Research on Localization of Aid-INGOs Walking the Localization Talk
Acknowledgement This work benefited from the experiences and ideas of many institutions and people (whose list is annexed). Their willingness to contribute to the success of the task is much appreciated considering the many competing priorities, especially at this time of humanitarian response. We are deeply grateful for their time, views and relevant documents they shared with the assessment team. The project coordination team within CST deserves a special mention. Teamrat Belai (Programme Manager), Daniel Gebremedhin (START Project coordiantor) and Challa Gidisa (START Project officer) accompanied and supported the assessment team throughout. They were instrumental in mobilising stakeholders and devising strategies to gain access to some not-so-open doors. We appreciate the support and hope this report will do some justice to the commitment and contribution of all involved. Editorial Team Conor Molloy, CST Country Representative Daniel G/medhin, START Project Coordinator Challa Gidisa, START Project Officer Solomon Kebede, Programme Officer M&E Samson Haileyesus, Communication Officer Photos and layout: Samson Haileyesus CAFOD / SCIAF / Trรณcaire P O Box 1875, Addis Ababa, Gulele Subcity, Swaziland Street, Enqulal Fabrika, Ethiopian Catholic Bishops Conference Centre Tel: +251-(0)11-278-8843/44/45 Fax: +251-(0)11-278-8846 Email: email@example.com Website: www.trocaire.org / www.cafod.org.uk / www.sciaf.org.uk
Acronyms AAE Action Aid Ethiopia AFD Action for Development AISDA Action for Integrated Sustainable Development Association ANNPCAN Association for Nation Wide Action for Prevention and Protection against Child Abuse and Neglect AVH Apostolic Vicariate of Hosanna CAFOD Catholic Agency for Overseas Development CCRDA Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association CDI Centre for Development Initiative CHADET Organization for Child Development and Transformation CHS Core Humanitarian Standards CRS Catholic Relief Service CSA Central Statistical Agency CSO Civil Society Organization DEEP Disasters Emergency Preparedness Programme DfID Department of Finance for International Development DRMPS Disaster Risk Management Policy and Strategy ECHO European Commission for Humanitarian Operation ECHT Ethiopian Country Humanitarian Team EKHCDC Ethiopian Kale Hiyewot Church Development Commission EMRDA Ethiopian Muslim Relief and Development Association GO Government Organization HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership HINGOs Humanitarian International Non Governmental Organizations ICCO Inter-church Organization for Development Cooperation INGOs International Non-Governmental organizations JEOP Joint Emergency Operation Programme KNH Kindernothilfe LNGOs Local national Non-Governmental organizations LRRD Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development MEL Monitoring, evaluation and learning MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoFAs Ministry of Foreign Affairs NDRMC National Disaster Risk Management Commission NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations PSNP Productive Safety Net RCWDA Rift Valley Children and Women Association RfP Request for Proposal StP Shifting the Power TDA Terepza Development Association ToR Terms of Reference UNHCR United Nation Higher Commission for Refugees UNICEF United Nation Childrenâ€™s Fund UNOCHA United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs UNWFP Untied Nation World Food Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development WaSH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WDA Wolaita Development Association WSA Women Support Association i
Contents Acronyms ............................................................................................i Executive Summary ................................................................................1 1. Introduction and Background ..........................................................2 1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................2 1.2. Background of the Research ..........................................................2 1.3. Purpose of the Research.................................................................2 2. Methodology .......................................................................................3 2.1. Data collection method ..................................................................3 2.2. Sampling Method ..........................................................................3 2.3. Analysis and Report Writing ..........................................................3 2.4. Limitation of the Research ..........................................................4 3. Findings of the Study .........................................................................5 3.1. Breakthroughs .................................................................................5 3.2. Enablers and Barriers to Localisation of Aid ...............................5 3.3. Partnership Practice of INGOs with LNGOs ..................................9 3.4. Co-Designing of Humanitarian Programmes................................11 3.5. Funding .........................................................................................12 3.6. Capacity building .........................................................................14 3.7.Policy Advocacy, Lobby, and Media Engagement .......................15 3.8. Humanitarian Coordination and Governance ..............................15 4. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................16 4.1. Conclusion
