Archived Document Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or

Transcription

1 Archived Document Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to Government of Canada Web Standards; as per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

2 Corporate Evaluation of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance SYNTHESIS REPORT AUGUST 2012

3 Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) 200 Promenade du Portage Gatineau, Québec K1A 0G4 Canada Telephone: / (toll-free) For the hearing- and speech-impaired: / (toll-free) Fax: Website: info@acdi-cida.gc.ca Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011 Cette publication est aussi disponible en français : Évaluation corporative de l aide humanitaire de l'acdi. Printed in Canada

4 Corporate Evaluation of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance SYNTHESIS REPORT AUGUST 2012

5 Acknowledgments Humanitarian assistance is a complex undertaking, involving a wide range of local, national and international organizations. The context for humanitarian assistance is also constantly changing, bringing new challenges to which humanitarian actors must constantly adapt. CIDA s humanitarian assistance is part of this complex and shifting environment. Based on this reality, and the fact that CIDA has spent nearly $2.7 billion over five years in humanitarian assistance, an evaluation of the Agency s humanitarian assistance is timely, as both an exercise in accountability and an opportunity for institutional learning. This evaluation was undertaken by a team that included CIDA evaluation officers (Denis Marcheterre, Pamela Nibishaka and Vivek Prakash), consultants from Goss Gilroy Inc. (Sheila Dohoo Faure, Louise Mailloux and Chris Khng) and an expert in humanitarian assistance (Hunter McGill). The Evaluation Directorate would like to thank all team members for their hard work and diligence and their professionalism as members of a joint team undertaking this challenging assignment. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the many individuals who made meaningful contributions to the evaluation. This includes our colleagues within CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence, representatives from various United Nations organisations, non-governmental organisations and bilateral aid agencies from many countries. Their experience, opinions and knowledge of humanitarian matters were essential to the data collection and analysis and contributed to the quality of this evaluation. We would specifically like to recognize the contributions of the internal Evaluation Advisory Committee, which provided oversight for this evaluation, and the external peer reviewers (John Cosgrave, Ted Kliest, Mikael Lindvall, John Mitchell), whose insights on both the work plan and the draft report contributed to the success of this evaluation. Our capacity to assess and learn does matter in seeking improvements to our humanitarian responses. For millions of people, a responsive, innovative and appropriate international humanitarian system is very much needed. We hope this evaluation will contribute to the Agency s assessment and learning process. Caroline Leclerc Director General Strategic Planning, Performance and Evaluation Directorate i

6 Table of Contents Executive Summary... vi 1.0 Introduction Context for Humanitarian Assistance Overview of Evaluation Approach and Methodology Profile of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Description of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Delivery Financial Overview of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Relevance of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Alignment of Humanitarian Assistance with GoC and CIDA Strategic Priorities Continuing Need for Humanitarian Assistance Priority of Humanitarian Assistance at CIDA Alignment with Principles and Good Practice of Good Humanitarian Donorship Conclusion Design and Delivery of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Policy Framework and Scope of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Gender Equality IHA Management of Humanitarian Assistance Coordination and Integration of Humanitarian and Development Programming Public Information and Communications Conclusion CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Performance Humanitarian Assistance Results to Support Global Capacity Country-level Results Efficiency of CIDA s Programming Conclusions Conclusions Relevance Design and Delivery Performance Recommendations Annex 1: Management Response Figures Figure 1: CIDA s Core Funding and Funding to CERF, 2005/ /11 (in $ millions) Figure 2: Humanitarian Assistance Expenditures, by Sector, by Branch, 2005/ / Figure 3: Range of Humanitarian Programming, by CIDA Branch Figure 4: Comparable donor goals/objectives of humanitarian assistance Figure 5: Timelines for Approval of IHA Funding for 4 Case Study Countries, 2009/ / Figure 6: IHA Program Initial Budget, Net Transfers and Final Expenditures, 2006/07 to 2010/ Figure 7: IHA Program Expenditures, by Sector, 2006/07 to 2010/ ii

7 Figure 8: IHA Operational Expenditures, 2006/ / Figure 9: IHA Program and Operational Expenditures, 2006/ / Figure 10: Profile of Sources of Funding and Disbursements for Five Matching Funds, 2005 to 2010 (in $ CAD millions) Boxes Box 1: CIDA s International Humanitarian Assistance Objectives... 9 Box 2: Bilateral Agency Humanitarian Policy Frameworks Box 3: Views from Humanitarian and Development Communities on Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Box 4: Examples of Delays in Signing Project Agreements Box 5: IHA Performance Measurement Mechanisms Box 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Matching Funds as Identified by Stakeholders Box 7: Examples of Successes and Challenges with Integration in the Field Box 8: Example of Strong HQ Coordination Box 9: Example of Strong HQ Coordination Box 10: Challenge of Relying on Partner Information Box 11: Capacity Building at UNHCR Box 12: Added Value of IHA s Support for CANADEM and CRCS Overseas Delegates Program Box 13: Policy Dialogue in Sudan Box 14: Impact of Cuts to UNRWA Core Funding iii

8 List of Abbreviations AAR ALNAP CAP CBO CDPF CERF CFGB CIDA CRCS DAC DFAIT DRR FAO FTE GDP GHD GoC GPB GPSF HCT HQ IAE IASC ICRC IFRC IHA INCAF IOM LRRD M&E MGPB MOPAN NGO MoU OCHA ODA OECD OGD OHCHR PAA PAD PAGER RBM RC After-action Review Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action Consolidated Appeal Process Community-based organization Country Development Program Framework Central Emergency Relief Fund Canadian Food Grains Bank Canadian International Development Agency Canadian Red Cross Society Development Assistance Committee Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Disaster risk reduction Food and Agriculture Organisation Full-time equivalent Gross Domestic Product Good Humanitarian Donorship Government of Canada Geographic Program Branch Global Peace and Security Fund Humanitarian Country Team Headquarters International Assistance Envelope Inter-Agency Standing Committee International Committee of the Red Cross International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies International Humanitarian Assistance Directorate International Network on Conflict and Fragility International Organization for Migration Linking relief, rehabilitation and development Monitoring and evaluation Multilateral and Global Programs Branch Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network Non-governmental organization Memorandum of Understanding Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Official Development Assistance Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Other government department Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Program Activity Architecture Project Approval Document Policy and Advocacy Group for Emergency Relief Results-based management Red Cross iv

9 RPP TB Ts&Cs UK UN UNDAC UNDP UNHCR UNICEF UNMAS UNRWA WATSAN WFP WHO Report on Plans and Priorities Treasury Board Terms and Conditions United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination United Nations Development Program United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children s Fund United Nations Mine Action Service United Nations Relief and Works Agency Water and sanitation World Food Program World Health Organization v

10 Executive Summary Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the humanitarian assistance programming (both through multilateral and bilateral channels) of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) from April 2005 to April It was designed as both an exercise in accountability, as required by the Government of Canada Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, as well as an opportunity for institutional learning. It covers issues of relevance, design and delivery and performance. The methodology included a literature and document review; review of CIDA s administrative data and global humanitarian funding information; extensive interviews with CIDA staff, representatives of United Nations (UN) and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners, other government departments (OGDs) and think tanks; case studies of programming in five countries (Colombia, Ethiopia, Haiti, Sudan and West Bank and Gaza) and a comparison with three other bilateral donors (Australia, Denmark and Sweden). CIDA s humanitarian assistance is governed by CIDA s Terms and Conditions for International Development Assistance (Ts&Cs). It is managed primarily by the International Humanitarian Assistance Directorate (IHA) of the Multilateral and Global Programs Branch (MGPB), with some programming also managed by the Geographic Program Branch (GPB). GPB humanitarian programming is managed by bilateral desks that have full responsibility for both humanitarian and development programming in the country/region (currently West Bank and Gaza and Afghanistan). 1 In addition, some bilateral desks manage programming that, according to the definitions of humanitarian programming used in CIDA s financial information systems, 2 is humanitarian assistance. This includes activities related to disaster risk reduction, early recovery and transition programming as elements of the country s development program Over the period 2005/06 to 2010/11, CIDA provided just over $2.7 billion in humanitarian assistance: 83% managed by MGPB and 17% by GPB. Most MGPB funding goes to complex emergencies and to emergency food aid, material relief assistance and services, and relief coordination, protection and support services. GPB s funding goes principally to two major programme countries for which GPB manages Canada s humanitarian assistance, West Bank & Gaza and Afghanistan, with a significant component devoted to relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation. CIDA implements its humanitarian programming through UN, Red Cross Movement and NGO partners. The top eight partner organizations are the World Food Programme, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations Relief and Works Agency, United 1 IHA funds the ICRC work in West Bank and Gaza. 2 The definitions used in CIDA s financial information systems are based on the Development Assistance Committee s definition of humanitarian assistance. vi

11 Nations Children s Fund, and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Key Findings Relevance CIDA s humanitarian response is consistent with Government of Canada (GoC) priorities and CIDA s overall strategic priorities as reflected in public statements, CIDA s documents and in its level of funding for humanitarian crises. CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming is also generally consistent with the principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD), with some reservations about the timeliness of funding decisions, the use of matching funds, and concerns about lack of transparency. The literature reflects that there is likely to be a growing number of people affected, over prolonged periods, by both natural disasters and protracted conflicts. At the same time, humanitarian costs are increasing and countries are facing budgetary constraints. As a result, there is a continuing need for Canada, including CIDA, to respond to humanitarian crises. To ensure CIDA s assistance is relevant to the needs of its target population, the Agency has appropriate tools for collecting and analyzing needs-based data to inform decision-making, that is deciding on the level of CIDA s humanitarian response and choosing among the programming proposals provided by its partners. Design and Delivery Design: There is no Canadian whole-of-government humanitarian policy. CIDA is in the process of developing a strategy for its humanitarian assistance activities. However, while intended to be a whole-of-agency document, interviews suggest that the document largely focuses on the activities of the IHA Directorate, which primarily funds immediate life saving activities, as outlined in the Ts&Cs. The Ts&Cs for CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming include a broader range of activities than are generally being implemented by IHA. CIDA s bilateral programming implements activities related to disaster-risk reduction, early recovery and transition from humanitarian to development programming although these transition activities only represent a small proportion of CIDA s humanitarian funding. The three other donor agencies reviewed have humanitarian policies and strategies that include programming in emergency preparedness, early recovery and transition from humanitarian to development programming. Approval: The project approval processes take into account a range of factors and build on the experience of IHA s headquarters (HQ) staff and field staff. While the decision-making with respect to funding for UN appeals is timely, there are delays in the approval of some NGO project funding. However, interviews suggest that IHA is proposing to address these process issues under its new draft strategy. It has also implemented a number of mechanisms to facilitate quick responses (see efficiency section below). vii

12 Monitoring and Evaluation: IHA has a number of mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating its humanitarian assistance programming, which do not impose a heavy reporting burden on partner organizations. However, there are no adequate systematic mechanisms for collecting, integrating and sharing lessons learned. Efficiency: IHA s initial annual budget is supplemented with significant amounts of money that are transferred to the Directorate during the year. Much of this additional funding is used to fulfill Canada s commitments when matching funds are set up. The IHA operational costs for management of its humanitarian funding are less than 1% of its total humanitarian funding and the percentage has declined in the last six years. The evaluation found mixed results with respect to the efficiency of IHA s management of its funding. Generally, the management of IHA s funding is efficient, but efficiency is hampered by a lack of timeliness for decision-making (only on some NGO projects). In terms of project selection and implementation, and management of its relations with its partners, IHA is seen as generally effective. It has also improved efficiency by increasing its multi-year and core funding to key partners, providing significant funding to the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and developing rapid response mechanisms with some partners. These actions allow IHA to manage a larger volume of humanitarian assistance funding with a lower administrative burden on its staff. Matching Funds: IHA has set up processes for efficiently managing the increasingly frequent use of matching funds. However, there are, as yet, no public criteria for determining when to launch a matching fund and there are transparency concerns regarding the use of matched resources, and the extent to which matching funds may distort humanitarian funding. Expertise and coordination: CIDA s humanitarian assistance expertise in IHA is robust and relevant, while more limited in geographic programs, and notably in the field. Field staff do not have a clear mandate with respect to humanitarian programming. While some contribute to project-level discussions, for the most part, there are few CIDA resources dedicated to addressing humanitarian issues in the field. In addition, field staff do not tend to contribute to the discussion of humanitarian issues beyond the project level. The lack of corporate mechanisms for coordination and integration limits the opportunities for linking humanitarian and development programming. Yet, the need to link relief and development in an integrated package of humanitarian actions, to be implemented by both humanitarian and development actors, is clearly documented in the literature. Communication: Humanitarian assistance is clearly a facet of CIDA s programming that is of interest to Canadians. CIDA frequently publishes press releases that address humanitarian response. Nevertheless, CIDA misses other opportunities to clearly communicate, in both Canada and partner countries, the achievements of its humanitarian programming. An annual report on CIDA s humanitarian assistance, and stories from the field to highlight what CIDA is doing in response to humanitarian crises, could be relevant options. viii

