. It is the analysis framework that underpins the HNO.
The analysis should link as well as contribute to the in-depth and integrated analysis of protection risks, violations and harms that informs humanitarian action and response – as set out in the IASC Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action61 – as well as ensure proper and integrated analysis of impacts on more vulnerable segments of the population, based on (at the very least) factors related to age, gender, disability and other diversities.62
61 See section A.6 (The Centrality of Protection) for details on the IASC Protection Policy.
62 See section A.6 (Meeting the diversity of needs) for details on addressing the diversity of needs.
Humanitarian analysis should also inform Common Country Assessments (CCA).63 This helps build an evidence base for humanitarian-development collaboration, highlighting critical areas that require longer-term development interventions to reduce humanitarian needs, risks and vulnerability. HNOs as well as other needs-and-vulnerability assessments and analyses are useful inputs into the CCA. Conversely, they can also benefit from recent CCAs and, where available, multi-stakeholder, multidimensional risk analysis to help incorporate risk drivers in needs assessment and analysis. Granular information on people’s vulnerabilities, risks and humanitarian needs can enrich broader social, institutional, economic and political analyses conducted by development actors.
63 The CCA is the UN system’s independent, impartial and collective assessment (i.e. a description of a country situation) and analysis (i.e. a description of causes and their implications) of a country situation for its internal use in developing the Cooperation Framework. It examines progress, gaps, opportunities and bottlenecks vis-à-vis a country’s commitment to achieving the 2030 Agenda, UN norms and standards, and the principles of the UN Charter, including as reflected in the Cooperation Framework’s Guiding Principles.
Resources
Humanitarian Response Analysis and Planning
Based on the assessment of humanitarian needs and the situation analysis, partners then collaborate to develop a response plan. Depending on the context, this will result in one of the following products:
The HRP is primarily a management tool for the HC and HCT. It can also be used to articulate and communicate the scope and scale of the crisis and response (to donors and the public) and, as such, it can act as a resource mobilization tool. The HRP articulates the HCT’s common vision for in-country humanitarian action, the strategy for achieving that vision, and the actions to take to implement the strategy, as well as agreement on the monitoring of the collective response. Contributions against the HRP (and Flash Appeal) are recorded and tracked by the Financial Tracking Service (FTS).
>
See section B.6 for details on resource mobilization and the FTS.
OCHA facilitates the HRP’s development in consultation and close collaboration with the HCT, ICCG and relevant humanitarian partners. The elaboration of a HRP is directly linked to the analysis undertaken through the HNO. All people in need identified in the HNO should be considered from the outset of the planning process, given that their needs are humanitarian by definition and their severity has been ascertained by the analysis in the HNO.64 Based on the type and severity of needs identified in the HNO, a response analysis is used to review the appropriateness, relevance and feasibility of different interventions and response modalities – such as cash, voucher and in-kind assistance.
64 A needs analysis should include causes and driving factors, severity, magnitude, trends and projections, as well as people’s own prioritization of their needs (as identified through AAP initiatives). See the HPC 2021 Response Analysis and Prioritization Guide for more details on this (see resources).
The HRP must document how community engagement informed the response and will inform potential future adjustments, ensuring AAP at the centre of humanitarian planning. The HRP documents a coherent results chain, with the strategic objectives reflecting the improvements to people’s lives that the HRP intends to achieve. The HRP must document other planning frameworks – development, Government, peacebuilding – and outline how the HRP complements these plans. For example, links with collective outcomes as part of humanitarian-development collaboration – and, where appropriate, collaboration with peace actors – are also made explicit if they exist. Where possible, complementary strategies are identified and referenced in the HRP and other strategic plans, such as the UNSDCF, integrated strategic frameworks, and Government national plans, including national disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies, and national climate change and/or the relevant strategic plans of financial institutions and bilateral donors. Some countries, often under national leadership, have articulated a set of collective outcomes to measurably reduce risk and vulnerability in areas such as food security and nutrition, health, basic social services, and durable solutions to internal displacement, among others. These are then referenced and linked to appropriate strategies in the HRP and equivalent development plans.
The HPC in refugee situations
Resources
Monitoring
Monitoring is ongoing throughout the HPC. It is used to track the evolution of the situation and needs, the implementation of the humanitarian response and the effectiveness of aid delivery. Monitoring activities also include the financial tracking of contributions performed by FTS in close cooperation with partners. It also considers the diversity of the affected population and their perspectives on the response. The enhanced HPC places increased emphasis on monitoring to ensure that the response remains appropriate to evolving needs and to track progress against agreed outcomes. Based on the results of the monitoring process, humanitarian partners are advised to revisit planning assumptions and adapt the response accordingly. To fulfil this function, monitoring should:
4. Managing the Emergency Response
(Tools and Services)
In leading and coordinating the emergency response, the HC can call on a wide range of tools and services for additional support, many provided through OCHA. It is important to ensure that, where possible, international assistance complements and works alongside national response mechanisms.
Key roles of the HC
Emergency Declarations
Scale-Up Protocols
An IASC Scale-Up activation is a system-wide mobilization in response to a sudden-onset and/or rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in a given country, including at the subnational level, where the capacity to lead, coordinate and deliver humanitarian assistance does not match the scale, complexity and urgency of the crisis. This exceptional measure is applied only for a time-bound period of up to six months. Only in very limited circumstances is an additional three-month extension considered.
