The IASC Regional Network Ad Hoc Working Group developed this Gender in Humanitarian Action product. In humanitarian response - whether in the context of natural disaster, protracted crisis or conflict - the needs of women, men, girls and boys are different and distinct. Crises exacerbate pre-existing gender based discrimination and inequalities thereby blocking access for women and girls to basic services and rights, economic livelihoods, meaningful representation in planning and decision-making processes, also increasing risks to gender based violence. At the same time women and men are equipped with different knowledge, skills and capacities to deal with crisis which need to be adequately utilized. Ignoring gender considerations in humanitarian action in South and Central Asia will risk exacerbating inequalities, diminish the effectiveness of response and recovery efforts, and undermine communities’ resilience.
This statement affirms the commitment of the IASC Principals to ensuring the centrality of protection in humanitarian action and the role of Humanitarian Coordinators, Humanitarian Country Teams and Clusters to implement this commitment in all aspects of humanitarian action. It is part of a number of measures that are meant to ensure more effective protection of people in humanitarian crises.
The purpose of this study is to foster dialogue among CBPF stakeholders around the various aspects of financial risk (appetite, tolerance and thresholds) that arise the in the CBPF context, including those stemming from third party implementing partners operating in remote areas without direct oversight. Questions pursued by the research include: To what degree does the existing CBPF architecture and its consultative management approach allow for enhanced risk sharing among partners—or are financial risks simply being transferred down the fiduciary chain of actors, with the highest risks borne by implementing partners on the ground? How do different CBPF partners perceive risk tolerance (appetite or aversion), and how do these perceptions change depending on one’s position within the fiduciary chain? Is there a shared willingness to consider an explicit risk tolerance policy—would partners agree to an acceptable amount of loss, for instance?
The daunting scale of the humanitarian funding gap and the seemingly intractable nature of the many well documented humanitarian financing challenges provided the backdrop for a series of Future Humanitarian Financing (FHF) dialogues held in 2014. Those who took part in these cross-sectoral events, however, repeatedly stressed as grounds for optimism factors such as economic growth, increasing global connectedness, new technologies, innovation in financing and business practices and emerging global norms around the need to manage risk and build resilience. This report represents an effort by members of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Humanitarian Financing Task Team to draw on this spirit of optimism and opportunity to stimulate renewed energy and commitment to resolve longstanding humanitarian financing challenges and to identify new approaches and models of engagement to address the needs of humanitarian crises yet to come.
The Future Humanitarian Financing (FHF) initiative was instigated by CAFOD (Caritas England and Wales), World Vision International and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in order to undertake a horizon scanning exercise to identify opportunities and challenges in financing humanitarian action in the future. The initiative addresses a task under the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task Team on Humanitarian Financing 2014 work plan and attempts to stimulate energy and commitment to resolve longstanding humanitarian financing challenges and to identify new approaches and models of engagement that will address the needs of humanitarian crises yet to come.