13 Performance Performance is reported at two levels: results in supporting global humanitarian capacity; and results at the country level. Measurement and attribution of results are a challenge in humanitarian assistance, given the many actors funders and implementing partners engaged in emergency response. At the global level, Canada has been seen in the humanitarian community as an honest broker while also promoting, in its policy dialogue, key issues such as results-based management (RBM) and gender equality. While it has played a leadership role for many years, there is a general sense that it does not have as strong a presence in the global humanitarian community as it did in the past. Canada makes significant contributions to building the capacity of its humanitarian partners, through core and multi-year funding and support for coordination. It supports primarily the multilateral system, the Canadian Red Cross Society, and NGO partners, such as the Policy and Advocacy Group for Emergency Relief (PAGER), the Humanitarian Coalition and the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP). At the country level, this evaluation reports only on CIDA s contributions and measures its performance by the performance of its partners. CIDA s programming is contributing to achieving results in the field with respect to all expected outcomes of CIDA s humanitarian assistance, including improvements in the preparedness for humanitarian responses, strengthening the capacity of the humanitarian system and improved results for beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of CIDA s efforts is to increase lives saved, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity in communities experiencing a humanitarian emergency or food insecurity. Some concrete results for beneficiaries include improving access to food and non-food items, reestablishing livelihoods, reducing vulnerability and providing protection. Examples of these results are: As part of its humanitarian response to the earthquake in January 2010, CIDA contributed to the provision of emergency food aid to 4.3 million Haitians, water and sanitation services to 1.3 million Haitians, emergency and temporary housing to 370,000 households, and relief items following the earthquake; With CIDA support, the WFP is helping the Ethiopian government to reach 3.7 million people, including 240,000 refugees, with emergency food assistance. A further 3.4 million people are receiving assistance through non-emergency programs; and In Darfur, Sudan, there are indications that, between 2005 and 2009, WFP programming has contributed to decreases in acute malnutrition rates, severe malnutrition rates, and mortality rates. Implementing partners are generally seen as effective and, given that results are being achieved in all areas of CIDA s outcomes, CIDA s programming can be seen as largely effective in meeting its objectives. ix

14 Conclusion Analysis of various lines of evidence indicates that CIDA is directing its funding to address relevant needs and is making, through its partners, a valued contribution to saving lives and alleviating suffering. Canada has played an important role in the international humanitarian community in the past, and continues to contribute significantly to global coordination and capacity while promoting results-based management and gender equality. CIDA s contributions, together with those of other donors, continue to make a difference and help save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity. However, some areas for attention have been noted, and these are addressed in the recommendations below. Recommendations It is recommended that CIDA: 1. Develop a whole-of-agency humanitarian assistance strategy. Many issues in this evaluation are related, to some extent, to the absence of a whole-ofagency humanitarian assistance strategy. The development of such a strategy would be a critical first step toward addressing the design of an integrated corporate approach to supporting prevention and risk reduction, and recovery and transition to development, particularly if it is developed in a participatory fashion that engages all CIDA s key stakeholders. A DFAIT-led humanitarian policy would help the Agency situate its humanitarian assistance, in the context of whole-of-government responses. Such a strategy should be used to strengthen the management of CIDA s humanitarian assistance by outlining clear expectations with respect to the integration of humanitarian and development programming. The Strategy would provide the framework for the development of Standard Operating Procedures for responses to natural disasters in developing countries. It would contribute to better defined roles and responsibilities of headquarters and field staff in humanitarian program delivery and policy engagement (i.e. mandate, direction and, support) and provide a strengthened framework for accountability and reporting. 2. Develop a systematic, integrated approach to supporting a) prevention and risk reduction and b) recovery and transition to development. IHA implements humanitarian assistance that focuses on immediate life-saving activities, with some emergency preparedness. Humanitarian assistance programming, under the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) definition, also includes activities related to prevention, risk reduction, recovery and transition to development. The integration of these activities is an issue with which all humanitarian donors struggle. CIDA should create, at a corporate level, opportunities for synergies and complementarity between humanitarian and development activities in countries in which Canada has a development program. This is particularly relevant in those countries that are prone to humanitarian emergencies, where CIDA s programming should better support both development and humanitarian objectives. x

15 Integration may require that an institutional mechanism be set up within CIDA to ensure linkage and integration of humanitarian and development programming, and a shift in the mindset of staff to reduce the tendency to work in silos. 3. Intensify efforts to improve the timeliness of humanitarian response decision-making. While operational partners (multilateral and NGO) can quickly prepare and submit funding proposals for humanitarian response, considerable delay can occur before project approval is received, particularly for NGO funding. This can necessitate proposal re-design as a result of evolving conditions in the affected country and delay Canada s response. The CERF and multi-year funding arrangements and quicker Crisis Pool access are helping, but given the importance of timeliness to effective humanitarian responses, CIDA must continue its work on this issue. 4. Review the use of matching funds. Most other humanitarian donors do not use matching funds and these funds are not seen by other donors as key programming or public engagement mechanisms. The Agency should assess the extent to which the matching funds could potentially distort humanitarian funding. The Agency needs to address the absence of appropriate criteria for the establishment of these funds. 5. Improve accountability and reporting through the use of monitoring and evaluation to identify lessons learned and ensuring adequate dissemination and implementation of these lessons. Strengthening accountability and reporting might include additional activities such as afteraction reviews for humanitarian responses (addressing processes as well as impact issues), participation in multi-donor or inter-agency evaluations, strengthening monitoring by CIDA HQ and field staff, and the systematic integration of monitoring information into reporting and lessons learned for sharing with other CIDA staff (particularly in the field) and partners. 6. Improve the information available to the Canadian public about humanitarian assistance activities. Humanitarian assistance, particularly activities related to immediate life-saving, is probably the facet of CIDA s programming that is most easily understood and valued by the Canadian public. CIDA needs to build on Canadians engagement, as reflected in the response to matching fund appeals, and increase the information available to Canadians. This would be in line with a number of recent CIDA commitments, including the commitment to the International Aid Transparency Initiative and the Open Data Project and should include providing more readily accessible information about the use of matching funds and increased opportunities for CIDA to be visible in humanitarian responses. xi

16 1.0 Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the humanitarian assistance programming (through both multilateral and bilateral channels) of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) from 2005 to It was designed as both an exercise in accountability, as required by the Government of Canada Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, 4 as well as an opportunity for institutional learning. The report begins with an overview of the context of CIDA s humanitarian assistance and the evaluation approach. The findings of the evaluation are organized to address the key issues identified in the Government of Canada Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Evaluation: Relevance (Section 3.0 Relevance of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance ); Design (Section 4.0 Design and Delivery of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance ); and Performance (Section 5.0 CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Performance ). As well, this evaluation takes into consideration the evaluation criteria of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). 1.1 Context for Humanitarian Assistance The number, scale and intensity of humanitarian crises is increasing and so is people s vulnerability. During the period covered by this evaluation, the scale, frequency and intensity of natural disaster-related emergencies have risen dramatically. The number of people affected by these events has also increased. These increasing demands and the constant level of protracted, often conflict-related crises, have intensified the challenges faced by humanitarian response organizations and donors. Canadians expectations that their government will respond in a timely and effective way to alleviate suffering, consistent with their values of compassion and humanity, have also grown, heightening the pressure on CIDA, given its lead role to deliver humanitarian aid for Canada. Less visible to the public, but no less important from a humanitarian perspective, are the many emergencies which do not attract the intense media attention that surrounded the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Burmese cyclone, the Haiti earthquake or the 2011 Horn of Africa drought and famine. Regardless of the dimensions of the humanitarian emergency, based on the response to matching funds and Canadians comments in the media following natural disasters, it is clear that Canadians expect their government to act on their behalf. 3 This evaluation does not cover CIDA s Afghanistan program. A separate country program evaluation is planned for 2012 and will include humanitarian assistance. 4 Government of Canada Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, April

17 Populations around the world are increasingly vulnerable, particularly to natural disasters. As populations grow, people move and settle in regions prone to floods and other major weather events. In developing countries, poor rural populations move to large urban areas where they often settle in highly vulnerable areas that are less resilient to new risks. Climate change will accentuate these risks, whether caused by sudden onset emergencies such as violent storms, or slow onset events such as droughts, creating immediate threats to lives, but intensifying food insecurity as well. In 2006, there were 427 natural disasters around the world, affecting 142 million people, at a cost of US$34.5 billion. In 2010, the number of natural disasters dropped slightly to 406 though the population affected rose to 304 million. In that year the major events were earthquakes in Chile and Haiti and floods in China and Pakistan, and the global cost was calculated at US$123.9 billion. 5 While the incidence of conflict-related humanitarian emergencies appears to have stabilized, the number of people affected by these crises, which are often prolonged, grows year by year. In 2010, there were over 27 million internally-displaced persons in the world, on the move in an attempt to flee conflict or persecution. 6 Conflict-related humanitarian emergencies often pose significant challenges of accessing affected populations, and threats to the safety of humanitarian workers. which has required the international community to adjust There is recognition that human development and sustainable achievement of the Millennium Development Goals will be hindered by the consequences of climate change and environmental deterioration, in particular a rise in natural disasters. A 10 percent increase in the number of people affected by an extreme weather event reduces a country s Human Development Index (HDI) by almost 2 percent, with larger effects on incomes and in medium HDI countries. The burden is not borne equally: the risk of injury and death from floods, high winds and landslides is higher among children, women and the elderly, especially the poor. 7 Future humanitarian emergencies will likely be more frequent and more complex, as well as larger in scale. This will increase pressures on the global humanitarian system, in which Canada is an active participant. To date, the system has coped with large scale or very large scale emergencies, although there have been organisational and funding challenges associated with some of these events. The global system has not yet been tested, however, by having to deal with simultaneous major events, a likelihood which cannot be ruled out. Since 2005, a number of shifts have occurred in humanitarian response. The Principles and Good Practice of Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) were adopted by the major bilateral humanitarian donors, in consultation with lead agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the International Red 5 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, World Disasters Reports, 2007 and Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2009 Internal Displacement. IDMC/NRC. 7 UNDP, Human Development Report 2011, p.7. 2

18 Cross (RC) Movement. 8 They were endorsed by the Development Assistance Committee in These principles draw on international humanitarian law, refugee law, and human rights law and build on the internationally-recognised principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, as well as the Code of Conduct for Humanitarian Response. This framework of legally binding conventions, consensus-based agreements and generally-accepted good practice provides the backdrop for humanitarian activities in over 100 countries. Other existing important groups and initiatives grew in scope and influence over the same period, including the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), as a component of the broader Humanitarian Reform process, and the Sphere Project (Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response). Canada has actively supported these and other parallel activities aimed at improving the quality and timeliness of humanitarian aid. At the same time as the GHD Principles were developed and adopted, the pace of change and evolution of humanitarian response continued. From the core activities of the provision of shelter, food, water and sanitation facilities and basic health services, humanitarian aid has expanded to include education, infrastructure, agriculture, income-generating activities, protection and human-rights advocacy. New or non-traditional donors of humanitarian aid have also become more active, among them China, India, Russia and Brazil. Some vulnerable countries have been able to invest in risk reduction measures with positive results for example, Haiti and Mozambique. 9 Donor countries militaries have played a more prominent role in the delivery of humanitarian aid, beginning in the Balkans in the late 1990s, and most notably in the response to the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2005 and the Haiti earthquake in In some emergency situations the affected country s diaspora has been an important factor in the humanitarian response. In several of the very large scale crises the phenomenon of mini instant non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has complicated the relief efforts of experienced agencies. Social media now allow those affected by an emergency to communicate directly with individuals funding the response. The total funding of the global humanitarian system in 2009 is estimated at US $15.1 billion. 10 yet challenges remain significant... Despite the considerable financial resources committed to humanitarian aid and the tens of thousands of staff deployed to assist the populations affected by emergencies, needs are not being fully met. Funding remains less than the amounts required to meet basic, internationally- 8 Red Cross Movement includes the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and national Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies. 9 In 2004, Haiti was struck by one major hurricane, resulting in 5000 deaths. In 2008, four major hurricanes struck the country resulting in 800 deaths. The drop in fatalities was linked, in part, to investments, however modest, in disaster risk reduction measures such as awareness, early-warning, training and evacuation systems. ALNAP website. Haiti Learning and Accountability Portal, Context Analysis, p14, accessed January Global Humanitarian Assistance Report,

19 recognized norms. Inconsistent response results in problems of proportionality, where certain crises attract a much higher level of support, per capita, than do others, in part due to the influence of broadcast media. There remains a major problem of effective leadership in the global humanitarian system. For certain slow-onset disasters, such as droughts, early-warning data are not acted upon in a timely way. Problems of coordination, and role and responsibility definition among the many actors in the system, result in delayed and incomplete responses. This situation leaves vulnerable populations, often mainly women and children, un- or under-served. The linkage between relief, recovery and development continues to pose funding and mandate challenges. Investment in strengthening the resilience of vulnerable countries and regions, through disaster risk reduction investments, has never received the support required. Recent surveys of humanitarian response have underlined the tension caused by the arbitrary divisions between humanitarian and development aid, especially in terms of engaging local aid-agencies. 11 In some regions of the world, donor government concerns about counter-terrorism places restrictions on the scope of humanitarian agencies to work impartially and neutrally to reach populations in need of assistance. Challenges facing donors include ensuring humanitarian aid is timely, responsive to needs, accountable, transparent, anticipatory and partnership-based. As more people in vulnerable countries live in urban areas, relief efforts must also take into consideration the different needs and resources of these populations, including how to use the urban informal sector in affected areas to support humanitarian activities. The 2010 Haiti earthquake offered useful experience in this respect. The analysis to support these changes should include learning with, and from, affected populations. The 2006 multi-party evaluation of the international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami provided a valuable model of a learning exercise aimed at improving how the global system and individual donors can perform better. but Canada does not face these challenges alone... Canada/CIDA is an active but not an independent actor in humanitarian assistance. The success of its efforts depends substantially on how they are coordinated with the actions of other donors and with organisations delivering aid. This broader context and Canada s role within the humanitarian community was an important consideration in the conduct of this evaluation. 1.2 Overview of Evaluation Approach and Methodology Evaluation Scope The evaluation covers the humanitarian programming delivered by the International Humanitarian Assistance Directorate (IHA), as well as humanitarian assistance provided 11 State of the Humanitarian System, ALNAP, London, 2010, p 31. 4