The procedure activates mechanisms and tools to:
The Scale-Up activation is issued by the ERC, in consultation with the HC, the EDG and IASC Principals. Where the HC function is not yet designated, the UN RC shall convene a HCT and submit a report in consultation with relevant operational in-country IASC partners, based on an analysis of the following criteria: scale, complexity, urgency, capacity and risk of failure to deliver at scale to affected populations. In the case of an infectious-disease event, the IASC Level 3 activation procedure for infectious-disease events applies.65
65 Humanitarian System-Wide Scale-Up Activation | IASC (interagencystandingcommittee.org)
A Scale-Up activation indicates the scale at which the humanitarian system needs to step up its efforts and activate internal procedures to better respond to the crisis. It does not indicate a ranking of the severity of the crisis, or that the crisis should, at this stage, be prioritized for funding by the international community.
A Scale-Up activation is primarily a mechanism for emergency response. That said, humanitarian and development partners can use other mechanisms to invest in preparedness, operational readiness, early warning and early action to limit the number of emergency situations in which a Scale-Up activation would be required.
Resources
Emergency Surge Teams
If additional humanitarian capacity is required, OCHA can mobilize a number of mechanisms (internal and external) to provide immediate and longer-term assistance. These include coordination and specialist surge capacity from regional offices, HQs and other country offices, an UNDAC team, the Stand-By Partnership Programme, the Protection and Gender Standby Capacity Projects, and environmental and private sector experts. The OCHA country and regional office will initiate procedures to mobilize these resources through OCHA’s Operations and Advocacy Division in New York and its Response Support Branch in Geneva.
UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination
The UNDAC system is a roster of disaster managers and humanitarian aid professionals from Governments, regional organizations, UN agencies and CLAs. Depending on needs, the teams comprise 3 to 30 experts (or more if needed) and can support any phase of the HPC. UNDAC deploys with operational partners who provide support for logistics, communications, base camps, mapping and GIS capacities.
UNDAC is managed by OCHA in Geneva and from its regional offices. It deploys teams in the immediate response phase (the first four weeks) in support of the UN system and the affected State. In emergency situations, an UNDAC team is mobilized and deployed within 48 hours of a request. Unlike other emergency surge mechanisms, UNDAC embeds thematic experts from a wide range of different organizations (many from Member States). Their ability to work with the affected Government’s response mechanisms ensures effective coordination between national civil protection authorities and the incoming international responders. The UNDAC teams are self-sufficient in terms of staffing, funds and equipment to be fully operational during the first phase of response. The team includes personnel from partner organizations specialized in logistics, mapping, assessment and analysis to enhance its effectiveness. These partners, such as MapAction, IMPACT/REACH, Atlas Logistics and the International Humanitarian Partnership, work together in dedicated operational cells of the On-Site Operations Coordination Centre (OSOCC), such as an Assessment & Analysis cell, IM cell, and the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) coordination cell. OCHA deploys these teams (at no cost) following a request from the HC.
UNDAC teams can also be deployed in advance of a crisis to be pre-positioned or, as part of preparedness, to evaluate and strengthen national response preparedness, including national policies and legislation, and support capacity-building activities and training for emergency management. The HC determines the Terms of Reference for an UNDAC mission. These should focus on strengthening or complementing local response coordination capacities in any of the following areas (for up to 30 days):
Resources
INSARAG - International Search and Rescue Advisory Group
USAR comprises trained experts who provide search-and-rescue assistance in an emergency, such as an earthquake or structural collapse. USAR teams that deploy internationally generally comprise expert personnel, specialized equipment and search dogs.
The teams can be operational within 24 to 48 hours of a disaster. They are offered and received bilaterally and/or with coordination support from OCHA-managed INSARAG. The advantage of working with INSARAG to receive international USAR teams is that their precise capacities and capabilities are specified through an INSARAG External Classification (IEC) system, and the teams work according to internationally agreed standards and modalities for effective response.
Training in the INSARAG Guidelines and Methodology (www.insarag.org/methodology/insarag-guidelines) provides technical expertise in international USAR response according to the following phases: preparedness, mobilization, operations, demobilization and post-mission.
INSARAG training is designed so that in an emergency, USAR teams share internationally accepted procedures and systems for sustained cooperation. In addition to engagement with the INSARAG Guidelines, INSARAG member countries with USAR teams deploying internationally are encouraged to apply for IEC. The IEC is an independent peer review of international INSARAG-endorsed USAR teams. The IEC classifies teams as Light, Medium or Heavy to ensure that only qualified and appropriate USAR resources are deployed in an emergency.
There are 62 teams classified globally (www.insarag.org/iec/iec). They can respond bilaterally at a moment’s notice to augment national life-saving efforts.
INSARAG classifies USAR teams into the following three categories:
A Government seeking assistance in activating international USAR teams through INSARAG can do so through a pre-identified INSARAG National Focal Point or directly through the INSARAG secretariat at insarag@un.org.
Countries interested in joining the INSARAG network or participating in INSARAG or Usar Coordination Cell training can contact the INSARAG secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, at insarag@un.org, and the 24-hour duty officer phone at +41 (0)22 917 1600.
Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI)
CADRI is an inter-agency mechanism that provides technical support and tools to develop national capacities for DRR, including preparedness for emergency response. Typically, support is provided in three phases: DRR capacity assessment, the development of a national plan of action, and support in implementing the plan.
HCs request CADRI support directly via the CADRI website: www.cadri.net/our-approach/request-our-support.
Single Expert Surge Capacity
Stand-By Partnership Programme (SBPP)
OCHA can deploy experts to support the field leadership through surge capacity rosters or standby partnership arrangements, but only if the deployment is humanitarian focused and placed under OCHA supervision. SBPP deployments usually range from three to six months and commonly include expertise in humanitarian coordination, IM, access negotiations and civil-military coordination. SBPP also deploys expertise in community engagement, cash coordination, public communication, managing environmental emergencies, logistics, needs assessments and protection. HCs signal to OCHA (through its regional office, HAT or HQ) the support required (at no cost).
UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit
In the event of industrial accidents, fires, chemical spills and other types of environmental emergencies, the HC (and/or the State) may request assistance from the JEU, which can provide technical expertise and advice and, in specific circumstances, mobile equipment for on-site sampling and analysis. Experts can be deployed within 24 to 48 hours (at no cost).
Inter-agency Protection and Gender Standby Capacity Projects (ProCap/GenCap)
ProCap and GenCap are collaborative initiatives aimed at addressing gender equality and inequality issues and critical protection risks in humanitarian responses.
ProCap aims to bolster the humanitarian system’s capacity to collectively and effectively address protection concerns; safeguard the rights and preserve the dignity of affected populations in emergencies and crisis settings; address protection concerns; and safeguard the rights and preserve the dignity of affected populations in emergencies and crisis settings.
GenCap focuses on enhancing the capacity for gender equality programming by strengthening the understanding and integration of gender equality considerations throughout humanitarian action, ensuring that the unique needs and vulnerabilities of women, men, girls and boys are recognized and catered to.
Together, ProCap and GenCap play a vital role in promoting inclusivity, equality and safety in humanitarian operations worldwide. ProCap deploys senior protection advisers for up to three years to support leadership and strengthen inter-agency protection capacity to operationalize the centrality of protection. Areas of work include the provision of strategic and technical advice, capacity-strengthening initiatives, and advocacy support that places protection at the centre of humanitarian action. Senior protection advisers also promote synergies with development and peace actors, especially in protracted displacement contexts, and adopt localized approaches.
GenCap deploys senior gender advisers for up to three years to strengthen inter-agency leadership and capacity for delivering on commitments to GEEWG in humanitarian action. Areas of work include assisting in developing strategic guidance, providing technical assistance, ensuring improved gender analysis and capacities for enhanced gender equality programming, and activities to strengthen the skills and accountabilities that place GEEWG at the centre of humanitarian operations.
ProCap and GenCap engage in a diverse set of crises: sudden-onset emergencies, protracted situations and transitional contexts. HCs can request ProCap and GenCap support directly from the project (procapgencap@un.org). All costs are charged to the projects, apart from the expenses for office space and internal travel while on mission.
Myrta Kaulard – ProCap/GenCap
Emergency Logistics and Airport Efficiency
Prior to a significant weather event, such as a cyclone, OCHA and, in case of absence of presence, the OCHA regional office, the HAT or the UN RC’s office should monitor the situation and contact the Civil Aviation Authority to determine if there are any contingency plans for closing the airport and, if so, when it is likely to reopen. Likewise, after an earthquake, contacts should be established with the relevant national authority to determine the damage to infrastructure and any effects on the operational capacity of airports and other ports of entry.
The sudden influx of relief goods during an emergency is often problematic if national authorities continue to apply normal customs clearance procedures. This may take considerable time and delay the response, especially when sensitive or restricted goods are involved. It is therefore important to encourage Governments, especially those of disaster-prone Member States, to develop and disseminate clear operational guidance in advance, and to expedite the clearance of all types of emergency relief goods (e.g. telecommunications equipment, medicines and medical equipment). Setting up a one-stop shop at major customs entry points to speed up the clearance of life-saving equipment has often proven effective
Programme Criticality Assessment (PCA)
The Programme Criticality (PC) Framework is a common UN system policy for decision-making on acceptable risk. It establishes guiding principles and a systematic structured approach to ensure that activities involving UN personnel can be balanced against security risks. PCAs are mandatory in contexts of high or very high risk.66 In principle, this is undertaken jointly by all UN stakeholders, under the RC’s leadership. A PCA can also be used to inform business-continuity planning in contexts without high security risk, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
66 The PC Framework is implemented as a mandatory policy of the Organization in environments of high or very high security risk.
The UN RC has overall responsibility for ensuring PCAs are completed, in place, in line with the PC Framework and kept up to date. In a deteriorating situation, where the programmatic conditions have changed significantly, the UN RC should consider a full revision or a light review of a current/valid PCA. Where an integrated UN presence is in place and a peacekeeping or special political mission is deployed alongside a UNCT and/or HCT, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG)/Head of Mission has the final accountability. In those settings, upon finalization of a PCA, the SRSG/Head of Mission or UN RC (as applicable) and the Designated Official should submit the results to the PC Steering Group through the Programme Criticality secretariat.