4.2. Recommendations .........................................................................19 References .........................................................................................20
Executive Summary The research entitled “Localization of aid - INGOs walking the talk” was commissioned by CAFOD (on behalf of CAFOD, SCIAF and Trόcaire - Working Together in Ethiopia],) the lead for the six INGOs consortium in Ethiopia which constitute; CAFOD, Action Aid, Tearfund, Concern W, Oxfam and Christian Aid. The main purpose of the research is to assess the partnership practices of the six INGOs with their respective local and national NGOs in Ethiopia. The research looked at the breakthroughs; enablers and barriers; partnership practices between INGOs and LNGOs; the culture of programme design; funding; capacity building; advocacy; lobby and media engagement; and the governance practice and coordination of humanitarian aid currently existing in Ethiopia. Data for the research was generated from both primary and secondary sources. A combination of individual interviews and group discussions were organized with 53 informants representing 31 different institutions. The qualitative data were synthesized using thematic and content analysis method. The findings of the study have demonstrated that there exist promising steps that can lead to breakthroughs in localization of humanitarian aid in Ethiopia. Such elements cited include: INGOs enabling strategies and partnership guidelines; INGOs being forward looking to move from project based partnership to strategic partnership; both INGOs and LNGOs recent experience of jointly designing programmes, and developing standard reports to meet the donor requirements; ongoing investment of INGOs to build the institutional capacity of LNGOs independently and via Shifting the Power (StP) project as a consortium; silent form of INGOs advocacy and informal lobby to influence the humanitarian donors; and involving the LNGOs leaders in joint decision making to create accountable governance. The study has identified that the six INGOs taking the initiative of funding the StP project and USAID’s ‘forward policy’ devised to link LNGOs with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) as positive trends for promoting the localisation of aid talk. The articles (14 a-c) of the Ethiopian Civil Society Organizations (CSO) law are seen as enabling the NGOs to involve in humanitarian interventions. Besides, the existence of National Disaster Risk Management (NDRM) policy and strategy, and programme investment framework, restructuring of the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) to lead a coordination of the works of humanitarian actors were recognized as additional enablers. Despite the encouraging trends described here; the International Humanitarian Architecture; non LNGO inclusive strategy; mistrust and tough requirements of the donors; the 70/30 administrative to programme cost directive of the Ethiopia CSO law; lack of clarity on the representation of LNGOs on national level humanitarian taskforces, limited capacities of LNGOs to meet donor compliance requirements; and absence of humanitarian focused NGOs forum were areas seen as barriers for the INGOs to work more on the localization of humanitarian work. In general, based on the specific findings discussed under each thematic area, the research concludes that the six INGOs can walk the localization of humanitarian aid talk by following an incremental approach rather than a transformative approach. Thus, the six INGOs should clearly outline a strategy on how to strengthen partnerships between INGOs and LNGOs for collective humanitarian actions; building the capacity of LNGOs for humanitarian actions; and leading humanitarian advocacy and media engagements in Ethiopia and at international level to influence the humanitarian donors so that the localization of humanitarian aid becomes a reality. 1
Introduction and Background This report has four sections. The first section includes general introduction, background, and purpose of the research. The second section deals on methodology of the research. Section three presents the findings of the research. Finally, section four outlines major conclusions and key recommendations of the research.
Background of the Research
The six INGOs; namely CAFOD, Action Aid, Tearfund, Concern W, Oxfam and Christian Aid have taken the initiative for advancing the humanitarian actions walking the localisation of aid talk. It is important to note that Charter 4 Changes ; a position paper of INGOs in relation to the localization of Aid was instrumental for the inception of the idea of the localisation of aid; the INGOs walking the talk research. For shared understanding the study has adopted the definition of the term â€œLocalization of humanitarian response/ aid â€?from Henri Nzeyimana (2015 p.6) as it encompasses a set of measures and activities that take into account local realities of affected populations, existing capacities and resources and the agency of affected populations to enhance quality, accountability and sustainability of humanitarian aid.
Purpose of the Research The overall purpose of the research is to provide a very practical set of operational recommendations on what the 6 consortium INGOs can do concretely so that the LNGO actors in Ethiopia can play an increased and more prominent role in humanitarian actions. In this report the term Local Non Governmental Organizations (LNGOs) is used to represent both local and national NGOs in Ethiopia.
