DOC

OUTLINE SESSION ON PLANNING, PRIORITISATION AND RESOURCE MOBILISATION

By Ricardo Nelson,2014-08-11 18:58
21 views 0
OUTLINE SESSION ON PLANNING, PRIORITISATION AND RESOURCE MOBILISATION

    OUTLINE: SESSION ON PLANNING, PRIORITISATION AND RESOURCE MOBILISATION

    KEY LEARNING POINTS:

    1) Donors should coordinate amongst themselves, but don’t; they don’t peruse the appeal project list like a catalog, identify the most urgent, and arrange among themselves to cover them. (To be fair, the lack of project prioritization within appeals would make this a difficult exercise for just one donor, and much more so for a group of them.)

    2) Divide & conquer theory on why donors don’t insist on counting NGO funding in appeals (with

    DRC charts from Bangkok)

    3) Two dimensions: project selection for appeals, and project prioritization within appeals.

a) SELECTION:

    ; in an ideal world, we could map needs (with ranking for urgency) and then assign coverage

    of each need to implementing organizations, who are either already where the needs are or

    can move there. Reality: needs not perfectly mapped or ranked, organizations are reluctant

    to move (esp without guaranteed funding). (Best practice in mapping: Angola 2003, DRC

    2007 [e.g. p. 50], CAR 2007).

    ; So the first step in project selection should be to create best possible mapping & ranking of

    needs, then get organizations to cover the most urgent. Second step, solicit their other

    proposals; this will leave some urgent needs uncovered (so keep working on that, & on

    getting funding for it to encourage orgs to move), and will yield some proposals not based

    on need i.e. a mismatch with the map of needs. How to filter these? Objective,

    transparent criteria. (These boil down to relevance vis-à-vis need & strategic goals,

    feasibility incl timeliness & rapid impact, economy, and quality e.g. community

    participation & SPHERE standards.) [quote CAP guidelines, CDI & Som best practice on

    criteria] [NOTE: what Toby called project prioritization criteria are actually project

    selection criteria; no prioritization criteria seem to be in use.]

    ; (So in the ideal world, each project’s need (& hence relevance) is clear, so just need to vet

    them for the other criteria.)

    ; The result is a portfolio of proposed projects that hopefully cover the worst needs, and

    beyond that for less urgent needs, at least meet minimum criteria. (Note: each sector may

    have further, technical quality criteria.)

b) PRIORITISATION:

    ; Donor fund randomly, or else give to a pool (which is effectively what CERF does), forcing

    the RC/HC to prioritize. Prioritization of projects is much talked about but (in the absence

    of pooled funds) almost never done, mainly for political reasons (something for everyone).

    There’s not even any clear standard language that distinguishes level of urgency (at least

    until CERF spelled out its definition of life-saving actions). We all know that holistic

    humanitarian aid requires some actions that are not strictly life-saving but are necessary for

    recovery, dignity and restoring self-sufficiency. But if we allow these to obscure the most

    urgent life-saving actions, we are not doing our job. EXAMPLE: Philippines typhoon

    appeal.

    ; Definitions: definition of humanitarian aid is too complicated (and besides relates more to

    the selection question than prioritization); so to focus on the prioritization question, here

    (just to start the conversation) is the CERF definition. [include the time-sensitive aspect

    too.] Try applying these to do your prioritization within the appeal.

     1

    4) INSTITUTIONAL REALITIES

    a) Pressure from your agency to select & prioritize your agency’s projects. (Classic conflict of

    interest in cluster lead function.) (Example: UNICEF having to get project in appeal in order to

    be allowed per internal rules to receive funds for it.) Objective & transparent criteria can

    counteract this.

    b) Pressure from any cluster member to select & prioritize their projects.

    c) Pressure from RC, who gets ahead by making everyone happy, not by making hard choices. d) Peer review is possible solution, but peers can collude. (By the way there can be two levels of

    peer review: within cluster including a sector-specific technical focus, and inter-cluster review) e) Donor pressure sometimes misapplied, myopic, or partial.

    5) CERF

    6) PLANNING & FUNDRAISING TOOLS, AND FUND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

    a) Regardless of the planning / fundraising tool chosen (flash appeal, CHAP etc.), there will have

    to be a transparent and evidence-based prioritization process, plus specification of who will (or

    proposes to) do what where (i.e. ‘projects’).

    b)

    7) WHAT’S EXPECTED OF CLUSTER LEADS IN APPEAL PROCESS

    a) NA, ensuring it gets to the point of producing specific mapped needs and actionable plans. b) Mapping capacities of cluster members, & matching them with needs.

    c) Get NGOs to the table; persuade them to let us count their project proposals (meeting criteria)

    in the appeal. st level project development: get implementers to cover the most urgent needs. d) 1nde) 2 level: solicit proposals for other needs, and vet them with criteria (being both inclusive and

    exclusive appeals should be 100% funded, and should deserve it!)

    f) Write sectoral chapter for appeal (needs & response plan parts)

    g) Advocate for cluster funding; keep funding info up to date

    h) Monitor: set up sectoral monitoring framework (process & impact); exchange info; revise

    projects (or whole cluster response plan) as needed.

    OTHER POINTS:

     Andrew Wyllie available as resource person, maybe presenter on DRC pooled fund experience

    & method of prioritization. Also Reena Ghelani (OCHA Somalia), maybe Markus Werne. Show Pakistan EQ line graph of cumulative funding over time, to illustrate need for

    prioritization apart from CERF.

     Early recovery issues in appeals other appealing mechanisms maybe better suited; donor

    envelopes.

     Bring out anecdotes on conflict of interest (see DRC Self-assessment for example); show how

    CL TOR and indicators can be the policing mechanism for this.

     What’s the purpose of being selective about projects in appeals? To meet needs, i.e. to ensure

    that projects addressing no needs or no urgent needs don’t obscure those that do; to ensure that

    the appeal merits 100% funding; to conform to donor envelopes and standards. Knowledge is power. CLs need to be the vanguard of collecting, organizing, analyzing and

    publicizing information (on needs, capacity, funding).

    NEXT STEPS:

     Make lesson plan, with variety of methods to present this info.

     Develop exercise to take up where NA exercise leaves off (develop appeal from agreed needs

    info, select projects, prioritize within selected projects).

     2

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com