5. Establishing Systems for Information Management (IM)
IM is an essential component of any humanitarian response, enabling and facilitating shared analysis and decision-making. A clear and simple IM strategy ensures that the right information is provided to the right people at the right time, and that all relevant actors are working with the same or complementary information and baseline data.
Information Management Working Group
OCHA is responsible for convening an Information Management Working Group (IMWG) to support the work of the HC and HCT in delivering humanitarian assistance. The IMWG serves as a forum for strategic and technical discussions and collaboration on IM issues relating to humanitarian response and preparedness, as set out by the IASC Operational Guidance on responsibilities of cluster/sector leads and OCHA in Information Management (2008). The HC is responsible for ensuring that the HCT establishes and maintains close links with the ICCG and the IMWG to ensure they work together to support the HPC.
Each IMWG is context-specific and must develop its own Terms of Reference in collaboration with all its members. IMWGs normally focus on data standards; inter-cluster information products and services; the coordination of information for assessments and analysis; and the development and/or dissemination of common operational data sets (CODs), indicators (see more below), web platforms and information-sharing protocols.
Working group membership is defined at the country level and largely comprises IM officers from clusters/sectors and other areas of programming. Membership can also be encouraged among IASC members with operations in country. Government representatives and civil-society groups, such as national NGOs, can be encouraged to participate, depending on the agreed Terms of Reference.
The IMWG supports the ICCG with guidance on all IM-related issues, and the IMWG Chair is an ICCG member. The HC should ensure meaningful collaboration between the ICCG and IMWG, with clear guidance stipulating the need for IMWG representation in all ICCG forums.
The HC is ultimately responsible for ensuring effective functioning of the IMWG, and for enabling a collaborative approach between the IM officers of CLAs, and between the IMWG and ICCG, HCT and other relevant working groups to support the operation with effective and timely situational analysis.
Common Operational Data sets
CODs support the work of humanitarian actors across multiple sectors. They are authoritative reference data sets used by all actors in a humanitarian response to ensure consistency, and to simplify the discovery and exchange of key data.
Core CODs provide essential demographic and location data. They are critical for information and data products, and for effective coordination. They are the first data sets used when responding to a humanitarian situation. They form the basis of effective risk analysis, needs assessments, decision-making and reporting on all aspects of the response. Core CODs are required in all disaster-prone countries as a preparedness measure. The IMWG is responsible for working with relevant governmental entities to define, develop, maintain and endorse core and other CODs.
The HC has overall responsibility for ensuring, through the IMWG or another mechanism, that CODs are maintained according to the COD guidance and technical support package (see resources below), including final endorsement of CODs. The HCT and ICCG ensure that member organizations provide the necessary resources and support for the management of CODs. Members should be made aware of the core CODs and the list of other CODs that have been endorsed by the IMWG and the HC. The ICCG should also be part of the endorsement process (or at least made aware of it).
Resources
Data Responsibility
Data responsibility in humanitarian action is the safe, ethical and effective management of personal and non-personal data for operational response. It is a critical issue for the humanitarian system to address, as the stakes are high.
New technologies and data can enable more informed and transparent decision-making, more efficient humanitarian response, and increased trust among humanitarian actors and with the people they seek to serve. However, as organizations manage increasingly large volumes of data, they also face more complex challenges and risks. The disclosure of sensitive data in humanitarian response can lead to already vulnerable people and communities being further harmed or exploited, for example by exposing their location or identifying a key vulnerability, which in turn might lead to loss of trust between affected people, humanitarian organizations and stakeholders. To ‘do no harm’, humanitarians must be able to navigate the technical and ethical issues involved when working with data.
In recent years, principles, policies and strategies for the responsible management of data in humanitarian action have been developed. These include system-wide guidance, such as the IASC Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility (2023), as well as global strategies and policies to guide data management within the UN system, such as the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Data Strategy. However, in practice, the implementation of data responsibility is often inconsistent within and across humanitarian response contexts. For this reason, it requires collective action that extends across all levels of the humanitarian system, and it is an essential consideration for HCs and HCTs.
The IASC Operational Guidance should serve as the primary reference for implementing data responsibility in humanitarian action. HCs and HCTs play a particularly important role in fostering action for data responsibility at the system-wide level through the HCT, ICCG/ISCG and IMWG. This includes, for example, establishing response-wide information-sharing protocols and date sharing agreements to support a common approach to how, when, with whom and for how long different types of data are shared in a given response. It also includes improving coordination and decision-making processes related to data responsibility to help humanitarians prioritize and tackle this issue together.
Resources
IM Platforms and Services
The HC is responsible for ensuring that IM platforms are established and used to support humanitarian coordination and the HPC. OCHA manages the following web platforms for this purpose:
6. Mobilizing Financing
and Partnerships
The HC plays an important role in leading system-wide resource mobilization efforts for the humanitarian response. This entails building strong partnerships with donors, remaining abreast of humanitarian funding, and being familiar with the various funding mechanisms and resource mobilization efforts of humanitarian actors in country.
