The COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on ongoing humanitarian crises have created a need to make funding agreements more flexible so that frontline humanitarian actors receive timely and adequate resources and can pivot as appropriate to COVID-19-related activities.
This note lays out the agreed Priority Areas of Work for the IASC Results Groups covering the 2020.
The IASC Results Groups have been encouraged to be concrete in their deliverables, to focus on activities that will have the most impact on field effectiveness, will support IASC Principals’ with their decisions and/or advocacy efforts, promise the highest return for investment, and are inclusive; ensuring systematic engagement with key relevant IASC and non-IASC inter-agency structures.
This report outlines the status of, and progress towards, the concrete deliverables under the priority areas of work for Results Group 5 as agreed by the OPAG for 2019.
Purpose of the evaluationThe evaluation assesses how CBPFs have performed against the OCHA CBPF Policy Instruction between 2015 and 2018.Analytical frameworkThe evaluation team used an analytical framework to guide and inform the evaluation which is based on the CBPF Operational Impact framework (outlined in the Policy Instruction). The structure of the evaluation case study reports are in line with the framework, as are the conclusions outlined in the attached document.
A study on Field Perspectives on Multi-Year Humanitarian Funding and Planning: How Theory has Translated into Practice in Jordan and Lebanon. The overall proportion of multi-year humanitarian funding in Lebanon and Jordan was found to be insufficient to transform the humanitarian response. The limited capacity by downstream partners to absorb long-term funding and restrictions on the original grant were identified as other key obstacles to making multi-year sub-grants available.
A primary background document for the Grand Bargain Workstream 7 and 8 Multi-Stakeholder Accelerator Workshop in September 2019, analysing the barriers to increasing the provision and programming of quality funding.
The Results Group 5 on Humanitarian Financing met on 20 August in Geneva to discuss the following agenda:Finalise and agree key messages to donors on tackling barriers and encourage multi-year and unearmarked funding,Brief and discussion on 2020 high level resource mobilisation events,Reporting (deadline by 11 October) and progress on the RG5 workplan,Brainstorm on the 2020 priority areas of work,AOB.Please find below a short summary of the meeting.
The Results Group 5 on Humanitarian Financing met on 23 July in Geneva to discuss follow-up actions of the Financing the Nexus study and finalize the workplan. Below is a brief record of the meeting.
This study contributes to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) humanitarian financing priorities of improving “aid effectiveness through more effective humanitariandevelopment funding flows and mechanisms”. It has two goals: to document the extent to which predictable, multi-year flexible financing is available at the programme level; and to understand the extent to which funding matches Collective Outcomes or the financial requirements of interoperable humanitarian and development plans.
Below are the lists of the individual and organisation membership of all five of the IASC Results Groups. Since these copies are only periodically updated, contact the IASC secretariat or the relevant Results Group co-Chairs for the latest details on the participation in each group.