20 through CIDA s bilateral programs. This includes humanitarian assistance provided exclusively by a bilateral desk (relevant programs include the West Bank, Gaza and Palestinian Refugees and for Afghanistan), 12 as well as other bilateral programming that addresses needs beyond immediate relief, such as emergency preparedness and early recovery, that are delivered through bilateral channels. This evaluation does not cover CIDA s Afghanistan program, as a separate country program evaluation is planned for 2012/13 and will include humanitarian assistance in that country. 13 This report covers CIDA s whole-of-agency humanitarian response when assessing CIDA s policies, strategies and the overall allocation of humanitarian assistance funding. It is a corporate evaluation and the references to CIDA and IHA are made deliberately to distinguish between corporate and Directorate-specific findings. It was beyond the scope of this evaluation to address the management of humanitarian assistance, according to CIDA s definition of humanitarian programming, implemented by the various bilateral programs. As a result, the management section (Section 4.3) focuses solely on IHA s management of the bulk of CIDA s humanitarian programming. The evaluation team recognizes that CIDA does not act alone in humanitarian response contexts. Other government departments (OGDs), including the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), Department of National Defence, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have a role to play. However, it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to address the roles of these OGDs. It was also beyond the scope of the evaluation to examine how CIDA is addressing a number of key humanitarian issues that are identified in the literature including, for example, civil-military cooperation, the security of humanitarian workers or advocating for humanitarian space. The evaluation was based on the expected outcomes identified in the logic model for CIDA s humanitarian assistance. (See the detailed methodology in Background Report A.) Evaluation Data Collection and Analysis The evaluation methodology included: Literature and document review that included, among other things, CIDA s policies and procedures and evaluations of, and reports on, recent humanitarian assistance provided by 12 In the past, humanitarian assistance in other geographic areas was also managed by the bilateral desks for example, Iraq until However, funding to Afghanistan is included in the data on CIDA s humanitarian programming. Similarly, although the activities of the Peace and Security Unit that was part of the Humanitarian Assistance Peace and Security (HAPS) Directorate the precursor to IHA are beyond the scope of this evaluation, the funding managed by the unit is still included in figures for CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming. It was not possible, given the financial data available, to separate this funding from other CIDA humanitarian funding. 5

21 other bilateral donors, global responses to specific crises and literature from NGO think tanks; Review of CIDA s administrative data and global financial information on humanitarian funding and allocations; Interviews with 122 stakeholders, including: 1. Internal stakeholders: CIDA staff (27), and 2. External stakeholders: staff of United Nations agencies (UN) (51), NGOs (35), other government departments (OGDs) (7), and think tank groups (2); Case studies in five countries three involving site visits (Colombia, Sudan and West Bank and Gaza) and two conducted as desk reviews (Ethiopia and Haiti). These case studies were not real-time evaluations designed to assess CIDA s humanitarian programming in these countries. They provided opportunities to gain the perceptions of key stakeholders in the field (either in-person or by telephone) on CIDA s programming as illustrations of the Agency s response. 73 stakeholders were interviewed, mainly Canadian government staff (internal stakeholders) and staff of international and NGO partners (external stakeholders). The case studies also involved a review of documents and data; and Comparison with three other bilateral donors (Australia, Denmark and Sweden), based on a review of donor documents and interviews with donor government staff (9 stakeholders interviewed). 14 The literature review was carried out prior to the finalization of the work plan and informed the development of the evaluation approach (although not the evaluation issues). The data collection interviews were carried out using a structured interview guide for each major respondent group (e.g. CIDA staff, OGDs, partners etc.) and interview results were documented using an evaluation template, based on the common lines of enquiry from the various interview guides. Documents identified during the course of the evaluation were reviewed and relevant information summarized in a grid based on the common lines of enquiry. During the course of the data collection, the team developed syntheses of the findings from different components of the data collection (e.g. a case study, interviews with UN partners in 14 The selection took into account the level of humanitarian assistance provided, channels used for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, amount of humanitarian assistance channelled through pooled funds, and the quality of humanitarian assistance, based on the Humanitarian Response Index. It was important to include donors that were similar to Canada, particularly in terms of humanitarian assistance delivery channels, while, at the same time, including donors that are recognized as excelling in the provision of humanitarian assistance. There are limitations to choosing only three countries, but the choice, approved by the evaluation Advisory Committee, was intended to provide interesting lessons learned for the evaluation. 6

22 New York and Geneva, NGO partners in Toronto and Montreal etc.). These syntheses were also structured around the common lines of enquiry. In the latter half of the data collection, a team workshop was held to synthesize the information from the various data collection exercises and develop preliminary findings for each evaluation issue and to identify outstanding data requirements. A second team workshop was held to review a first draft of the report and assign responsibilities for addressing outstanding data collection, analysis and reporting requirements. Subsequent drafts of the report were reviewed by the Evaluation Directorate and the Evaluation Advisory Committee. Evaluation Governance The evaluation was conducted for CIDA s Evaluation Directorate by a seven-person team that included CIDA staff and external consultants. An Evaluation Advisory Committee reviewed draft reports to ensure the accuracy of the evaluation in terms of facts and context, and provided advice on CIDA s needs in terms of information and analysis. This Committee was composed of representatives from CIDA s IHA, the Evaluation Directorate, the geographic programs, and DFAIT. A peer review group, that included Canadian and international humanitarian assistance and evaluation experts, provided advice on the evaluation s work plan and draft report. Evaluation Limitations As with any evaluation, methodological limitations result in caveats that need to be put on the findings. This evaluation is no exception. Limitations include: CIDA s response in any given humanitarian situation is provided through partner organizations, not directly by CIDA. In addition, much of CIDA s funding for humanitarian crises is combined with funding from other donors, and it is often not possible to report specifically on results that are directly attributable to CIDA s humanitarian funding. Partners also work together in the implementation of humanitarian activities, so often the inputs and activities are combined and difficult to separate for any one partner. To assess the results of CIDA humanitarian funding, the evaluation drew from results reported by humanitarian partners as well as any reviews, studies or evaluations undertaken on specific responses. Nevertheless, it is often not possible to report specifically on results that are directly attributable to CIDA s humanitarian funding; Data on CIDA s humanitarian and development activities and funding was only available according to CIDA s coding structures, which are based on the Development Assistance Committee s definitions of humanitarian assistance. The classification of the data relies on the judgement of individual officers who code project information. While CIDA provides direction, to the extent possible, to ensure that coding is accurate, the subjectivity of coding posed a challenge for the evaluation. It was difficult to develop an accurate profile of humanitarian assistance projects and funding across the Agency. Furthermore, figures provided by different corporate and programming branches often differed. The evaluation attempted to address this issue by comparing and reconciling project lists and figures 7

23 obtained through corporate channels (e.g. Chief Financial Officer Branch) and information from IHA; The evaluation team did not have timely access to important information for this evaluation. A key CIDA document a new CIDA humanitarian strategy was only in draft format and not available to the evaluation team. As a result, references to the draft document in this evaluation reflect information gathered in interviews and may not reflect fully the content of the draft document. In addition, the team added to the methodology a review of a selection of IHA project files to explore further the issue of the timeliness of project approvals that was raised in the interviews. There were gaps in the information that could be collected from the IHA project files, particularly for submission dates for multilateral organization proposals. However, the late delivery of IHA s project files meant that it was not possible to fill in gaps in the project data available in the files. Finally, although IHA conducts periodic audits and partner evaluations, very little evaluative information was available for this review. The evaluation relied heavily on qualitative information from interview respondents. Given that the respondents were not selected on the basis of a random sample and the interviews were based on guides, not questionnaires, it was not appropriate to quantify the number of respondents presenting any particular point of view. There are challenges with this methodology, since it relies on the team to synthesize a wide range of information. Structured approaches to documenting and synthesizing the interview results were put in place to provide as much rigour as possible to this process. All team members were involved in drafting early versions of the report. However, the limited time that the team had to finalize the analysis and the reporting, compared to the time that had been given to planning, limited the analysis and the options for triangulating the interview information with documentary evidence. This meant that, in some cases, data has not been fully triangulated. The team has attempted to give a sense of the significance of findings by using the terms most, some and few throughout the report. Most is used when the team s perception is that the comment was made by about two-thirds or more of relevant respondents; some when it was made by between one-third and two-thirds; and few when it was made by less than one-third of relevant respondents. 15 Relevant respondents refers to those who would be expected to comment on the issue. In some cases, this might be a very small group possibly of two or three. 16 Note that all figures are in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise specified. 8

24 2.0 Profile of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance 2.1 Description of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance Delivery DFAIT has the policy dialogue lead for Canada s international humanitarian assistance. CIDA is the operational lead agency for humanitarian assistance programming, while also contributing to the formulation of Canadian humanitarian policy. Humanitarian assistance at CIDA, as covered in this evaluation, is delivered through the Multilateral and Global Programs Branch, Geographic Programs Branch, and the Partnership with Canadians Branch. CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming is delivered through both multilateral and bilateral channels. CIDA s international humanitarian assistance mandate is defined in CIDA s Terms and Conditions for International Development Assistance, approved in February The objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of complex emergencies and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations. 17 Specific objectives outlined in the Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) are shown in Box 1. The Ts&Cs define humanitarian action as the protection of civilians and those no longer taking part in hostilities, the provision of food, water and sanitation, shelter, health services, and other items of assistance, as well as mine action, undertaken for the benefit of affected people and to facilitate the return to normal life and livelihood. 18 Box 1: CIDA s International Humanitarian Assistance Objectives The main program objectives are: i) to fund the provision of humanitarian action in response to natural disasters and complex emergencies, including the protection of civilians and assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons; ii) to fund disaster risk reduction activities; iii) to deploy relief supplies and experts based on needs and in support of key humanitarian partners; iv) to fund programming related to the provision of basic foodstuffs, seeds and tools or commodities, aimed to increase food security in developing countries and territories; v) to provide and/or fund the provision of goods and services related to the efficient programming, procurement, handling, storage, transportation, distribution, monitoring and end use of said foodstuffs, commodities, seeds and tools; 17 Terms and Conditions for International Humanitarian Assistance, CIDA, February 2009, p Terms and Conditions for International Humanitarian Assistance, CIDA, February 2009, p. 29 9

25 vi) to promote humanitarian effectiveness through, inter alia, support to policy development, research and learning, and accountability initiatives; vii) to promote Canadian policy priorities vis-à-vis our multilateral humanitarian partners and the broader humanitarian system, including strengthening effective coordination, results-based management, gender equality, and Good Humanitarian Donorship; and viii) to assess the capacity of partners to provide humanitarian assistance and enhance that capacity where needed. Terms and Conditions for International Development Assistance, CIDA, February 2009, p. 28 Multilateral and Global Programs Branch Humanitarian assistance programmed through the Multilateral and Global Programs Branch is managed by the IHA Directorate. 19 It is responsible for the delivery of the International Humanitarian Assistance Program. 20 IHA, as the primary implementer of CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming, focuses on meeting the food, water, health, sanitation, shelter and physical security needs of populations affected by humanitarian emergencies. IHA s funding is responsive that is, it responds to the needs identified by affected countries and multilateral and NGO partners. IHA has three components to its work: Providing responsive funding to multilateral organizations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs, and deploying CIDA relief supplies and technical experts to address humanitarian needs arising as a result of natural disasters and complex humanitarian situations; Providing core funding and managing institutional relationships with key humanitarian partners in order to build institutional capacity, support field operations, and advocate for improved performance, cost-effectiveness, and accountability; and Strengthening the international humanitarian system through support for key humanitarian reforms, emergency preparedness, and the evidence-base for humanitarian action, including the development and use of new tools, best practices and lessons learned. 19 In the early part of the period covered by this evaluation, CIDA s multilateral humanitarian assistance programming was managed by the Humanitarian Assistance, Peace and Security (HAPS) Division. This Division included a unit responsible for peace and security issues and funding for disaster risk reduction and mine action. As HAPS was restructured to become IHA, engagement with certain partners was discontinued. The work of this unit is not included in the scope of this evaluation. 20 International Humanitarian Assistance website PLC Accessed November

26 While IHA operates under the provisions for humanitarian assistance as described in the Ts&Cs, it is not, in reality, implementing all components of the humanitarian assistance as defined in the Ts&Cs. With the exception of funding emergency preparedness activities to develop the capacity of the humanitarian system through partner organizations, IHA s support for a broader range of DRR activities has been more limited. Understanding the scope of CIDA s humanitarian assistance is complicated by the fact that CIDA s project coding system is structured around the DAC definitions of humanitarian assistance, reflecting a broader range of humanitarian assistance activities than are currently funded, in any significant way, by IHA. It includes three components: Emergency Response (Material relief assistance and services, Emergency food aid and Relief co-ordination; protection and support services); Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation; and Disaster prevention and preparedness. As will be seen throughout this report, this requires careful wording with respect to the activities that are funded by IHA (and, therefore, typically referred to within CIDA as humanitarian assistance) and those funded through the bilateral channel that, although not referred to as humanitarian assistance within the Agency are, in fact, humanitarian assistance under the DAC definition. Geographic Programs Branch Humanitarian assistance is also delivered through the bilateral channel by geographic program desks. This occurs in two ways. Humanitarian assistance programming in two geographic areas (West Bank and Gaza and Afghanistan) is currently delivered mainly by the relevant geographic desks In addition, a number of bilateral country programs also include activities related to humanitarian assistance. 23 While the mandate of IHA is to focus on immediate relief, some bilateral programs also include activities related to DRR, early recovery and transition programming as elements of the country s development program. This can occur in any country in which CIDA has a program whether it is a country of focus or a country of modest presence. Although these activities are coded as humanitarian assistance in CIDA s project coding system (and are consistent with CIDA s Ts&Cs for humanitarian assistance), internally they are considered to be development programming. 24. In addition, under the DAC definition, they are humanitarian assistance and contribute to the alignment of CIDA s humanitarian assistance with the DAC definition. 21 As noted, in the past, humanitarian assistance in other geographic areas was also managed by the bilateral desks. 22 IHA funds the ICRC work in West Bank & Gaza. 23 This is reflected in data from CIDA s project coding system, which is based on the DAC definition of humanitarian assistance. 24 IHA indicates that the problem is exacerbated by inaccurate coding resulting from the misinterpretation of DAC humanitarian coding rules. 11