Key roles of the HC
67
https://cerf.un.org/sites/default/files/resources/cerf_monitoring-guidance_en.pdf
68 Note that the expectations here also apply to country envelopes of Regional Humanitarian Funds, which are guided by the same principles as CBPFs.
Resource Mobilization and Advocacy
Funding for humanitarian aid has increased in recent years, but it has not kept up with the increase in requests. HRPs are only 60 per cent funded each year, on average, with wide disparities across them. The individual actions of the HC’s advocacy and resource mobilization can make a significant difference in ensuring a well-funded HRP and CBPF.
Where a HRP or a Flash Appeal has been agreed, this and the HNO can serve as the basis for fundraising and advocacy. In some circumstances, the host country may prefer a Government appeal. If so, it is important to ensure figures are coherent with those from the HCT.
HRP and CBPF resource mobilization strategies should be adapted for the different types of donors. Major donors are often keen on ‘burden sharing’ and broadening the donor base. Engaging with emerging donors and/or non-traditional donors requires a careful and sequenced approach – gaining their confidence and persuading them of the mutual benefits of contributing to humanitarian funding. HCs should be flexible and consider the different options, including non-financial partnerships or donor visibility opportunities. Where possible, the HC should aim for targeted and tailored resource mobilization, with a preference for unearmarked or softly earmarked funding. The HC should also carefully consider how to balance the financing requirements of the humanitarian response with funding that will continue to be required for longer-term development and peace interventions, which will ultimately facilitate the transition out of crises.
Key fundraising activities include regular meetings with diplomatic missions and donors, updates demonstrating the impact of funding and/or underfunding, visits to donor capitals, and pledging conferences organized by OCHA headquarters (with carefully selected co-hosts). A number of pledging conferences are organized annually for specific crises or particular thematic areas.
Najat Rochdi – Resource Mobilization
Donor engagement and funding priorities
In some countries, donors may ask to join HCT meetings; in other cases, the HC may decide to set up a separate HCT forum to facilitate information-sharing with donors. The HC office should maintain communication channels with the local embassies of donor countries as well as with OCHA headquarters, which supports system-wide resource mobilization, particularly through its Partnerships and Resource Mobilization Branch.
It is important to have a solid understanding of individual donor priorities and funding or financing for the country/crisis in question. Analysis of donors can include information on funding trends, bilateral contributions, budgetary processes and limitations, and areas of donor interest or policy. Knowledge of donors’ positions on multi-year planning, humanitarian-development collaboration and sector priorities will enable more informed advocacy. An understanding of donor policies and priorities is key to soliciting humanitarian funding that is complementary to development aid.
An understanding of donor policies also contributes to effective resource mobilization. The HC should be familiar with the Grand Bargain commitments,69 discussions at the IASC and the discourse among the Good Humanitarian Donorship group. With recent efforts to improve anticipatory action, the HC can explore any anticipatory financing that may be available nationally, regionally or globally, including through CBPFs and CERF. Sharing key updates with OCHA will enable system-wide resource mobilization by the ERC, the Deputy ERC and OCHA’s leadership. The External Relations and Partnerships Section – part of OCHA’s Partnerships and Resource Mobilization Branch – is particularly important in this regard.
69 https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain
Partnerships with the private sector
The humanitarian community has formed many innovative partnerships with the private sector, leveraging its local and industry expertise to strengthen emergency preparedness and response. This has become more important as the number of crisis-affected people continues to increase. Partnerships with private sector organizations may be in the form of financial contributions or in-kind support, often linked to their presence in a given country. Support often increases after a sudden-onset emergency, particularly a natural disaster. Private sector engagement in humanitarian settings is often coordinated through structures such as the Connecting Business initiative,70 the UN Global Compact71 and, in some countries, private sector participation in the HCT or clusters.
70 https://www.connectingbusiness.org
71 https://unglobalcompact.org/library/5869
The HC should be familiar with UN guidelines on cooperation with the private sector and ensure due diligence is conducted before partnerships are agreed. UN agencies, NGOs and Governments generally have focal points for private sector partnerships and respective due diligence processes.
Reporting Financial Support and Pipelines
To have an accurate picture of funding gaps – both in terms of amounts and sectoral deficiencies – donor intelligence on funding pipelines is critical. HCs should therefore encourage donors to report their financial support to the OCHA-managed FTS. This is important not only for informing requests for headquarters support for fundraising and advocacy, but also for improving transparency and accountability.
FTS is a centralized source of curated, continuously updated, downloadable data and information on humanitarian funding flows. Government donors, UN-administered funds, UN agencies, NGOs and other humanitarian actors and partners exchange data and information with FTS in order to provide visibility of their financial contributions to humanitarian activities; a timely and continuously updated picture of funding flows between donors (Government and private) and operational humanitarian actors (UN agencies, the Red Cross,/Red Crescent Movement, NGOs and CSOs); and timely monitoring of funding progress against HRP and appeal requirements. To ensure that UN agencies and NGOs are reliably reporting on their pipeline status, the HC can call on support from the FTS team in OCHA Geneva and Istanbul, OCHA country and regional offices, and the OCHA Donor Visibility Unit.
Resources
7. Communicating Effectively
Effective public communication is essential for results-driven advocacy and joint action, especially in times of crisis. Public perception of the credibility of the humanitarian response is key to success. As an advocate for the collective humanitarian response and a voice for people in need, the HC is responsible for ensuring that a coherent and effective communications strategy is in place.