Methodology The data collection, sampling, analysis and report writing methods used are briefly outlined below;
Data collection method Data Type : Mainly qualitative data were used for the study by combing with some quantitative secondary data to substantiate the qualitative findings. Data Sources: Data were collected from both secondary and primary sources. a. Secondary data secures: review of literature and documents linked to localization of aid was done both for understanding the research objectives and to guide the design and analysis of the study. The review has also covered secondary data and the organizational policies, country strategy documents, partnership principles/ guidelines, and capacity assessment tools of the Six INGOs and donors (the latter only country strategy documents based on web sources). b. Primary Sources: Qualitative data was collected from INGOs, LNGOs, key donors, the UN system and key national government organizations using an interview protocol. The interviews were conducted from August 15 to September 5, 2016. c. Case study: Two case studies were documented on the good practices of INGOs partnership with their respective LNGOs showing the existence of encouraging grounds to realize the localization of Aid agenda in Ethiopia. The first case study has captured the long-term partnership agreement established between Oxfam and Action for Integrated Sustainable Development Association (AISDA). Oxfam has put commendable efforts in building the humanitarian preparedness and response capacity of AISDA. The second case study focused on Women Support Association’s (WSA’s) partnership with INGOs (Dan Church Aid, Christian Aid and Concern W). The partnership helped WSA to become a member of the Global Humanitarian Alliance (GHA), which will increase the commitment of WSA to join and support localisation of aid agenda.
Sampling Method The research adopted purposive sampling techniques as defined by the Terms of Reference (ToR) and agreed with the international research team. In other words, the study has targeted those institutions and individuals having experience and information needed on localisation humanitarian aid. The sample size of the research are; six INGOs, 15 LNGOs, seven donors, members of the UN system, two government organizations and one CSO network. Overall, 53 key informants representing 31 different institutions were involved in the research.
Analysis and Report Writing The qualitative data collected both from primary sources (interview and case study), and secondary sources (literature and documents review) were analyzed following the key categories of the research questions. The pillars of localization of aid covered in the study are; breakthroughs, enablers, barriers, partnerships, co-designing programmes, funding, capacity building, policy advocacy, lobby and media engagement, and governance and coordination of humanitarian aid. 3
Limitation of the Research All possible steps were followed to ensure the quality of research during design, data collection, analysis and report writing to make it user friendly. Nevertheless, the study is not without limitations. Difficulty of getting some important individuals; accessing institutions for interview; and time shortage to make thorough synthesis of the information collected can be cited as limitations of the study.
3. Findings of the Study Breakthroughs in the Humanitarian aid in the last five years The findings of the research shows that 10 among the 15 LNGOs selected for the interview are implementing Shifting the Power project (StP) and are familiar to localisation of aid agenda. So far eight out of 15 LNGOs have implemented emergency response activities through the sub granted budget by the INGOs in the year 2015. None of the LNGOs included in this study have accessed humanitarian fund directly from the back donors. In this regard 12 out of 15 LNGOs interviewed reflected their view as there are initial steps leading to breakthroughs. Such elements cited by both the INGOs and LNGOs include: ongoing capacity building of LNGOs by INGOs; INGOs moving from project based partnership to strategic partnership; both INGOs and LNGOs jointly designing programmes; LNGOs developing standard report to meet the donor requirements; and the INGOs involving the LNGO leaders in joint decision making. The study has identified that four out of six INGOs, and as confirmed by their respective LNGO partners, there is local capacity to implement humanitarian actions and to meet the donor compliance requirements. In connection, Oxfam indicated that one of its partners, for instance, AISDA is already linked to OFDA. On the other hand, donors (IrishAid, DfID, USAID and ECHO) and the UN organizations (WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR) in the same way mentioned that they are channelling their humanitarian funds either through INGOs or the Ethiopian government. In this regard, ECHO mentioned that it has never channelled humanitarian fund for LNGOs as the Framework Partnership Agreement can be only signed with European based INGOs. Breakthroughs on localization of humanitarian aid; walking the talk can be better realized when the change comes from the donors. Readiness to change the current humanitarian aid; walking the talk can be accelerated if the donors reflect their commitments for aid effectiveness in their country strategies, humanitarian funding requirements, policies, and NGOs capacity assessment tools. The INGOs Status in terms of Walking Localization of Aid Talk In Ethiopia, in order to accesses humanitarian funding; the experience so far was putting joint INGO-LNGO humanitarian proposals for humanitarian donors, where the INGOs take the lead. The INGOs interview has showed mixed response and practice on the status of the localization of aid. The majority of INGOs (five out of six) are investing on their partners’ capacity to realize the localization of aid. Willingness of the INGOs and LNGOs could be taken as a positive sign for the walking the localisation of aid talk. DfID has given due emphasis for building the capacity of LNGOs under the Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Programme (DEPP) channelled through the START network. Similarly, the ‘USAID forward’ policy is devised to enable LNGOs to directly access the OFDA resource, which is relatively easier and a small sized grant (2-3 million USD). According to the USAID sources, it is a means devised to ensure aid effectiveness. However from the various interviews with donors, INGOs, LNGOs and NDRMC it was underlined that the localization of aid; walking the talk is at the beginning in the continuum. It was also noted that the theory of change of localisation of aid is seen as empowering for the LNGOs.
