1 / 35

UNITED NATIONS INTER-AGENCY CONSOLIDATED APPEAL PROCESS

UNITED NATIONS INTER-AGENCY CONSOLIDATED APPEAL PROCESS. Briefing for WHO. 1. Some highlights of the OCHA standard presentation useful for WHO information. CAP: THE LEGAL CONTEXT. General Assembly Resolution 46/182 1994 Inter-Agency Standing Committee approved CAP Guidelines

jospeh
Download Presentation

UNITED NATIONS INTER-AGENCY CONSOLIDATED APPEAL PROCESS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNITED NATIONS INTER-AGENCY CONSOLIDATED APPEAL PROCESS Briefing for WHO

  2. 1 Some highlights of the OCHA standard presentation useful for WHO information

  3. CAP: THE LEGAL CONTEXT General Assembly Resolution 46/182 1994 Inter-Agency Standing Committee approved CAP Guidelines Secretary General’s Reform Paper 1997 (para 191)

  4. CAP: WHO PARTICIPATES? “should be carried out in full collaboration with United Nations bodies and other relevant humanitarian organizations, international financial institutions, donors and host governments as an important step towards a more integrated and strategic approach.” From conclusions of ECOSOC session, 6-31 July 1998

  5. CAP: WHY A COMMON HUMANITARIAN ACTION PLAN To build a sense of common purpose among the main humanitarian and development actors To gain a clear overall direction To assist in the process of prioritization To ensure learning from previous experience To support effective resource mobilization

  6. CAP: COMPONENTS OF THE CHAP Presentation of possible scenarios In Tadjikistan, insecurity, terrorism, corruption and lawlessness give no hope for peace-building Competencies and capacity analysis and there is no one out there to help and carry out the life saving work

  7. CAP: COMPONENTS OF THE CHAP Statement of humanitarian principles focusing on human and health survival, security and protection, equitable resource allocation, accountability to beneficiaries Long term goals reduce mortality and morbidity excess, ensure food security, control communicable disease transmission, desmobilization and reintegration, social reforms

  8. CAP: COMPONENTS OF THE CHAP Sectors to be addressed food aid, health and nutrition, water and sanitation, education, reintegration, coordination Criteria for Prioritisation life-saving and containment activities (controlling typhoid fever and malaria epidemics, essential medicines) Relationship with other assistance programs are we in accordance with national policies and development programs (even if temporarily interrupted)

  9. CAP: THE PREPARATION PROCESS

  10. CAP: STRATEGIC MONITORING (some examples) In the current and likely evolving context (determinant of health, emergency health intelligence): Do we immunize school children who are likely to die soon after as soldiers in the army? Do we immunize child soldiers just being demobilised? Do we promote immunization as a peace-making mean?

  11. CAP: STRATEGIC MONITORING (some examples) In the current and likely evolving context (determinant of health, emergency health intelligence): Could immunization be mis-perceived by a refugee populatione.g. as an attempt to sterilization? Do we promote family planning in communities after a genocide?

  12. 2 Some learning from WHO as a CAP practitioner for the last decade and some constructive feed-back from EMRO

  13. CAP: WHAT WAS (IS?) IT For the past decade: A sudden rush of work A puzzle of projects A one time event Still in 2000 ?

  14. CAP: WHAT WAS (IS?) IT For the past decade: An “EHA thing” A hope for more money A burden Still in 2000 ?

  15. CAP: WHAT IS IT For 2001 and the next decade A strategic monitoring tool A coordination instrument A reference document A year-long process A (business) plan

  16. CAP: CURRENT ISSUES CAP not based on needs assessment Not efficient for resource mobilization Absence of common ownership (still viewed as the responsibility of the leading agency) Absence of continuum Absence of strategic monitoring and evaluation

  17. In fact, WHO does not take enough advantage of the CAP as a tool for: Planning health together with health and non health agencies Monitoring and evaluating health humanitarian programs Breaking with the “oral tradition of humanitarian aid” by writing good and comparable reference documents on specific crises (case studies)

  18. In fact, WHO does not take enough advantage of the CAP as a tool for: Voicing and making a case for the health of population in crisis Pooling all its resources and provide a “massive support” for those who are in day-to-day survival

  19. CAP: INFO TO BE ADDED IN MOST CASES WHO unique responsibility WHO core commitments and global/regional target Health sector strategy Country/situation baseline information Risk and situation assessment Monitoring system Co-financing mechanisms

  20. 3 REVIEWING CAP DOCUMENTS WHO CORE COMMITMENTS ACROSS THE CAPs MALARIA PROJECTS ACROSS THE CAPs

  21. CAP in review WHO CORE COMMITMENTS IN EMERGENCIES Field presence and operational capacity (coordination, management and accountability) Need assessment and prioritization (rapid health assessment, monitoring, evaluation) Health and nutrition surveillance Communicable diseases (RBM, TB, EPI, polio-E, epid. prep/resp.)

  22. CAP in review WHO CORE COMMITMENTS IN EMERGENCIES Environmental health (water, sanitation) Access to essential drugs and primary care (supply, services strengthening) Health as a bridge for peace and linking assistance to development Access to essential public health guidelines and building of an institutional memory for preparedness and disaster mitigation

  23. CAP in review WHO CORE COMMITMENTS IN CAPs (2000)

  24. CAP in review WHO CORE COMMITMENTS IN CAPs (2000)

  25. CAP in review WHO CORE COMMITMENTS IN CAPs (2000)

  26. CAP in review CAP QUALITY CHECK: CONCLUSION • These results demonstrate that malaria (and likely other public health areas) control is not properly treated in the CAP. • The table does not reflect actual WHO performance in Roll Back Malaria in these countries • This means that the CAP is not taken seriously at country level because it represents an additional workload from which there is no perceived benefit for the country. • The need is therefore to advocate for the CAP as a profitable exercise within the Organization.

  27. 4 CONCLUSIONS

  28. CAP: WHO POSITION • WHO advocates for health as a cross cutting issue within all sectors and programs • WHO defines health sector priorities in accordance with the inter-agency common humanitarian strategy, goals, and contribute to the objectives that are formulated in the CAP • WHO proposes a series of projects that represent field-based core corporate commitments and that are consistant across the different CAP documents

  29. CAP: WHO POSITION • WHO takes a proactive position in assessing the performance and effectiveness of the health humanitarian program defined in the CAP • WHO makes sure that an appropriate (and realistically benchmarked) monitoring and evaluation system be in place in each appealing country

  30. CAP: WHO POSITION • WHO engages in continued in-house capacity building in order to enable WHO field/region/HQ staff to undertake these different tasks within the CAPs • WHO engages its own institutional resources to implement its work and plays its technical and normative coordinating role in humanitarian crisis

  31. VISITING OCHA/RELIEFWEB http://www.reliefweb.int/appeals/index.html

More Related