Key roles of the HC
Developing an External Communications Strategy
The HC is responsible for ensuring that priority issues and goals are clearly articulated and realistic. S/he should assume leadership and ownership of the messaging, acting as the chief spokesperson. The HC is often supported by a public information team (such as the Communications and Advocacy Working Group, usually chaired by OCHA and under the auspices of HCT) that is tasked with developing a strategic communications plan, including reputation management and agreed common messages.
In a sudden-onset emergency, a public information task team should be established within 24 hours, in consultation with the HCT. The team is responsible for developing a succinct crisis communications plan covering the initial phase of the emergency and identifying who speaks to the media, ideally based on a pre-existing contingency plan. If communication capacity is limited, the HC can request surge capacity from OCHA.
The HC clears key messages and Q&As on the crisis drafted by the public information team based on HCT inputs. Typically, OCHA will facilitate the process, either through the country/regional office or the Public Information Officer (PIO). The HC plays a key role in helping to expedite the process.
In consultation with the HCT, the HC needs to regularly assess the HCT’s policies and posture in light of the changing situation. Key advocacy messages need to be revised accordingly and targeted to different constituencies (e.g. the local population, international media, donors, host Government). The public information team should have direct and regular access to the HC for necessary clearance.
It is important to ensure that affected people and local counterparts are fully informed about the status of the response. This allows them to inform the response, propose adjustments, anticipate events and manage expectations.
Developing key messages
Key messages help the HCT to speak with a unified voice in highlighting urgent needs and operational asks, and to create shared situational awareness. The messages should articulate how humanitarian partners can assist and acknowledge local capacities; advocate for resources to respond; reiterate humanitarian principles; and tackle controversial issues. Messaging should not be a compendium of HCT members’ organizational mandates, but context specific, strategic, results oriented and prioritized in accordance with humanitarian needs and response.
Key messages articulate the official position of the HC and the HCT. They are a valuable advocacy tool when communicating with external partners, such as the media, donors, regional entities, CSOs and the host Government. They typically include Q&As and ‘if-asked’ guidance on difficult or controversial issues, including reputational challenges. Messages must be short and written in plain, everyday language without any jargon, abbreviations or acronyms.
Key messages are developed for new emergencies, major changes in existing emergencies or when strategic communication is necessary. The HC decides whether the situation merits key messages and signs them off. These messages should be endorsed by the other heads of agencies in country. The HC can include OCHA and other agency headquarters in these consultations, if warranted.
UN Communications Group (UNCG)
The UNCG is a common communications platform for the UN system. It aims to strengthen inter-agency cooperation on public information and communications, and to increase the media profile of UN activities at the national level. In an emergency, the group follows the Standard Operating Procedures for the UN system – ‘How to communicate in a crisis’.
A UNCG exists in most countries where there is a UNCT. In some contexts, the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC), where present, plays a supporting role as the UNCG secretariat. With its knowledge of the local media and other key constituencies, and its ability to address partners in their own language, the UNIC helps to enhance the work of the UNCG.
UNCGs develop and implement crisis communications strategies for the UN. In a disaster, OCHA works with the UNCG/UNIC to implement the HCT External Communications Strategy and amplify the HC-approved HCT Key Messages (see above).
It is important to remember that the HC represents the humanitarian community at large. NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement are not represented in the UNCG; if HCs rely on the UNCG for communications support, they should ensure that links are established with non-UN humanitarian entities.
HCT Communication Working Group
In a humanitarian crisis context, NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement are an integral and essential element of the response and a key constituency of the HCT. OCHA includes these organizations in all coordination forums, including for communication and public advocacy. This is typically done through a Communication Working Group that reports to the HCT. The group’s aim is to support awareness-raising on the humanitarian situation and needs, and the mobilization of resources to respond. OCHA usually chairs the working group, respecting the mandates of individual organizations. Outputs include joint key messages, press conferences, press releases and statements, social and digital media plans and media visits to affected areas.
Working with the Media
The HC is encouraged to engage regularly with the national and international media – both on and off record – to give interviews and hold press conferences around a significant newsworthy event (positive or negative), or to announce new initiatives or changes in the response posture. Inviting the media to accompany field missions is an effective way to highlight the work of humanitarian organizations and amplify the voices of affected people and local responders.
Whenever possible, the HC should hold press conferences and briefings together with national authorities and humanitarian partners, give high-level interviews to explain and promote the actions of the HCT, and advocate for people in need. If the HC cannot attend, s/he should designate a spokesperson, e.g. a member of the HCT, or an experienced PIO or staff member with local-language skills and communication experience. When appropriate, spokespersons from humanitarian INGOs and NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, as well as civil-military coordination officers and other specialized staff, should be included.
In sudden-onset emergencies, initial public lines should be available within a few hours. These can be very short, but they are critical to acknowledge that the UN system is actively monitoring developments and stands ready to support as required. It is important not to allow an information vacuum to be filled with misinformation in the first hours of an emergency.
The HC is also responsible for issuing regular press releases and/or official statements. In consultation with the HCT, s/he should agree on the HCT’s position, key advocacy messages, basic reference data/figures and sources.