27 Partnership with Canadians Branch Partnership with Canadians Branch (PWCB) does not have the mandate to provide humanitarian assistance. However, given the anticipated level of interest from Canadian organizations to assist in Haiti and PWCB s shift to different funding processes in the aftermath of Haiti s earthquake, PWCB launched a $30 million call for proposals to NGOs in October 2010 to address recovery and reconstruction needs, and livelihood improvement in Haiti. In March 2011, PWCB announced funding for 15 projects worth $29.9 million to support Haiti s disaster readiness, education, health and agricultural sectors. 25 During the 2005/06 to 2010/11 time period, PWCB accounted for only $2.2M (0.1%) of CIDA s humanitarian assistance. 2.2 Financial Overview of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance This section provides a short financial overview of CIDA s humanitarian assistance. The information is based on information from CIDA s project-coding system. CIDA staff have indicated that there is a lack of consistency in project-coding across the Agency. Current coding does not provide a complete picture of all humanitarian assistance operations. Overall humanitarian funding The levels and nature of CIDA s humanitarian assistance remained relatively stable over the past six years, with the majority of the funding channeled through multilateral organizations... Over the six-year period covered by the evaluation, CIDA has provided just over $2.7 billion in humanitarian assistance. Canada was the twelfth largest humanitarian donor globally between Most (83%) of CIDA s humanitarian assistance is programmed by MGPB primarily by IHA. This consists of purely responsive funding (61% of overall funding) and long-term institutional (or core) funding (22% of overall). Approximately one-sixth (17%) of CIDA s humanitarian assistance is programmed by the Geographic Program Branch (GPB). The majority of the GPB funding (59% of all GPB humanitarian funding or 10% of all CIDA s humanitarian funding) is programmed by the two geographic programs that currently have sole responsibility for programming humanitarian assistance in their country/region Afghanistan and West Bank and Gaza. Without these two programs, GPB programming drops to $187.7M (7% of the total humanitarian assistance). 25 Press release Minister Oda announces Canada's continued support for Haiti Accessed December GHA Report 2011, Global Humanitarian Assistance, p

28 Canada s total humanitarian assistance funding, compared to that of the three donors chosen for the donor comparisons, has been on average second to Sweden over the past six years ( ). (Background Report C, Figure C.1) Canada s humanitarian funding, as a percentage of Official Development Assistance (ODA), has been higher than the average for all DAC member countries, but generally below that of the comparison donors. Canada s humanitarian assistance as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has also generally been lower than the DAC average. Over the same period, Canada s ODA, as a percent of GDP, has been well below the target commitment of 0.7% and in the bottom half of DAC donors. 27 Sectors and types of humanitarian funding and to a) protracted emergencies and emergency food aid, b) material relief assistance and services, and c) relief coordination, projection and support services. The largest portion of IHA s humanitarian funding goes to complex emergencies (42%). Just over one-quarter of IHA s funding (27%) goes to core funding and institutional support. Seventeen percent (17%) goes to natural disasters. A very small proportion of IHA s funding goes to preparedness and surge capacity (2%). The remaining 12% goes to Other food/non-food. Three emergency response sectors (emergency food aid, material relief assistance and services, and relief coordination, projection and support services) account for the vast majority of CIDA s humanitarian assistance (91%). Only a small amount has been spent in other sectors disaster prevention and preparedness (2%) and reconstruction, relief and rehabilitation (7%). 28 Over the years, the allocation by sector has remained fairly stable. Food aid has been in the 31% to 50% range, and material relief in the 38% to 50% range. Canada s food aid has been fully untied since In addition to sector-specific funding, core funding has been provided in the past six years to four humanitarian UN agencies (OCHA, WFP, UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and one NGO (Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB). The largest recipients of core funding are WFP, CFGB, and UNHCR. Core funding has declined slightly in the past five years, dropping from $90.7M in 2005/06 to $70.0M in 2010/11, with a low of $53.0M in 2008/09. At the same time, CIDA has made a 27 Millennium Development Goals Indicators Analysis by evaluation team. 28 CIDA staff have indicated that coding of CIDA projects is reportedly inconsistent and projects with components of emergency preparedness and/or reconstruction are almost always coded as material relief assistance and supplies. 13

29 substantial commitment to the CERF with a five-year $192 million grant agreement. Disbursements to CERF vary by year due to internal cash management practices, but in 2008/09, funding to CERF ($50.2M) was just below the total amount of core funding. Preliminary 2010/11 data indicates that CERF funding ($69.4M) nearly equalled CIDA s total core funding. 29 IHA has also gradually increased the predictability of its funding. It has introduced more multi-year funding arrangements for its core funding. It currently provides multi-year core funding to OCHA, CFGB, ICRC, CERF, and WFP. 30 It also provides multi-year funding to United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) and the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS). Emergency food aid (36%) and material relief assistance and services (26%), account for significant amounts of GPB s humanitarian aid. However, in contrast to MGPB, the reconstruction relief and rehabilitation sector accounts for another 26% of GPB s humanitarian assistance, but a small percentage of MGPB funding. Humanitarian partners CIDA works with a wide range of humanitarian partners. Most of CIDA s humanitarian assistance (71%) is delivered through multilateral partner organizations. The vast majority (93%) of this is delivered through UN agencies, with the remainder delivered by international financial institutions (5%) and regional or other multilateral organizations (3%). An approximately equal amount of funding was provided to the Red Cross Movement (including the ICRC, IFRC and CRCS) and NGOs (14% each). The top seven partner organizations receiving humanitarian funding from CIDA are WFP, UNHCR, CFGB, ICRC, UNRWA, UNICEF, and IFRC. 31 The organization receiving the most CIDA humanitarian assistance funding is WFP. It has received over the last six years nearly four times as much funding as the next closest UN agency, UNHCR. 32 IHA provides funding to a range of Canadian and international NGOs from large NGOs, such as World Vision, CARE Canada, Save the Children Canada, Médecins Sans Frontières to smaller, niche organizations dedicated to strengthening the humanitarian system, such as the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in 29 It should be noted that the analysis is based on fiscal years, as per the Government's expenditure management system. However, some humanitarian organisations manage their financials on a calendar year basis. 30 CIDA provides funding for WFP s school feeding program (through development food assistance), in addition to the multi-year core funding it provides to WFP. 31 Includes core funding. 32 Food aid often constitutes up to 50% of humanitarian needs and only one UN agency, the WFP, is responsible for the vast majority of this work. 14

30 Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and the Humanitarian Policy Group of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). The largest Canadian NGO recipient of humanitarian assistance funding is the CFGB, as a result of the large amount of core funding it receives. After the CFGB, the two top NGOs are World Vision Canada ($51M) and Care Canada ($38M). Over the past six years, the percentage of CIDA s humanitarian funding programmed through NGOs has risen from 15% in 2005/06 to 20% in 2010/11. Over the same period funding through multilateral organizations (not including CERF) fell from 78% to 56%. Funding to the Red Cross Movement remained steady at about 12%. The increase in global food needs linked to the 2008 global food crisis, the occurrence of major humanitarian crises (e.g. Haiti earthquake and Pakistan floods, as well as heightened food insecurity linked to drought situations), and the increasing costs of responding to largescale food insecurity (because of rising food and fuel /transportation costs) all contributed to increased funding for food aid to both WFP and CFGB. 3.0 Relevance of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance This section assesses the relevance of CIDA s humanitarian assistance to the Government of Canada s (GoC) and CIDA s priorities, and the continuing need for humanitarian assistance. 3.1 Alignment of Humanitarian Assistance with GoC and CIDA Strategic Priorities Alignment with GoC Policies Despite the lack of a documented federal policy, CIDA s humanitarian response is consistent with GoC priorities and CIDA s overall strategic priorities. The GoC does not have a documented humanitarian policy or strategy. It is therefore difficult to demonstrate that CIDA s humanitarian assistance is consistent with GoC humanitarian priorities. Few recent Speeches from the Throne reflect on Canada s commitment to humanitarian assistance, while those that do focus particularly on the GoC role in Afghanistan and Haiti. 33 Recent statements on humanitarian assistance by the Minister of International Cooperation have been funding announcements. 34 A recent statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to 33 Speech from the Throne, Government of Canada, 3 March 2010, Accessed December Minister Oda announces Canada s response to the humanitarian crisis in East Africa, 22 July Government of Canada Increases Humanitarian Assistance for Haitians Affected by the Devastating Earthquake January 19, Accessed December

31 the UN General Assembly reflected on Canada s role in providing humanitarian assistance in the Sudans and Canada s relationship with the UN Canada has been a consistently reliable and responsible participant in U.N. initiatives around the world. 35 Based on these limited public announcements, CIDA s humanitarian response is consistent with GoC priorities. In addition, CIDA s humanitarian assistance activities are consistent with Canada s policy on human rights 36 and its commitment to gender equality. 37 Also, CIDA s humanitarian assistance activities are in line with DFAIT activities, which provide leadership and coordination for whole-of-government responses to both natural disasters and conflict-related emergencies Alignment with CIDA s Strategic Priorities CIDA s humanitarian assistance is aligned with the Agency s Program Activity Architecture and, although not required in all cases, also aligns with the Agency s priority development themes. Humanitarian assistance programming is aligned with three of five components of the Agency s Program Activity Architecture (PAA): 39 The first is the Fragile countries and crisis-affected communities program activity. IHA programming addresses the first of the two expected results: enhanced responsiveness of humanitarian assistance to address the immediate needs of populations affected by humanitarian emergencies. The bilateral humanitarian programming contributes to both expected results, including increased effectiveness in responding to basic needs and providing better access to key services. The second is the Global engagement and strategic policy program activity. IHA, through its management of partnerships with multilateral humanitarian agencies, contributes to increased global policy influence and increased effectiveness of Canadian development cooperation. 35 Address by the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the United Nations General Assembly, New York City, 16 September Canada's International Human Rights Policy Accessed December Canada's commitment to gender equality and the advancement of women's rights internationally Accessed December Humanitarian Affairs, DFAIT, Accessed December CIDA's Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework website. Accessed November

32 The third is the Canadian engagement activity, in which IHA and bilateral programming contribute to improved effectiveness of civil society organization s participation in international development and humanitarian assistance activities. 40 In addition, CIDA s humanitarian assistance is aligned with the Agency s Policy Suite through program activities related to fragile states and communities affected by humanitarian emergencies, and activities related to global engagement and strategic policy. 41 Furthermore, humanitarian assistance is generally consistent with the Agency s three priority themes. 42 Although humanitarian assistance programming is not expected to align with these themes, there are interesting examples of ways in which it does: food security (through food aid and nutrition activities); children and youth (through child survival and maternal health activities) and stimulating sustainable economic growth (through the provision of food assistance that supports local markets). 3.2 Continuing Need for Humanitarian Assistance There is a continuing need for Canada to respond to humanitarian crises. As noted in Section 1.1, in the past six years, there has been a significant increase in the scale, frequency and intensity of natural disaster-related emergencies and in the number of people affected by these events. Although the incidence of conflict-related humanitarian emergencies appears to have stabilized, their duration and the number of people affected by these crises are increasing. The success of recent public matching-fund appeals suggests that Canadians continue to expect that their government will respond in a timely and effective way to these crises. (See Section ) In spite of increasing needs, the 2011 Global Humanitarian Assistance report notes that humanitarian aid is being stretched. 43 There is an increasing need for humanitarian funding, not only because of increases in vulnerable populations, but also because of escalating costs and budgetary constraints. Canada is recognized as a key player by the international community and, with the increasing call for humanitarian resources, there will be a continuing need for Canadian humanitarian assistance. 3.3 Priority of Humanitarian Assistance at CIDA Canada has given priority to humanitarian assistance programming 40 Even though IHA indicates that it is not required to report on this PAA component, the evaluation determined that CIDA s humanitarian programming does contribute to this component. 41 CIDA Strategic Overview: accessed December CIDA s Priority Themes PWW Accessed December GHA Report 2011, Global Humanitarian Assistance, p. 6, 17

33 Humanitarian assistance is a key priority for CIDA. The Agency s funding for humanitarian assistance increased, in constant dollars, by 83% from 2005 to Over the same period, funding from all bilateral donors declined slightly. 44 The priority of humanitarian assistance was reflected in CIDA s 2011/12 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), which notes: Establishment of increasing food security, which includes food aid, is one of CIDA s three thematic priorities; An increase of $50 million to CIDA s budgetary spending for the establishment of a Quick Release Mechanism from the existing Crisis Pool to facilitate quick responses to major unforeseen humanitarian crises; CIDA s continuing support for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) DAC Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States as well as the principles and practices of GHD; and The commitment of multiyear funding to the ICRC and the CERF. 45 The RPP also reflects the increasing need for humanitarian assistance in light of the greater frequency and impact of weather-related natural disasters and complex humanitarian situations. 46 Canada is a major donor to global humanitarian assistance. Canada was the twelfth largest humanitarian donor globally over the ten years, It is among the top ten donors to the two largest UN humanitarian agencies WFP and UNHCR Alignment with Principles and Good Practice of Good Humanitarian Donorship and, with a few concerns, CIDA s humanitarian programming is generally aligned with GHD. 44 GHA calculation Total Humanitarian Aid Accessed December Canadian International Development Agency Report on Plans and Priorities for the period ending March 31, Accessed November 2011, p. 7, 9 and Ibid., p GHA Report 2011, Global Humanitarian Assistance, p Canada has been the third largest donor to WFP, based on the total donations over the past five years ( ) Accessed November Canada was the tenth largest government donor to UNHCR and the eighth largest unrestricted donor in Accessed November

