Global Protection Cluster: protection funding study

1. Global Protection Cluster: protection funding study julianmurrayconsulting@gmail.com

2. Research parameters • Literature review: companion studies • Quantitative: FTS, DAC, Agency reports • Surveys: 130 online respondents and 21 donor questionnaires • 30 In depth interviews • 4 Field visits: Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Sudan + Kenya/Somalia • Workshops in Washington and Geneva • Covers non-refugee protection • Uses a narrow definition of protection

3. Some of the major findings (1): • IDP protection funding (using broad methodology) is fairly steady despite overall humanitarian funding decline

4. Some of the major findings (2): • But IDP protection is consistently underfunded in relation to protection requests in appeals: although this fluctuates

5. Some of the major findings (3): • The typical IDP protection funding profile shows a peak in year two, then gradual decline

6. Some of the major findings (4) • Mine action is not in competition for protection funding, and among the other AoRs Child Protection is strongest

7. The absence of a simple conceptual framework is problematic • The technical definition of protection is not readily understandable by the public • Protection at the same time the purpose of humanitarian action, and • It is an approach within all sectors, and • It also has its own domain (the activities of the protection cluster). Furthermore • Programming can be protection-specific, integrated or mainstreamed

8. Donors do not make the main protection funding decisions • Donors usually allocate on basis of countries and partners, not sectors • Donors generally trust the main protection actors to set priorities • When considering protection projects in CAPs, some donors have concerns about delivery capacity and results, and they would usually prefer fewer + larger proposals

9. Protection programmes need to show results • “Success is measured in things that do not happen” (expert comment) • Behavioural change is long-term • The domain is fraught with political interests and access challenges • Funding is short-term and fragmented • Measuring protection results is a challenge, but it is possible with enough attention and active support

10. Pointers for cluster coordination • Develop simple clear protection narratives (at global and country level) • Advocate for protection to form the basis for analysis and planning of the whole Humanitarian Strategy • Make sure protection cluster coordination is fully resourced in the top 10 complex emergencies • Consider refining the concept of “foundational protection,” and managing it collectively

11. Pointers for protection cluster partners • Advocate more for protection within your organisations • Coordinate as well as you can, consider consortia that allow fewer/larger programmes that have critical mass to show results and include NNGOs as partners • Work within the Humanitarian Strategy towards planning and reporting for outcome-level protection results

12. Pointers for donors • Stay with the GHD agenda, and improve reporting to FTS • Consider bold protection mainstreaming requirements, and fund multi-year whenever possible • Keep working at joining the development side up, so that important gains achieved in humanitarian space can be sustained in national programmes

13. Related initiatives • GBV and Child Protection funding handbook • Child protection Minimum Standards • Update of IASC GBV guidelines • InterAction initiative to improve results-based protection • Revisions to the reference module on the Humanitarian Program Cycle