Developing a relationship with the media
Do’s and don’ts when talking to the media
UN media platforms
HCs can also use a variety of UN media platforms to communicate information:
Social Media Advocacy
The HC has an important role in building the UN’s reputation in the country as a highly trusted source of humanitarian news and information. Using social media is an effective way to demonstrate that the UN is open, responsive and accountable. Social media’s interactive nature is valuable for operational response, helping to inform better decisions and communicate with crisis-affected communities. As well as highlighting the plight of affected people, social media platforms can showcase the humanitarian community’s achievements and amplify people’s own stories.
The HC’s office has a wide range of social media platforms available to promote its message. It is important to follow the UN social media guidelines and to consult with the HCT to avoid unwanted consequences for operations or relations with the Government and key partners.
Resources
8. Working Towards Sustainability
The immediate priority in any emergency is to address urgent humanitarian needs. However, the coordination of the international response should, where possible, build on and complement existing national and local capacities, and be coordinated with development and peacebuilding efforts. This allows for more collaborative approaches to reducing needs, risks and vulnerability, responding to protracted crises, and managing transition processes with national authorities and development partners. In practice, this means working in collaboration with development and peace actors, promoting a more localized response and striving for durable solutions.
Key roles of the HC
Catherine Sozi – HDPC
Localizing the Response
Localizing humanitarian response is a process of accountability, planning, resourcing and partnership strengthening that aims to ensure humanitarian action is led and implemented as locally as possible (by local actors, including volunteer organizations and CSOs), and is supported by complementary international actors only where necessary. The focus of the HC and other humanitarian stakeholders should primarily be on supporting local and national systems to ensure that assistance reaches those populations most in need, working wherever possible with local partners, including communities themselves, civil society, NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies and other domestic organizations. In countries that have an effective disaster management authority and established preparedness-and-response systems, this support function may be limited to specific technical or sectoral engagement.
However, humanitarian operations often take place in contexts of instability and insecurity, or where national or local authorities may be a party to conflict, have implemented policies that restrict needs and rights-based approaches, or do not have effective mechanisms in place. Supporting local organizations can be more difficult in these settings, where humanitarian actors need to demonstrate their independence, impartiality and neutrality to retain their credibility, maintain access and deliver assistance. This calls for a more contextual and balanced approach.
In contexts where the Government is a party to conflict, the international humanitarian system is often mandated to operate. However, in all cases, local and national actors still play an important role. The HC will need to carefully consider the relationship of this system with the Government, de facto authorities, non-State groups and other local actors. Situations of conflict, intercommunal violence, displacement and fragility require conflict-sensitive analysis of the roles of various local, national and international actors. It is both possible and necessary for international and national actors to collaborate in these contexts. For all actors, an approach based on the recognition of and adherence to humanitarian principles is fundamental to enabling the humanitarian system to function effectively in meeting priority needs.
The humanitarian community often views localization in terms of how the international humanitarian response can capitalize on the added value of national and local organizations in increasing the reach and effectiveness of humanitarian action. This includes support in establishing access and presence in insecure environments; providing contextual awareness and analysis of complex situations; and understanding affected people’s needs and how best to meet them.
Since the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain, there has been a strong focus on localizing funding, particularly commitments by donors, including UN agencies and INGOs, to channel funding as directly as possible to local and national actors, both governmental and non-governmental. Challenges around upholding these commitments and ensuring that more direct funding flows to national and local actors continue to be discussed at global and national levels.
Localizing humanitarian action should also be about strengthening international investment in local organizations, and establishing more equal, principled partnerships72 between international and local actors based on mutual respect. The HC’s continued advocacy and support for this is important for ensuring progress on localization, and for maintaining strong relationships with and between national and international humanitarian stakeholders.
72 See section A.5 for details on the Principles of Partnership.
HCs are encouraged to genuinely include national and local NGOs and Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies in key coordination mechanisms, including the HCT. Engaging a diverse range of NGOs in strategic discussions can help ensure that the subtleties of the context and national considerations are taken into account by the leadership of humanitarian operations. This approach is embedded in the IASC standard HCT Terms of Reference. Membership of the HCT should be complementary to international membership, with transparent criteria based on operational relevance and demonstrated evidence of delivering principled humanitarian assistance in operational contexts. Representation should be selected by local and national NGOs themselves through existing networks or collective processes, with support from OCHA or the HC office if required.
The HC and HCT are also expected to encourage national NGOs to actively participate in the cluster system, and to ensure cluster coordinators meaningfully include national NGOs in cluster meetings, planning sessions and humanitarian operations. Similarly, CLAs should be encouraged to support and mentor national NGO actors to take on co-coordinator roles alongside international cluster coordinators.
Ensuring local representation at the operational level (clusters) and the strategic level (HCT) is a minimum requirement for localizing humanitarian operations. Active participation and deeper engagement can be encouraged by holding HCT and cluster meetings in the local language (or using interpretation services) and translating all key documents, but also ensuring that meetings are organized at times and in locations that are easily accessible by local and national actors who may face additional impediments.
Resources
Developing Durable Solutions for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
Durable solutions for refugees
Once refugee status has been determined and immediate protection needs are addressed, refugees may need support to find a long-term, durable solution. UNHCR, the lead agency for refugee response and coordination, promotes three durable solutions for refugees as part of its core mandate: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement.