34 CIDA was a key proponent in the development of the GHD principles and good practices a key international performance framework for humanitarian assistance programming and it is important to assess the extent to which CIDA s humanitarian programming is aligned with GHD. The evidence to support the team s assessment of this alignment is found in subsequent sections of the report (as noted in brackets). CIDA is generally aligned with the GHD. Specifically: CIDA respects basic humanitarian principles by focusing on immediate life-saving activities from a needs-based perspective (Section 4.1.2); IHA has adequate needs-based information for making decisions on its humanitarian funding and provides funding to a wide range of crises (Section 4.3.1); Although the percentage of CIDA s humanitarian funding that is core funding has declined over the past five years, it has been increasing the level of multi-year funding and has been a significant contributor to CERF (Section 2.2); CIDA s food aid budget was completely untied in CIDA is also broadening its support to include both food aid and food assistance and supports WFP s innovative approaches to food assistance (Section 2.2); IHA s grant agreements and its ability to modify agreements based on reasonable justification provide flexibility to partner organizations (Section 4.3.1); CIDA is a major supporter of the UN system and provides support for coordination within the humanitarian system (through funding OCHA) and for capacity building with its multilateral partners. CIDA is also a key supporter of the pooled funding mechanism of the CERF (Section 2.2); and IHA programming is guided by the application of international humanitarian law and other humanitarian guidelines (Section 5.2.1). On the other hand, there are areas in which the alignment of CIDA s humanitarian assistance with GHD is less clear: CIDA s humanitarian funding, primarily channelled through IHA, focuses on immediate relief. Although some funding for prevention, risk reduction and recovery is provided through bilateral programming, it represents about seven percent of all CIDA s humanitarian funding in the period 2005/06 to 2010/11. In addition, there is limited linking of relief, rehabilitation and development programming (Section 4.1.2); There are delays in making and implementing funding decisions, particularly with NGOs. However, interviews indicated that improving these processes is one element included in the humanitarian strategy document currently being developed by IHA (Section 4.3.2); The use of matching funds has the potential to distort humanitarian funding away from being needs-based (Section 4.3.2); and 19

35 IHA has a number of mechanisms in place to monitor its humanitarian funding. It conducts multilateral due diligence assessments (about every two years), 49 participates on executive boards and donor support groups for its multilateral partner organizations, and conducts gender equality assessments, audits and periodic partner evaluations. While it is a good humanitarian donor, to the extent that it does not impose excessive reporting burdens on its partners, IHA does not have accountability mechanisms for systematically monitoring and evaluating the processes and results of its humanitarian assistance. Specifically, CIDA does not provide readily accessible public information on its allocation of matching funds (Section 4.3.1). 3.5 Conclusion Humanitarian assistance is a priority for the GoC and CIDA. This is reflected in both CIDA s documents and in its level of funding for humanitarian crises. Its humanitarian response is consistent both with GoC priorities, as reflected in public statements, and CIDA s overall strategic priorities, including CIDA s PAA. The literature reflects that there is likely to be a growing number of people affected, over prolonged periods, by both natural disasters and protracted conflicts and, at the same time, increasing humanitarian costs and budgetary constraints. As a result, there is a continuing need for Canada, including CIDA, to respond to humanitarian crises. CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming is generally consistent with the GHD principles and good practice. However, there are some areas in which the alignment is less clear. These include limited funding for activities beyond immediate relief and limited integration of humanitarian and development programming. There are also issues related to the timeliness of funding decisions, the use of matching funds, and some concerns about lack of transparency. 4.0 Design and Delivery of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance This section addresses the design of CIDA s humanitarian assistance, focusing on two aspects: Policy framework and scope of CIDA s humanitarian assistance for both CIDA s multilateral and bilateral programming; and Management of humanitarian assistance which, given that the primary unit responsible for programming humanitarian assistance is IHA, addresses the activities managed by that Directorate. 49 are mandatory for all IHA programming. 20

36 4.1 Policy Framework and Scope of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance This section provides greater detail on the policy framework for CIDA s humanitarian assistance and the scope of the activities carried out in both multilateral and bilateral programming branches Humanitarian Policy The policy framework for CIDA s humanitarian assistance is provided in a range of international and Canadian documents. The current framework for humanitarian assistance at CIDA is made up of a range of related policies and guidelines. Some were developed internationally; others were developed by DFAIT and CIDA. These include: Humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence (international); 50 Principles and Good Practice of Good Humanitarian Donorship (international); 51 Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations (international); 52 CIDA s Terms and Conditions for International Development Assistance; 53 Guidelines from CIDA s Policy Branch on programming in fragile states; 54 IHA s Performance Management Strategy; 55 DFAIT s Government of Canada Standard Operating Procedures in Response to Natural Disasters Abroad ; 56 Gender Equality and Humanitarian Assistance: A Guide to the Issues; and 50 accessed December Ibid Canadian International Development Agency Terms and Conditions for International Development Assistance, February An Internal Guide for Effective Development Cooperation in Fragile States, January 2008 and CIDA Operational Guidelines for Program Management in Acutely Fragile States and Conflict-Affected Situations, October International Humanitarian Assistance Program: Performance Measurement Strategy (PM Strategy) , CIDA, September Government of Canada Standard Operating Procedures in Response to Natural Disasters Abroad: Abridged Version, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 21 July

37 Guidelines for Emergency Humanitarian Assistance Project Proposals and Reports. There is no government-wide humanitarian policy to set the framework for CIDA s humanitarian programming, although CIDA is in the process of developing a corporate strategy. Other donors have humanitarian policies and strategies. All these documents guide the decision-making and implementation of CIDA s humanitarian assistance. Unlike many bilateral donors, Canada neither has an overall whole-of-government humanitarian policy, nor a specific humanitarian strategy for CIDA. The three comparison donor countries do have such policies (see Box 2), as do other donor countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK). A recent review of lessons learned from DAC peer reviews noted that a crossgovernment policy and/or strategy for humanitarian assistance is a critical first step towards ensuring consistent humanitarian responses that respect the GHD principles and highlight important areas such as gender equality. This must be anchored in relevant legislation and accompanied by a realistic implementation plan. 57 A whole-of-government policy was drafted a few years ago by DFAIT, but was never approved. This policy was reportedly based on the GHD principles, reflected the role of OGDs 58 and addressed issues such as the integration of humanitarian and development programming and civil-military cooperation. The draft policy identified emergency preparedness and risk reduction as priorities for Canadian humanitarian assistance. Box 2: Bilateral Agency Humanitarian Policy Frameworks Australia Australia s humanitarian policy (Humanitarian Action Policy, December 2011) has been revised to be more explicit about humanitarian assistance. The revisions were undertaken in consultation with key humanitarian partners. The policy will be accompanied by the Implementation Plan, which will be time-bound. The Plan will identify specific staff responsibilities for implementation. Denmark Demark has a strategy (Strategy for Danish Humanitarian Action : Addressing Vulnerability, Climate Change and Protection Challenges) which outlines Denmark s commitment, in collaboration with its partners, to reach out to the most vulnerable people in crisis situations. Through this commitment, Denmark seeks to meet the immediate and early recovery needs of those affected by natural disasters, promote disaster-risk reduction, respond to the needs of people affected by armed conflict, and support prevention, resilience and early recovery efforts. 57 Towards Better Humanitarian Donorship: Twelve Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews (draft), OECD, November 2011, p Including DFAIT, CIDA, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Department of Public Safety, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Public Safety. 22

38 Sweden Sweden recently revised its policy framework. It has an overall humanitarian policy (Saving lives and alleviating suffering: Policy for Sweden s Humanitarian Assistance , Department for Development Policy and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs) which guides the humanitarian actions of all Government of Sweden humanitarian actors (including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sida, and Ministry of Defence). The policy sets out broad goals and directions of Sweden s humanitarian interventions. Based on the overarching policy, Sida, in consultation with its partners, developed a multi-year strategy that governs Sida s humanitarian assistance (Strategy for humanitarian assistance provided through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) , Ministry for Foreign Affairs). This Strategy is structured around the GHD principles. IHA has recently drafted a humanitarian strategy that is being discussed by senior management and, as such, was not available for review. 59 Although described as a whole-of-agency strategy, the text reportedly documents the current humanitarian operations of IHA and identifies four key priorities for IHA: Improving the way IHA responds to crises; Strengthening the humanitarian system; Strengthening partnerships; and Building the evidence-base for humanitarian action. IHA staff indicated that the draft Strategy does not yet cover the whole of CIDA s humanitarian response (see Section 4.1.2), focusing on activities that are included solely in IHA s mandate. The Strategy was developed on the basis of extensive internal consultations, but it is expected that external consultation with CIDA s humanitarian partners will be conducted before the finalization of the Strategy. While perceived to be of limited value to internal stakeholders, a corporate strategy would make CIDA s humanitarian assistance more understandable and transparent for external stakeholders. 59 A distinction is made between a policy and a strategy. A policy would provide the overall framework for humanitarian assistance at a government-wide level. It would not describe what is to be done, but rather the overall objectives and reflect how each relevant department contributes to these overall objectives. A strategy, on the other hand, would define the specific means that CIDA would use to achieve the overall objectives. It would provide the framework for CIDA s programming and identify specific objectives and approaches to programming. The Swedish government has adopted a similar structure. It has a policy that establishes the Government s overall goal for Swedish humanitarian assistance. It sets out the basic premises and principles that are to guide the preparation and implementation of this assistance, and specifies the direction that work in this area is to take. (Saving lives and alleviating suffering: Policy for Sweden s Humanitarian Assistance , Department for Development Policy and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs) Sida applies this policy in the implementation of its strategy. 23

39 Internal and external stakeholders had mixed views with respect to the value of a humanitarian assistance policy or strategy. For the most part, IHA and some bilateral program stakeholders did not think that a policy or strategy would assist them in their work. They felt that the existing framework of external principles and guidelines, as well as internal operating procedures, provide sufficient direction for the effective day-to-day management of CIDA s humanitarian assistance. However, they did recognize the importance of a formal document for communicating CIDA s approach to humanitarian assistance both within CIDA and with OGDs and other partners. On the other hand, most NGO stakeholders felt that a strategy would make CIDA s humanitarian assistance more transparent and predictable. Some expressed concerns about the possibility that the development of a framework would mean that CIDA would micro-manage its funding NGO partners appreciate the current flexibility of IHA and the lack of micromanagement. Both internal and external stakeholders recognized that the process of developing a framework that guides humanitarian activities would be beneficial in terms of providing space for the discussion of fundamental humanitarian assistance issues, such as the scope of CIDA s assistance and its integration with development assistance, as well as CIDA s engagement with its humanitarian partners Scope of CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance CIDA s humanitarian assistance programming focuses on immediate life saving activities. Other donors give more attention to activities related to emergency preparedness and early recovery The Ts&Cs for CIDA s international development assistance include a fairly broad range of humanitarian assistance activities. However, IHA, as the primary implementer of CIDA s humanitarian assistance, focuses on immediate life saving activities, with limited funding for emergency preparedness and early recovery. CIDA s definition is consistent with the basic elements of the definitions used in many international humanitarian organizations. Descriptions tend to refer to saving lives, alleviating suffering and maintaining and protecting human dignity. 60 However, other humanitarian organizations also include other components of humanitarian assistance that contribute to broader objectives. The OECD-DAC suggests that this definition include disaster prevention and preparedness, reconstruction relief, relief coordination, protection and support services, emergency food aid and other emergency/distress relief. 61 While not all these components are included in IHA s mandate, the scope of CIDA s humanitarian assistance is in fact broader, if both IHA and bilateral programming are included. 60 See the definitions used by the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA), the DAC, Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) etc html Accessed November Definitions used in this report are provided in Annex C. 61 Ibid 24

40 however, a review of CIDA s humanitarian assistance suggests that the scope is, in fact, broader, if both IHA and bilateral programming are included... IHA programming The scope of humanitarian activities at CIDA varies by Branch: MGPB (IHA), GPB and PWCB. IHA s current mandate focuses on immediate relief addressing the food, water, health, sanitation, shelter and physical security needs of populations affected by conflicts and natural disasters in the short-term and relations with other humanitarian agencies. These activities fall within the DAC category of emergency food assistance and material relief assistance and services, and accounted for 45% and 49% of MGPB s humanitarian spending respectively over the past six years. Core funding IHA was a lead promoter of the CERF and has provided substantial funding to the CERF since it replaced the Central Emergency Revolving Fund in Since 2006, IHA has contributed $182.6 million to the Fund. Preliminary 2010/11 data indicates that amounts provided to CERF ($69.4M) nearly equalled core funding to key organizations. This contributes to ensuring that the CERF has rapidly available funding for emergency responses (see Figure 1). Figure 1: CIDA s Core Funding and Funding to CERF, 2005/ /11 62 (in $ millions) 63 Source: Evaluation Team calculations on basis of CIDA Agency Information System (AIS), Statistical Analysis and Reporting, CFO Branch (2011/10/27 and 2011/12/14) Note: 2010/11 figures are preliminary, and may differ following quality assurance. 62 Annual fluctuations in CERF funding are due to the cash management of an initial five-year commitment. 63 IHA s core funding is allocated by calendar year. This analysis is based on fiscal year as per figures provided by CIDA s corporate database. Therefore, it may not provide a 100% accurate picture of annual core funding levels. 25

