WUNRN
WUNRN asks: Why is it so hard for
local women's NGO's to access international funding, even through national NGO
collaboration? WUNRN would like to see transparent available tracking of
humanitarian funds dispersed on the national level to be sure they reach the
intended cause and designated recipients. WUNRN wonders how many international
donors give to projects that are truly for/of/by/with local women. WUNRN raises
the question that when humanitarian funding is passed through governments, how
much actually reaches the specific project, program. WUNRN is curious when
international donors give to national, even more local projects part of a
national base, if the projects are designed to provide national/local level
sustainability over time and less dependence on the foreign presence and
funding. WUNRN calls for donors to see WOMEN as AGENTS OF CHANGE,
amazingly capable to make projects successful at all levels, not victims, so
very knowledgeable of local issues, culture, traditions, leadership. WUNRN asks
for MORE humanitarian funding to be specifically GENDER-DESIGNATED, and
monitored to show good practices, prototypes, positive outcomes.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Humanitarian Aid Funding
Needs to Be More Inclusive of National NGO's +++
National
NGOs get tiny percent of direct official humanitarian aid:
DAKAR, 15 September 2014 (IRIN) - With humanitarian aid
effectiveness high on the agenda of the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, there is much talk of
how to reform humanitarian financing to make it more inclusive of national
NGOs, but risk aversion will slow progress, say analysts.
Between 2009 and 2013 local and national NGOs received 1.6 percent of the
humanitarian aid that international donors gave to NGOs, representing 0.2
percent of total humanitarian aid, according to research by Development Initiatives. The actual percentages might be different
given that these figures represent only assistance reported to the UN Financial
Tracking System. All agree, however, that the percentage is low, particularly
when compared to the development sector, which turns to national NGOs far more
prominently.
Guillaume Le Duc, director of development and communications at NGO Alima which partners with national NGOs,
said this amounts to exclusion, noting that even strong, technically expert
NGOs - such as BEFEN in Niger and Alerte Santé in Chad - cannot access the bulk
of international funding directly. As a result, "it qualifies the capacity
to manage and deliver services based on the citizenship of the organization and
not on the quality of the staff or their track record," he said, adding:
"Qualified staff who worked for MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] in other
countries and wanted to return home could find no work in their own
country."
For Makimere Tamberi, president of Chadian health NGO Alerte Santé, which relies
on funds through ALIMA as well as some small-scale foundation funding, said
this exclusion reduces aid effectiveness. "Qualified national NGOs can
intervene more quickly than international NGOs. We're already there [in the
country]. We have the expertise. We can do it more cheaply. If money were given
directly, it would speed up the response," he told IRIN.
Alerte Santé was running a nutrition programme in Southern Chad's camps for
returnees and refugees from the Central African Republic and applied for
international funding to extend it, but had to cut it short due to the lack of
response.
In the first report done on national NGO humanitarian funding, Aid at the Sharp
End, NGO CAFOD sharply criticized the current funding system when it comes to
the approach to national NGOs: "International financing for national NGOs.
is not fit for purpose. It is unpredictable, volatile, difficult to access,
insufficient and is not sufficiently enabling to support the strengthening and
capacity development. that is central to improving preparedness, response
capacity and resilience to disasters."
Most national NGOs receive funding through international NGOs or sometimes UN
agencies, according to analysts. But some direct international funding is
available: notably country-based pooled funds which have been set up in several
countries and deemed to work well, particularly in Somalia, Sudan and the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The proportion of pooled fund money going to national NGOs has increased
gradually over recent years.
Perceived risks
The NGO Start Network, which aims to improve aid effectiveness by reforming
emergency funding approaches, among other things, plans eventually to fund
national NGOs directly. But currently "owing to risk aversion in donor
governments" Start channels at least half of its funds to national NGOs
through sub-agreements whereby international NGOs take the legal risk for
implementation, said the network's coordinator, Sean Lowrie.