There is no hierarchy of durable solutions. The best chances for success are usually offered through an integrated approach that combines all three solutions and is implemented in close cooperation with countries of origin, host States, humanitarian and development actors, and the refugees themselves. Enabling refugees to become self-reliant pending the realization of an appropriate long-term solution is an important first step towards achieving any of the three durable solutions. Working towards solutions can also reduce the need for irregular onward movements.
In light of the increasing volume of global forced displacement, there is a need to think beyond traditionally available solutions, as stipulated by the GCR. In addition to the 1,400 pledges made by States and stakeholders, the Global Refugee Forum saw the launch of several initiatives envisioned by the GCR. Designed to build States’ capacity, foster collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders and include refugees as agents of change, each initiative focuses on a specific area where greater burden-and-responsibility sharing is needed to develop better solutions for refugees. They include:
Complementary pathways
Complementary pathways are safe and regulated avenues that complement refugee resettlement, and by which refugees may be admitted into a country and have their international protection needs met while they are able to support themselves to potentially reach a sustainable and lasting solution. The pathways not only offer refugees alternatives to resorting to irregular means and dangerous onward movement, but they can also facilitate the acquisition and retention of skills that can help refugees attain a sustainable solution in the future.
Complementary pathways are not meant to substitute the protection afforded to refugees under the international protection regime, including through resettlement; they complement it and serve as an important expression of global solidarity and international cooperation, and a contribution to more equitable responsibility-sharing.
Complementary pathways for admission may include one or a combination of the following:
A particular feature of complementary pathways is that refugees can access them directly, making use of publicly available information and existing administrative mechanisms, thus securing their own solutions. This is already happening without the help of humanitarian actors. Each year, refugees and people eligible for international protection use existing avenues that are not designed with refugees in mind to move across borders. However, others who could be eligible to do the same are sometimes prevented by legal, administrative and practical barriers.
Complementary pathways should be part of a progressive approach to solutions, with ongoing protection and continuous advancement towards greater enjoyment of legal, civil, political, economic, cultural and social rights for refugees benefiting from possible opportunities in third countries.
Resources
Humanitarian Response to Internal Displacement
The USG/ERC has a GA-mandated central role in coordinating the assistance to and protection of affected populations, including IDPs,73 which the UN Secretary-General also highlighted in his 1997 UN Reform. To exercise this mandate, HCs have the responsibility and accountability for the assistance to and protection of IDPs at country level. This entails working closely with the HCT, the ICCG, clusters and local governments to ensure that IDPs’ concerns are adequately reflected and addressed at the strategic level and in inter-cluster coordination.
73 A/RES/76/167 and its predecessor resolutions.
The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are the main reference point outlining IDPs’ rights and Government obligations towards them. They are a set of 30 principles reflecting IHL, IHRL and refugee law and how they apply to IDPs. They are an important tool for ensuring that IDPs’ needs and rights are taken into account by Governments and humanitarian and development actors across all stages of displacement.
“Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”
(Definition of Internally Displaced Persons as per the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement)
Durable solutions for IDPs
In the past, responsibilities for durable solutions for IDPs were mostly assumed by the HC, the HCT and the clusters. However, in line with the UN Secretary-General’s 2022 Action Agenda on Internal Displacement, there is concerted effort to go beyond treating internal displacement as just a humanitarian problem and to recognize it as a priority for development, peace and climate action. There is particular emphasis on ensuring a strengthened development approach to displacement solutions, in line with the promise to “Leave No One Behind” in achieving the SDGs.
To embed a more joined-up and development-oriented approach, the UN Secretary-General’s Action Agenda specifically designated UN RCs as the UN’s lead on solutions at the country level. In that role they are to proactively engage with national and local authorities to advocate for durable solutions, ensure solutions are reflected as a shared priority in UNSDCFs and HRPs, and work with authorities to put a dedicated and costed solutions strategy in place. In settings where a UN Peacekeeping Operation or Special Political Mission is deployed, the UN RC also works closely with the head of the mission to ensure that solutions are reflected in each mission’s political engagements and other mandated activities.
Meanwhile, HCs must work with the HCT, the clusters and relevant local authorities to ensure that efforts to lay the groundwork for solutions are prioritized from the earliest days of a response. This includes advocating for greater investments in programmes and services that facilitate solutions, such as supporting IDPs to recover civil documentation, promoting access to education and livelihoods, ensuring access to health care, and working towards access to adequate housing and land.
The IASC Framework for Durable Solutions to IDPs remains the overarching guidance document informing approaches for durable solutions, which is defined as follows:
“A durable solution is achieved when IDPs no longer have any specific assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and can enjoy their human rights without discrimination on account of their displacement; it can be achieved through: return, local integration, settlement elsewhere in the country.”
It also provides eight criteria that may be used to measure to what extent a durable solution has been achieved: (a) safety and security, (b) adequate standard of living, (c) access to livelihoods, (d) restoration of housing, land and property, (e) access to documentation, (f) family reunification, (g) participation in public affairs and (h) access to effective remedies and justice.
Resources
Johannes Van Der Klaauw – IDP Solutions