41 Emergency preparedness Currently IHA s primary focus for emergency preparedness is on developing the capacity of the humanitarian system, through partner organizations, including: 64 Maintaining a stockpile of humanitarian relief supplies; Funding the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) to maintain a roster of Canadian experts for deployment as RC delegates and the training of these delegates; Funding the CRCS First Responder Initiative for the establishment and deployment of an emergency field hospital and reinforcing the response capacity of National Red Cross Societies in the Americas by developing and improving contingency planning and early warning systems; Funding CANADEM to contribute to the maintenance of Canadian humanitarian experts, including the costs of their short-term assignments; and Funding to the Pan American Health Organization s Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief Programme. Early recovery Current IHA programming also includes some activities in the area of early recovery if they are directly associated with the provision of immediate relief. Examples from the case studies include: Removal of rubble in Haiti, which facilitated humanitarian access but also contributed to early recovery for those affected by the earthquake; and Food-for-work and asset scheme activities in Sudan, as part of WFP s emergency operations. They aim to help households improve their ability to secure food, while conserving community-based livelihoods assets such as water or grazing lands. IHA may also cover a broader range of humanitarian activities as a result of its core funding to multilateral organizations. If the partner organization has a mandate that includes early recovery, then IHA s core funding supports these activities as well. For example, in the late 1990s, WFP IHA s largest humanitarian assistance partner began to explore ways to blend immediate relief with longer-term development activities. In 1998, it replaced its programming category of Protracted Relief Operation with Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation category in a clear acknowledgement that recovery and development objectives should be integrated 64 This section describes IHA activities. For a discussion of results, see Section

42 into the design of relief operations at a very early stage. 65 CIDA participates in this through its core funding to WFP. West Bank and Gaza programming CIDA s funding in West Bank and Gaza is channelled primarily through the UN s Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), 66 which focuses on large-scale, sustained humanitarian action, efficient and effective life saving and protection and promotion of livelihoods. 67 As such, CIDA s funding covers a wide range of activities, including immediate relief activities, emergency preparedness and early recovery: Support to UNRWA for the provision of food assistance and health and education services to Palestinian refugees; Support to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to protect the livelihoods of small farmers, and prevent them from falling into an emergency case load; and Support to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) for the removal of unexploded ordnance and rubble in the Gaza Strip. Other bilateral programming Other geographic programs also fund humanitarian assistance (as defined by the DAC). As shown in Figure 2, about one-quarter ($117M) of bilateral programming is in reconstruction relief and rehabilitation and another 6% ($26M) in disaster prevention and preparedness. This accounts for about seven percent of CIDA s total humanitarian funding in the six-year period. However, these figures include the humanitarian assistance programming implemented by the two bilateral desks that have sole responsibility for humanitarian assistance in their region/country (Afghanistan and West Bank and Gaza). 68 If this funding is removed, the bilateral funding for reconstruction, relief and rehabilitation and disaster prevention and preparedness combined accounts for $118M. Examples of bilateral funding for prevention and recovery were identified in the case studies. 65 Looking Forward: Humanitarian Policy Concerns for WFP, World Food Programme, General WFP/EB.3/99/9-B, 16 September 1999, p IHA also provides funding to the ICRC in the West Bank and Gaza. 67 Consolidated Appeal Process, Accessed January With the exception of the funding provided by IHA to the ICRC in the West Bank and Gaza. 27

43 Figure 2: Humanitarian Assistance Expenditures, by Sector, by Branch, 2005/ /11 Source: Source: CFOB Projects list. Analysis by evaluation team Note: Humanitarian assistance and the specific categories are based on DAC Humanitarian Aid coding. Spending by PWCB included under Geographic programs (0.1% of total HA spending during to ). In South Sudan s Western and Central Equatoria states, CIDA supported mine clearance and restoration of over 350,000m 2 previously unusable land to support agricultural production; and CIDA strengthened the capacity of the government and civil society in Colombia to respond to the needs of internally displaced people, including displaced children and youth, and to prevent displacement....yet confusion remains, internally and externally, about the scope of CIDA s humanitarian assistance. Interviews with CIDA multilateral and bilateral staff clearly indicate that the role of the geographic programs in providing humanitarian assistance is not widely recognized within CIDA. It is generally understood that, with the exception of Afghanistan and West Bank and Gaza, humanitarian assistance is delivered by IHA and the bilateral programs do development. Figure 3 attempts to present visually the range humanitarian programming at CIDA, by Branch. The darker sections represent the areas of the most funding. This is, by necessity, only an approximation of the scope and level of CIDA s programming. 28

44 Figure 3: Range of Humanitarian Programming, by CIDA Branch DAC criteria CIDA channel Disaster prevention and preparedness Emergency response Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation MGPB IHA GPB Specific desks* GPB Other desk * Currently West Bank/Gaza and Afghanistan To the extent that it is not funding a broader range of DRR activities, CIDA is not taking advantage of the full scope of activities in its mandate, as defined in the section on international humanitarian assistance in CIDA s Ts&Cs for development assistance. The Ts&Cs specify that international humanitarian assistance includes disaster risk reduction. Moreover, the confusion about what is included in humanitarian assistance at CIDA may be compounded by some CIDA communications. CIDA s humanitarian assistance website 69 includes a rubric CIDA s Humanitarian Response to Crises, which links the reader to a page on Reducing the Impact of Natural Disasters which outlines CIDA s commitment to DRR and supporting global initiatives. 70 However, in spite of being included in the links for CIDA s humanitarian response, this commitment is part of its development programming, not humanitarian assistance Reducing the Impact of Natural Disasters, CIDA CIDA.nsf/eng/JUD MD6 Accessed December DARA s Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) gives Canada one of its lowest ratings in the area of funding for post-emergency reconstruction and prevention: Humanitarian Response Index, DARA, 2010, Donor profile The HRI is a tool used by DARA for measuring the individual performance of government donors against Good Humanitarian Donorship principles. While the DARA rating provides an interesting summary of donor performance, IHA has indicated that many donors, including Canada, have raised concerns over the methodology and the significance of the results. The main criticism is that both the quantitative and qualitative information gathered by DARA are susceptible to error and interpretation and do not fully capture or accurately reflect donor activities. It was beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess these concerns. DARA is one source among many that have been used, with the caveats identified in this 29

45 The humanitarian community, including some IHA staff, recognizes the need to implement, and the challenge of implementing, humanitarian assistance from a broader perspective Although most stakeholders (UN, NGOs and CIDA staff) were critical of CIDA s lack of formal emphasis on activities in the areas of prevention, preparedness, reconstruction and rehabilitation, it was recognized that this is a challenge being faced by other donors in the humanitarian community. Stakeholders perceptions are evolving because the humanitarian world is changing. There is increasing dialogue in the humanitarian and development communities, including UN agencies, NGOs and academics, about the importance of adopting a broader definition of humanitarian assistance, linking relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) programming and mainstreaming DRR into development assistance. (See Box 3 for examples of the perception of various communities.) The gap between relief and development has been debated for many years. In the past, relief and development were thought to be part of a continuum. The thinking has evolved in recent years. The literature identified that relief and development are best implemented simultaneously. The UK s Humanitarian Emergency Response Review called for funding recovery activities from the onset of the emergency, recommending that recovery and livelihoods funding is considered during and immediately after the Critical Period (of humanitarian assistance). 72 In rapid onset disasters, activities in early recovery are critical to an effective humanitarian response, an important bridge between humanitarian and development programming and a means to empower populations affected by humanitarian emergencies to take responsibility for their own recovery. In protracted emergencies, activities in emergency preparedness are important to provide the necessary local capacity and help reduce the need for future humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian actors now tend to recognise that disasters induce protracted situations, and that protracted situations induce disasters. The importance of transition financing in protracted emergencies is also highlighted in the literature. 73 For instance, the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF), in which CIDA is participating (primarily through Policy Branch), recommended the following in a presentation at the Busan High-Level Forum in November 2011: strengthen overall engagement in transition; develop greater agreement on priority needs during transition; identify the appropriate instrument to respond to these priority needs; and improve collective engagement through transition compacts. In the end, there is a need for serious and significant reform to footnote. 72 Humanitarian Emergency Response Review, 2011, p Transition financing covers a broad spectrum of activities that traditionally fall between the humanitarian and development categories, including recovery and reconstruction activities and security-related and peacebuilding activities (often referred to as stablisation). Conflict and Fragility Transitioning Financing: Building a Better Response, OECD, 2010, p

46 create faster, more flexible and predictable financing against a more coherent and prioritised strategy. 74 Box 3: Views from Humanitarian and Development Communities on Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles #1 The objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations. #8 Strengthen the capacity of affected countries and local communities to prevent, prepare for, mitigate and respond to humanitarian crises, with the goal of ensuring that governments and local communities are better able to meet their responsibilities and co-ordinate effectively with humanitarian partners. #9 Provide humanitarian assistance in ways that are supportive of recovery and long-term development, striving to ensure support, where appropriate, to the maintenance and return of sustainable livelihoods and transitions from humanitarian relief to recovery and development activities. ( 23 Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship (Accessed November 2011)) UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transition During and immediately after a crisis, national actors and the international community focus primarily on meeting immediate life-saving needs. Human lives are at risk and quick action is required to minimize damage and restore order. From the very beginning, however, there is a need for more than life-saving measures. The foundations for sustainable recovery and a return to longer-term development should be planned from the outset of a humanitarian emergency. The focus should be on restoring national capacities to provide a secure environment, offer services, restore livelihoods, coordinate activities, prevent the recurrence of crisis, and create conditions for future development. (Guidance note on Early Recovery, Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery, in cooperation with the UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transition, April 2008, p. 6) Linking Relief and Recovery Agencies need to focus on the recovery phase even from the start of the operation as there is no gap between relief and recovery, and recovery is the biggest challenge in sudden-onset natural disasters. The distinction between relief and recovery is an artificial one. For a household after an earthquake, relief actions to save the lives or reduce the suffering of household members or neighbours may be accompanied by efforts to protect livelihoods by rescuing assets such as livestock and tools. The distinction between relief and recovery at the donor level is clear in terms of how funding applications are dealt with, but making the distinction in the field is far more difficult and irrelevant to affected households. ( Responding to earthquakes 2008: Learning from earthquake relief and recovery operations, ProVention Consortium/ALNAP, 2008, p. 3) Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development (LRRD) 74 Supporting Coherent and Sustainable Transition from Conflict to Peace: Draft Guidance, DAC, DCD/DAC(2011)41, 4 November 2011, p

47 Koddenbrock notes that practice and research have shown that LRRD is best pursued if rehabilitation and (return- to) development measures are implemented immediately after the start of and alongside relief activities. (The Will to Bridge? European Commission and U.S. Approaches to Linking Relief, Rehabilitation, and Development. Kai Koddenbrock in Humanitarian Assistance: Improving U.S.- European Cooperation. Julia Steets and Daniel S. Hamilton (eds), Center for Transatlantic Relations, The Johns Hopkins University/Global Public Policy Institute, Section 8, p. 121) However, it is also recognized in the literature that funding for activities beyond immediate relief, and linking humanitarian assistance to development, are challenges faced by the humanitarian community at large. The summary of lessons learned from DAC Peer Reviews notes that donors continue to struggle to deliver on the ninth GHD principle: deliver humanitarian assistance in ways that are supportive of recovery. The summary suggests that donors need to go further, to support humanitarian funding to support spontaneous community-led recovery initiatives and focusing on strengthening the reliance of vulnerable communities, including the central role of women, to likely future crises and shocks. 75 The 2011 Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) report notes Expenditure on preparedness and prevention has not been a significant priority for any of the top humanitarian recipients in the past five years. 76 but other donors and the humanitarian community provide examples of this approach... All three bilateral donors selected for the comparison conducted for this evaluation have taken a broader definition of humanitarian assistance (see Figure 4). The recent evaluation of Sweden s humanitarian assistance noted that Sida is unlike other donors in its capacity to provide flexible funding for recovery activities. 77 In fact, disaster prevention and recovery are two cross-cutting themes in Sida s humanitarian assistance strategy. 78 Figure 4: Comparable donor goals/objectives of humanitarian assistance Bilateral donor Australia Denmark Sweden Goal/objective of humanitarian assistance To protect lives, alleviate suffering, maintain human dignity and assist recovery from conflict, natural and other disasters, through effective response, prevention, preparedness and risk reduction. The objectives of Denmark s humanitarian action are to save and protect lives, alleviate suffering and promote the dignity and rights of civilians in crisis situations; as well as to initiate recovery, build resilience to and prevent future crises by breaking the cycle between crises and vulnerability. To save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity for the benefit of 75 Humanitarian Emergency Response Review., p GHA Report 2011, Global Humanitarian Assistance, p Evaluation of Sida s Humanitarian Assistance: Final Synthesis Report, Tasneem Mowjee and Judith Randel, April 2010, p Strategy for humanitarian assistance provided through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) , Ministry for Foreign Affairs, p. 2 32