National NGOs can also approach national governments for humanitarian funding -
the Chadian, Philippines and Ethiopian governments among others, have
encouraged this approach over recent years, but national disaster management
agencies themselves in many cases need more direct donor support or investment,
say analysts.
Most large donors, meanwhile, refrain from directing funding national NGOs due
to the perceived risks involved. European Union humanitarian aid body ECHO is
legally bound only to fund NGOs that have signed a framework partnership
agreement and thus have proven their operational and administrative capability,
something which goes beyond the scope of most national NGOs.
The UK Department for International Development (DFID) funds mainly through
partners and pooled funds, though national NGO funding is about to be reviewed,
according to sources there, and partners and suppliers are having to increase
their transparency when it comes to the visibility of local NGOs. DFID aims
eventually to be able to trace official development assistance along the aid
delivery chain, including through national NGOs, to show where the money is
spent.
In a
region like West and Central Africa new NGOs are setting up all the time. So
the question is: can donors reconfigure a system where they take these actors
into account? Because at some point they will have to.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID),
meanwhile, is making a concerted effort to channel more funds through
government and local institutions through its initiative USAID Forward.
Risk tolerance guides donor approaches to national NGOs, said Lisa Doughten,
head of the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). "Ultimately the
donor needs to feel comfortable with the level of risk they're taking on
through the chain. What is their tolerance level? If it shifts, additional
direct funding might open up."
Managing risk
Pre-auditing national NGOs, which the DRC and Somalia country humanitarian
funds attempted, is an effective way to manage risk and should be extended to
other funders, said CAFOD's humanitarian adviser, Anne Street.
CAFOD also recommends that donors and UN agencies improve awareness of what
funds are available to national NGOs; set up pooled funds specifically
targeting national NGOs; undertake an assessment of national NGO capacity
country by country; and adjust contracts to be more favourable to national
NGOs.
Training national NGO staff so they are better aware of available funding and
how to access it should be a priority in coming years, said Jessica Alexander
in the Policy Analysis and Innovations Section of OCHA, noting that this
capacity building should also apply to national disaster management
authorities, which are increasingly taking the helm on response.
And stricter reporting requirements should be set up to track the impact of
indirect funding to national NGOs, said Street. "Very few funding recipients
are able, let alone required, to report even basic information about the funds
they pass on to third-party implementers, so there is no way systematically
assessing the timeliness, appropriateness or impact of funding."
CAFOD's report and its recommendations are gaining traction, said Street, who
is helping to convene a series of global discussions to map reform priorities.
While all agree that some degree of change is needed in international financing
to national NGOs, many assert the importance of various actors along the
transaction chain when funding is indirect. OCHA's Alexander said: "People
tend to overlook the capacity the international community can bring [to the
funding cycle] - the middle man can be a broker of solutions - can provide accountability,
stress humanitarian principles, transparency, among other vital roles."
The CERF's Doughten agrees, saying: "If each part of the chain is working
well, it would add value." But Street is more sceptical, calling the
pervasive long transaction chains "inefficient and expensive."
Sub-contracting humanitarian finances typically means that 7 percent of the
contracted amount is taken up in administrative costs. But overheads should not
be seen as waste, stressed Alima's Le Duc. "I could run a programme on 1
percent overheads but I couldn't guarantee the quality. Likewise some agencies
may be at 25 percent overheads but maybe they're the most efficient," he
told IRIN, noting: "On 7 percent you don't necessarily have the room to
provide career development to further qualify staff - something that can make a
project 50 times more efficient."
Assessing the comparative advantages of direct versus indirect funding requires
more study. But one thing is clear for Le Duc: donors need to keep up with the
changing times. "In a region like West and Central Africa new NGOs are
setting up all the time - the same thing is happening in the political and
media arenas. So the question is: can donors reconfigure a system where they
take these actors into account? Because at some point they will have to."