48 Bilateral donor Goal/objective of humanitarian assistance people in need who are, or are at risk of becoming, affected by armed conflicts, natural disasters or other disaster situations. Disaster prevention and recovery are two cross-cutting perspectives for humanitarian assistance. Source: AusAID, Humanitarian Action Policy, December 2011; Strategy for Danish Humanitarian Action ; SIDA, Saving Lives and Alleviating Suffering, Policy for Sweden s Humanitarian Assistance, The need for a broad definition of humanitarian assistance is also identified in other evaluations. A recent review of humanitarian assistance evaluations carried out for the National Audit Office of Finland, identified, as the primary area for donor recommendations, the need for increasing investments for disaster prevention, preparedness and disaster risk reduction and the need to link relief, rehabilitation and development, in order to build resilience and reduce vulnerabilities. 79 and some CIDA discourse reflects this approach IHA staff are aware of and appreciate the issues associated with a broader definition of humanitarian assistance. The extent to which the broader range of activities is being discussed at CIDA is reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding that Canada recently signed with Australia to strengthen international development efforts, including humanitarian assistance. 80 This MoU recognizes the broader scope of humanitarian assistance by identifying the following as areas of common interest for AusAID and CIDA cooperation : Humanitarian and disaster response: improved disaster management, preparedness and response capability of developing countries and regional/international partners; and Reconstruction and stabilization, peace and security: enhanced peace and stability within fragile and conflict-affected countries Gender Equality IHA has a Gender Equality Action Plan and the Agency has begun to assess its humanitarian partners capacity to deliver gender equality results. 79 International Humanitarian Aid An Evaluation Synthesis, International publications of the National Audit Office of Finland, 2011, p. 7. This review was one component of a performance audit on the effectiveness of Finnish-funded humanitarian aid. The report presents findings from 35 evaluations, reviews and analytical reports on humanitarian aid. 80 Memorandum of Understanding on International Development Cooperation between the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), 29 November Ibid, Annex A. 33

49 Gender equality is a cross-cutting theme for CIDA s programming. The Agency has been seen by some stakeholders as a leader in promoting gender equality through its policy dialogue and humanitarian programming. IHA relies on a gender equality-related policy, guidelines and action plan: CIDA s Policy on gender equality; Gender Equality and Humanitarian Assistance Guide; and Canada s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. Gender equality remains a relatively new concept in humanitarian assistance, and the capacity within IHA to undertake gender equality analysis varies from one officer to another. Nonetheless, the Agency is pro-active in designing better tools and is increasingly requesting more information from partners regarding their gender equality approaches and plans. Gender specialists from MGPB provide input for policy dialogue with multilateral organizations. Gender equality related statements are often negotiated with other donor countries as joint statements and, as a result, usually have more influence. IHA recently developed a Gender Equality Action Plan and MGPB is undertaking gender equality institutional assessments of IHA NGO partners (e.g. Oxfam Canada, Oxfam Quebec, Plan, Care, MSF, World Vision, Save the Children) and multilateral organizations (e.g. WFP, OCHA and UNHCR) partners. The assessment tool for multilaterals focuses on the capacity of the organizations to plan for, achieve, and report on, gender equality development results. However, the assessments also include information on humanitarian assistance programming related to gender equality, and to some extent, results - particularly in the case of UNHCR, which focuses entirely on emergencies. The evaluation did not assess the overall results of gender equality in humanitarian programming, but two geographic programs have made notable steps in integrating gender equality in their operations. The first is the Pakistan Program, which engaged the Pakistan military in integrating gender equality in its Earthquake, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation program. The second is the Thai-Burma Border Consortium. Through its Canadian partner, Interpares, TBBS provides shelter, food and services, and runs a number of refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border. The bilateral program officer routinely involves the Gender Equality Specialist in reviewing project proposals and reports, formulating policy dialogue lines and monitoring the project (including site visits). These activities are based on CIDA's Gender Equality Policy guidelines and have been supported by tools and approaches commonly used by bilateral specialists. For both programs, the bilateral desk has ensured support for consistent and strong gender equality integration. While these programs are good examples of integration of gender equality considerations in humanitarian assistance programming, consistent integration across all humanitarian programs is reportedly not always systematic. 4.3 IHA Management of Humanitarian Assistance This section focuses on IHA s management of humanitarian assistance, given that the majority of CIDA s humanitarian assistance is managed by this directorate. 34

50 4.3.1 Management of Responsive Funding IHA has, over the years, developed both formal and informal approaches to the management of its responsive programming. This section assesses its approaches to assessing humanitarian needs, selecting implementing partners and projects, and approving projects; the timeliness of funding; and monitoring and evaluating its humanitarian funding. Needs Assessment and Partner and Project Selection for Specific Humanitarian Crises IHA has appropriate tools for collecting and analyzing needs-based information for decisionmaking IHA does not gather needs-related data directly, but rather collects information on needs from a variety of sources, including emergency appeals, Canada s diplomatic missions abroad, its multilateral and NGO partners and donor networks. IHA is a major supporter of the UN appeal system, in part because of the UN s systematic approach to assessing needs and its capacity to provide coordination mechanisms, primarily through OCHA and the cluster system. Canada, with other donors, has worked with the UN system to strengthen the CAP, with the goal of ensuring that the identification of funding requirements is based on the accurate assessment of needs at the country level. The UN appeal processes provide key information for IHA s assessment of needs, and also provide a benchmark for measuring the level of CIDA s response. As a result, most CIDA, UN agency and NGO stakeholders reported that IHA had relevant information from its partners for determining the needs for any given humanitarian response. IHA s decision-making involves choosing among a number of options proposed by its partners for programming in a given country. This task can be undertaken with more general information than would be required to assess basic needs and design programs to address them, which is the task of IHA s partners. There are a number of key considerations in the identification of IHA s funding for any humanitarian emergency, including the extent of the emergency, the capacity of local responders, availability of credible needs assessment information and appropriate programming options, access and security constraints, as well as the availability of resources. IHA also takes into consideration Canada s share of the international response burden expected to be about 3% 5% of the collective response of DAC members. 82 In fact, over the period covered by the evaluation, Canada s contribution to all Consolidated and Flash appeals has ranged from 2.6% to 3.6% of total funding for the appeal CIDA s Humanitarian Assistance, undated, p.8. Although the purpose for which this paper was written is not known, it provides an outline of humanitarian assistance what it is, recent trends affecting international humanitarian action, and the scale and scope of Canada s humanitarian programming. Looking forward, it also identifies a number of areas on which CIDA could focus its attention in order to enhance its leadership role in responding to humanitarian crises. 83 Note that this includes all donors, not just the DAC donors. 35

51 IHA staff indicated that it had been a leader in the development of needs assessment tools and that these tools laid the foundation for similar tools developed by other agencies. IHA has developed two tools for the analysis of information used to determine the level of need: A calibration tool to assess CIDA s contribution to natural disasters, which links a defined CIDA response to the scale of an event/emergency and serves as a standard way of comparing the severity of different natural disasters; 84 and A Humanitarian Needs Index (HNI) that is used for comparing the relative severity of complex emergencies in order to inform the allocation of humanitarian resources. CIDA s humanitarian assistance is delivered primarily through partnerships with multilateral organizations and NGOs, and implemented through grant agreements and arrangements. 85 IHA programs with a limited number of partners that are deemed to have the most experience, operational capacity, and best performance track-records and, therefore, best placed to provide a more timely, efficient, and effective response. Funding for food assistance is provided primarily through WFP and the Canadian FoodGrains Bank (CFGB) since these organizations have adequate logistics capacity, and provide economies of scale in the delivery of food aid. Occasionally food assistance is provided through the ICRC in regions of the world where WFP access is limited. Non-food aid is provided through both multilateral organizations (e.g. UNHCR and UNICEF), the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs (e.g. World Vision, CARE Canada, Save the Children Canada, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam). Funding for humanitarian coordination is provided primarily through OCHA. Since IHA funding is responsive, there is no formal process of calls for proposals from partners. However, guidelines for NGO partners are on the IHA website and are currently being reviewed. In order for IHA to be able to assess proposals from partners in a timely way, partners who contact IHA are notified about whether IHA will be making funding recommendations for a given response by a specific date, should they be interested in submitting a funding proposal. 86 Most partners reported that the proposal process is straight-forward and does not place a heavy burden on them. Once IHA confirms that the conditions for a humanitarian response are met, it assesses whether the partner organization meets institutional and programming criteria, such as: minimum conditions of humanitarian experience, experience in the affected country, capacity to respond, and whether the proposed response will contribute towards meeting the basic needs of affected 84 CIDA S Humanitarian Assistance, p IHA has a few contribution agreements for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, but the majority of its agreements are grant agreements and grant arrangements. 86 A few years ago, IHA provided NGOs with the opportunity to become eligible to submit an abridged proposal form during the first two weeks of a rapid onset disaster. While this did not preclude other organizations from submitting proposals, it was designed to simplify the process for its NGO partners by allowing them to present shorter funding proposals. However, the current situation with respect to the acceptability of these shorter proposals is not well understood across Canadian NGOs. IHA is currently in the process of reviewing its NGO proposal guidelines. 36

52 populations in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, while meeting the criteria of efficiency and value for money and meeting IHA s criteria of being immediate life-saving. 87 Based on the resulting short-list of partners, recommendations are prepared by IHA staff for funding. These recommendations are not based on a structured point-based system, but rather on the experience of staff (including those in the field), their knowledge of the countries and the partners, as well as the match with identified needs. Documentation on the recommended projects is sent for comment to CIDA headquarters (HQ) geographic desks, CIDA staff at the post and DFAIT. Once comments have been received, IHA staff prepare a Project Approval Document for approval by senior management and the Minister, depending on delegated authorities. Typically, projects are approved in packages. This allows IHA staff to compare proposals for the delivery of comparable services for the same response. It also allows for a more efficient and flexible approval process with senior management and the Minister. The process for CAP funding is different. CAPs are developed for most protracted emergencies in the last three months of the calendar year. Once the funding envelope has been determined, CIDA staff review the CAP components and make recommendations on funding for activities that fall within its mandate. and flexible mechanisms for responding to humanitarian emergencies IHA funds those partners that are best placed to meet the needs of the target population. Typically, this results in a balance between multilateral and NGO partners. Funding for NGOs may be higher following rapid onset disasters in instances where NGOs have better access to affected populations or are able to mobilize their resources more quickly. On the other hand, multilateral organizations may receive a higher proportion of IHA funding for protracted emergencies because, in the view of IHA staff, they are better able to provide a long-term, stable response. The assessment of the most appropriate partner always includes an analysis of the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the partners. Canada s 2008 decision to untie its food aid budget has increased flexibility for its partners so that they can procure food locally, which has reportedly helped reduce associated purchase and transportation costs and promoted more timely responses. However, how decisions are made is not transparent to all partner stakeholders. NGOs that do not receive regular funding, reported that it is not clear what CIDA will fund in any given context. However, most NGOs appreciate the fact that IHA staff are open to responding to questions, to the extent that they can within the context of a responsive program. On the other hand, the core NGOs that receive regular funding from CIDA generally appear to understand how decisions are made. 87 It also conducts due diligence procedures, using a Due Diligence Assessment template. 37

53 During project implementation, most IHA partner stakeholders were in agreement that CIDA is a flexible donor, in terms of managing signed agreements. IHA is very responsive, open to making programming changes with a minimum of administrative burden and open to no-cost project extensions. While IHA staff do not have delegated authority to approve these changes, the flexibility in being able to discuss them with partners is both appreciated by partners and important, given the changing nature of humanitarian responses. Timeliness of Project Approval There are delays in the approval of some NGO project funding There are no documented service standards for IHA s required procedures and approvals of humanitarian funding. Views on the timeliness of humanitarian funding are mixed and vary depending on the type of funding. UN agencies receiving funding under the CAP, i.e. for protracted emergencies, are generally satisfied with the timeliness because CIDA s funding approvals are usually made before the end of the government fiscal year (31 March) and, hence, in the first three months of the partner agency s financial year. However, views on the timeliness of funding for NGOs are also mixed. On the one hand, NGOs that also do development programming recognize that IHA s decisions are much timelier than those of the geographic desks. On the other hand, most NGOs noted that although they are often asked, in the case of rapid onset disasters, to submit proposals very quickly, they do not get rapid funding decisions from CIDA. Some NGOs reported examples of extraordinarily long time frames for finalizing IHA funding (Box 4), particularly for protracted emergencies delays that were significant enough that the NGO was required to redesign the programming proposal because needs of the affected populations had changed significantly. There is, of course, a balance to be achieved between speed and high quality decision-making, including ensuring due diligence. Box 4: Examples of Delays in Signing Project Agreements NGO respondents identified particular challenges with delays in approvals for three specific humanitarian responses. Data is available for two of these: Cholera outbreak in Haiti average time from the submission of the proposal to a signed agreement for six NGO partner projects was five weeks; Response to cyclone in Burma (data was not reviewed by the team); and Humanitarian emergency in Sudan average time from submission of the proposal to a signed agreement for five NGO partner projects in 2010 and 2011 was 34 weeks. An analysis of the timeliness of approval processes on projects funded in the last two years in the four case study countries managed by IHA (Colombia, Ethiopia, Haiti and Sudan) provides a clearer understanding of the timing issues. On average, it took 15 weeks from the receipt of a proposal to a signed agreement with the partner (Figure 5). 38

54 Figure 5: Timelines for Approval of IHA Funding for 4 Case Study Countries, 2009/ /11 88 Timeline All projects (average weeks) Time from receipt of proposal to development of Project Approval Document (PAD) 6.5 (n = 29) Time from preparation of PAD to approval of PAD 5.4 (n = 54) Time from approval of PAD to signed agreement with partner 4.3 (n = 86) Summary: Time from receipt of proposal to signed agreement 15.0 (n = 47) Source: Review of IHA project files by evaluation team (n = 98) 89 However, there are differences by type of partner, and type of emergency: The average time to approve the project is comparable for both types of organizations (5.9 weeks, on average, for multilateral organizations and 5.1 weeks for NGOs). However, the time from approval of the PAD to a signed agreement is longer for multilateral organizations than NGOs, 6.5 weeks and 2.0 weeks, respectively. The timeframes appear to be, on average, shorter for rapid onset disasters than protracted emergencies. This is particularly the case for the time required to approve the project on average, 2.3 weeks for rapid onset disasters and 10 weeks for protracted emergencies. There is less difference in the time to prepare the partner agreements between the two types of emergencies. It takes, on average, 3.9 weeks to prepare agreements(from the time of project approval) for rapid onset disasters, and 4.9 weeks for protracted emergencies. Delays are introduced, at least in part, because CIDA is not always able to exercise its delegated authority for funding. Consequently, elements of flexibility and timeliness, which are key to effectiveness in humanitarian assistance, may be lost.... but IHA has implemented other mechanisms to facilitate quick responses and is planning to give priority to addressing these processes in its humanitarian assistance strategy. Although there are delays in approving and signing agreements, particularly for NGO projects, IHA is addressing the rapidity of its overall response in innovative ways: 88 As noted in the evaluation limitations, there were gaps in the information that could be collected from the IHA project files, particularly for submission dates for multilateral organization proposals. This detracts from the reliability of this data. As such, these timelines should be taken as illustrative of the issue of delays in funding approval that were identified strongly in interviews and case studies. 89 The n does not equal 98 in all cases, because there were dates not available in some files. The team also removed some cases where the time between events was either a negative number or so large as to suggest that there was an error in the dates. 39

55 Moving to more multi-year and flexible funding for partner organizations; Building a Quick Release Mechanism into the Crisis Pool. The Crisis Pool allows CIDA to access additional funding from the GoC International Assistance Envelope (IAE) for new crises. The Quick Release Mechanism simplifies procedures for accessing this funding by providing a frozen allotment of $50M in CIDA s Reference Levels; Considerable funding for the CERF; Setting up rapid response mechanisms with the CRCS; 90 and Improving response mechanisms has been identified as a key priority in CIDA s draft humanitarian assistance strategy. In addition, IHA staff indicated that they are often able to advise partners of the approval of their funding before the official signing of agreements, allowing them to begin implementing their projects in advance. But, this only addresses delays that occur after the project has been approved (e.g. in the preparation of agreements) not delays in project approval. Moreover, partners can include all activities/expenditures from the date that the proposal was submitted to CIDA under the project budget. The extent to which partners are able to take advantage of this depends on their ability to pre-finance their response. 90 IHA has set up the Emergency Disaster Assistance Fund (EDAF) with the Canadian Red Cross. This fund allows the CRCS to draw down funding, up to a maximum of $200,000, for humanitarian responses for which the IFRC has issued an appeal. 40

56 Monitoring and Evaluation IHA has a number of monitoring mechanisms in place and does not impose a heavy reporting burden on partner organizations In 2009, IHA developed a Performance Measurement Strategy that identifies the planned results for IHA s programming, outlines mechanisms in place for measuring performance and identifies the challenges of measuring humanitarian results. 91 Recognizing the challenges of measurement in the humanitarian system, the Strategy proposed a number of mechanisms for collecting and reporting on performance that focus on components of the humanitarian system, rather than impacts on beneficiaries (see Box 5). The Strategy made the assumption that an effective humanitarian system will produce more positive humanitarian outputs, which are difficult to measure. For example, it is impossible to get an accurate number of lives saved by a humanitarian operation, as there are simply too many variables involved in such a calculation. However, it would be fair to say that a more timely and appropriate humanitarian response (elements of the humanitarian reform that are more measurable) would contribute to save more lives. 92 Box 5: IHA Performance Measurement Mechanisms IHA s Performance Measurement Strategy identifies a number of mechanisms in which it engages for measuring the performance of CIDA, its partners, the Government of Canada and the humanitarian system; Corporate focus: This includes corporate evaluations, DAC Peer Reviews (a review is currently underway) and information from external performance indexes, such as the GHA analyses of humanitarian funding; Partner focus: This includes multi-donor evaluations, engagement in the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) and periodic independent evaluations of IHA s NGOs partners programs; Government of Canada focus: This includes participation in DFAIT-led After-Action Reviews (in addition, IHA conducted its own AAR after the response to the Haiti earthquake); and Humanitarian system focus: This includes external evaluations of the humanitarian system s performance (such as the review of the CERF s first year operations commissioned and funded by CIDA in 2007) and monitoring the progress and quality of the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance by international NGOs (for example, SPHERE and ALNAP), some of which received IHA funding. 91 International Humanitarian Assistance Program Performance Measurement Strategy (Pm Strategy) , CIDA, September Ibid, p. 5 41

57 IHA has two key sources of information to assess the performance of its funding partner narrative and financial or initiative-specific reports, as well annual reports and monitoring information from IHA and post staff. Most NGO and UN agency stakeholders consider that CIDA s reporting requirements are flexible and less of a burden in comparison to some other aid agencies (such as the European Commission and USAID) and comparable to others (such as Australia, Denmark and Sweden). Multilateral organization stakeholders appreciate CIDA s willingness to accept their report format and standards. This is consistent with the GHD good practice related to the use of common reporting formats. While NGO partners are comfortable with the requirement to use the standard reports that are prescribed in the CIDA funding guidelines, they do question the differences in the level of reporting required from NGOs versus multilateral partners. Since the latter can use their standard reports to donors, the information provided is much less focused on CIDA s funding than is the case for NGO reporting. Some partners did express the view that reporting should become an instrument for sustained dialogue with CIDA, including getting more regular feedback about reports they provide, in an attempt to strengthen the quality of the partnership between CIDA and its partners. CIDA also has a number of dynamic approaches to monitoring its partners and their performance as humanitarian organizations, including its engagement on advisory boards, donor support groups, executive committees and its participation in various high-level and bilateral meetings field missions (both bilateral and jointly with other donors). CIDA uses meetings of multilateral organization s governing bodies for monitoring and it systematically pushes for greater transparency and stronger monitoring within these organizations. As a general rule, CIDA s monitoring includes at least an annual mission from HQ officers to the field. IHA staff have guidelines and templates for field monitoring. 93 However, it is not clear how, or if, information from IHA monitoring missions is aggregated. With increasing pressure to show results for beneficiaries, and not necessarily more resources to do monitoring, locally engaged staff and CIDA field representatives are being called upon to play a greater role in monitoring. This already happens as some field staff (for example, in Colombia, Haiti, West Bank and Gaza and Sudan) have experience in humanitarian assistance and provide valuable analysis to HQ. However, this is reportedly not generally the case and systematic monitoring is hampered by the limited humanitarian assistance experience of field staff. Field staff also do not have adequate guidance on expectations with respect to monitoring humanitarian assistance funding. It was also suggested by some field staff that they often do not get feedback from IHA on information that they provide. 93 See IHA Field/Monitoring Mission Guidance Sheet; IHA Field Mission Checklist; and IHA Mission Report Template 42

58 but there is no annual report on humanitarian assistance programming nor do there appear to be adequate systematic mechanisms for collecting, integrating and sharing lessons learned. There is no evidence that the information IHA collects on program performance is pulled together. There is no annual report on CIDA s humanitarian assistance. There is also no systematic approach to reviewing IHA s (or CIDA s) performance after a major humanitarian response, or gathering and integrating information from the various reports and meetings and disseminating it within the Agency. Information from the case studies suggests that this is particularly the case for information from field staff. However, both IHA and CIDA s corporate evaluation function have conducted reviews of the effectiveness of its partner organizations. The Evaluation Directorate has, over the years, contributed to multi-donor evaluations of multilateral organizations but they are costly and require a long time to complete. As a result, it has recently initiated, in collaboration with the DAC-EVALNET, a new review process that builds on the MOPAN approach. MOPAN focuses on organizational effectiveness, whereas this new initiative focuses on development or humanitarian effectiveness, based on a meta-evaluation of the agency s own evaluations. IHA also conducts institutional assessments of its NGO implementing partners. Ensuring the effectiveness of its partner organizations contributes to ensuring the effectiveness of the humanitarian funding they receive. IHA currently regularly conducts due diligence and Gender Equality Institutional Assessments for both multilateral and NGO partner organizations. Strategic environmental assessments are also conducted for multilateral organizations. It has, in the past, also conducted institutional assessments of its partner organizations, but only one such assessment or evaluation was identified for this evaluation CIDA s Humanitarian Funding and Human Resources IHA s budget increased significantly over the course of a year with transfers of additional funds from both CIDA and external sources. IHA Program Funding and Operational Expenditures IHA s initial budget for humanitarian programming in 2010/11 was $323 million. The initial budgets have been generally increasing since 2006/07 (Figure 6). IHA s initial budget has increased by 92% since 2006/07. This overall increase is, in part, attributable to an increase in the food aid budget in 2009/10 that resulted from an allocation of $70 million from the IAE to IHA in response to the global food and fuel crisis in 2008 (funding that has continued over the last three fiscal years). In addition, there has also been an increase in non-food programming funds 94 For example, Evaluation of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank Program (2006/ /10): Final Report, IHA CIDA, May 2010; Operation Review of the CANADEM Expert Deployment Phase II Project : Final Report, Universalia Management Group, September 2010; Overseas Delegates Program Review: Final Report, Goss Gilroy Inc., May

59 for new initiatives managed by IHA, including multi-year funding for the CERF, Sudan, and additional allocations from the Crisis Pool. During the course of a fiscal year, additional funds are transferred to IHA for humanitarian programming from within the Agency, but also from the Crisis Pool and other sources. The GoC Crisis Pool is part of the IAE that was reserved for funding large and unforeseen crises that require resources above CIDA s pre-approved budget. It provides flexibility to the GoC and CIDA to allocate additional funding without affecting funding allocated for other emergencies. 95 The Crisis Pool funding has been used to provide the additional funding promised by the government when matching funds are launched by the Minister of International Cooperation or the Prime Minister. Figure 6: IHA Program Initial Budget, Net Transfers and Final Expenditures, 2006/07 to 2010/11 $600 $500 $ millions $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 2006/ / / / /11 Initial budget Net transfers Final budget Source: IHA, Analysis by evaluation team In some years (2006/07 and 2008/09) the net transfers have been larger than the initial IHA budget. The value of net transfer has declined in the past two years, although the initial budget was higher in those two years. However, the increase in IHA s total program budget was not as great in 2010/11 and, in fact, there was a reduction of 11% in the total budget for 2010/11 compared to the previous year. In most years, the non-food aid budget is larger than the food aid budget (Figure 7). 95 Until recently, CIDA had to prepare a Treasury Board submission and wait for Supplementary Estimates to access Crisis Pool. In 2010/11, a Quick Release Mechanism was set up, under which $50M from the Crisis Pool is included as a frozen allotment in CIDA s Reference Levels. This money can be released with either a Memorandum to Cabinet or a letter to the Prime Minister. This can make it easier and faster for CIDA to access Crisis Pool money. 44

60 Figure 7: IHA Program Expenditures, by Sector, 2006/07 to 2010/11 $ millions $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2006/ / / / /11 Food aid Non-food aid Peace and security Mine action Source: IHA, Analysis by evaluation team 96 The food aid budget has been increasing steadily since 2007/08, when it represented just over one-third (38%) of IHA s program budget. In 2010/11 the food aid budget represented more than half (58%) of IHA s program budget. IHA s total operational expenditures have risen by 7% since 2006/07. This small increase masks a large increase in salaries expenditures (18%), which was offset by a decrease (22%) in other operational expenditures (Figure 8). This was attributable to a significant decrease (74%) in expenditures on professional services, which IHA attributes to an increase in indeterminate staff. 96 Note that although the peace and security and mine action funding is included in this and other IHA financial tables for completeness, this funding was not included in the scope of the evaluation. 45

61 Figure 8: IHA Operational Expenditures, 2006/ /11 $ thousands $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2006/ / / / /11 Salaries Other O&M Total operational expenditures Source: IHA, Analysis by evaluation team 97 IHA operational costs for managing its humanitarian programming represents a very small percentage of the program costs and has declined in the last five years. The operational costs of managing IHA s humanitarian funding represents a very small percentage of the program costs. Operational expenditures represent less than one percent (0.57%) of program expenditures. This has decreased since 2006/07, when it was 0.74%. Notably, IHA is managing 39% more humanitarian funding than it did in 2006/07 with only 7% more operational expenditures (Figure 9). This is one indicator of efficient IHA operations. 97 Note operational expenditures include salary and overtime costs, as well as other operational costs, such as travel, professional services, communications etc. 46

62 Figure 9: IHA Program and Operational Expenditures, 2006/ /11 Source: IHA, Analysis by evaluation team Matching Funds The increasing reliance on matching funds raises issues about transparency and the potential for distorting humanitarian funding. The matching fund concept was first launched after the Indian Ocean tsunami at the end of 2004, whereby every dollar contributed to a Canadian NGO by the Canadian public for tsunami relief would be matched by a dollar from the GoC. 98 For the tsunami fund, the additional government funding was allocated to the NGO that raised the money. After the first use of the matching fund, CIDA changed the approach to the implementation of matching funds prior to launching the matching fund for the Pakistan earthquake (2005). A review of the use of matching funds conducted in 2006 compared the two approaches. 99 Under the first approach, NGOs first had to be assessed as eligible, based on standardized selection criteria. They then had to raise funds during a fixed period of time. The funds raised by these NGOs (that were confirmed through an independent audit) were matched by the GoC. These funds were then made available for programming by the same eligible NGOs. They were able to present 98 Note that there were precedents for the use of a matching fund concept by Canada. CIDA s response to Hurricane Gilbert in 1989, which inflicted about $US 900 million in damages, included $1.2 million to match cash contributions made by the Jamaica-Canada Association and sponsored by the Jamaican High Commissioner. ( Matching Fund Mechanism Discussion Paper: Key Questions Emerging from the Identification of Stakeholder Issues, Bob Vandenberg, June 2006, p. 1) 99 Matching Fund Mechanism Discussion Paper: Key Questions Emerging from the Identification of Stakeholder Issues, Bob Vandenberg, June