Enablers and Barriers to Localisation of Aid Enablers for Localization of Aid
GOVERNMENT POLICY AND STRUCTURE The Ethiopian CSO law in article 14 a-c encourages the NGOs’ involvement in humanitarian intervention/action (MoFAs, 2014).The existence of the National Disaster Risk Management (NDRM) policy and strategy, and programme investment framework are also mentioned by all respondents as opportunities for the localisation of aid (DRM, 2013; DRM-SPIF,2014). Besides, both the INGOs and LNGOs interviews have confirmed the existence of NDRMC structures from federal to kebele level 5
which is seen as an asset. Similarly, the review of the Agricultural Growth and Transformation Plan (AGTP II) showed the collaboration of NGOs/CSOs with government on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) activities were well recognized in principle (MoA, 2015, P.102). A strategic alliance will be formed with all stakeholders, partners, regions and NGOâ€™s to accomplish plan, programs and projects related with DRR as stated in Strategic Programme and Investment Framework (SPIF). THE GOVERNMENT, DONOR AND INGOS EMERGENCY PLATFORMS The availability of government and donor emergency platforms were seen as enablers, but rarely attended by LNGOs as indicated by NDRMC and confirmed by the participants during the validation workshop. THE INGOS COUNTRY STRATEGIES AND PARTNERSHIP POLICIES All the INGOs have capacity assessment tools, ongoing country strategy documents, and partnership guidelines which are seen as a fundamental assets for forging partnership between INGO and LNGOs for localization of aid; walking the talk. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES OF LNGOS Both the donors and INGOs interview has pointed out that LNGOs have good knowledge, experience of operation at the grassroots and in localized areas that make the humanitarian aid implementation easy for them. From the interview with LNGOs and donors implementing emergency actions through LNGOs was seen as a cost effective as they utilize minimum costs using local staff with lower salaries than the INGOs. It is also mentioned that donors may prefer to directly transfer emergency fund to LNGOs rather than INGOs so as to cope up with the 70/30 CSO directive of Ethiopia; and programme cost to 70% and administrative cost to the 30% of the total budget. NGOS CONSORTIUM The existence of Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association (CCRDA) as an umbrella organization for more than 400; both INGOs and LNGOs is seen as an opportunity to advance the silent form of advocacy for localization of humanitarian aid. There is a fertile ground for instance, to revitalize the national a humanitarian forum initiated by CCRDA. The good practice day which the CCRDA organises on annual basis can give a good ground to air out some of the policy concerns on localisation of humanitarian aid to the top level Ethiopian government officials (the President, Prime Minster (PM), or Speaker of the Parliament) of the country that attends as a guest of honour on the CSOs good practice day. CHANGE IN GLOBAL THINKING ON AID EFFECTIVENESS From the various interviews (donors, INGOs,LNGOs and government organizations) have pointed out that there are global commitments for aid effectiveness (Paris Declaration 2005, 2016 World Humanitarian Summit/WHS). Thus both the INGOs and LNGOs see creating a country level ownership on this global level commitment can create a fertile ground to INGOs to pursue the localization of aid talk. The localisation of aid was a main topic in the 2016 WHS and is recognised as a means to improve the quality and speed of humanitarian aid. EXISTENCE OF FORUMS The existence of Ethiopian Country Humanitarian Team (ECHT) and loose forums like Humanitarian International Non Governmental Organizations (HINGOs) are some of good opportunities for information exchange, experience sharing and carrying out lobby of donors.
Barriers for Localization of Aid A. DONORS, STRATEGY, ATTITUDES AND REQUIREMENTS According to the information gathered in this study from main donors; USAID, DfID and Irish Aid their strategy for channelling humanitarian fund is through three pipelines; for cash (UNOCHA and ECHO), for non-cash/food (WFP) and for Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) through World Bank (WB) and the Ethiopian government. The big barrier indicated as described by all respondents (Government Organizations (GOs), INGOs, and LNGOs was that the donors and some INGOs lack trust on that the LNGOs can deliver the humanitarian actions. All the three donors visited were sceptical on that LNGOs’ capacity develop quality proposal, implement emergency response and provide acceptable reports on a timely basis. Though the source for lack of trust needs deeper investigation and analysis, but some of the perceptions gathered from the interviews with donors and UN System regarding LNGOs were; Lack of flexible systems among LNGOs for humanitarian response. The existing systems and procedures slow authorization of expenditure on an emergency situation, don’t allow a rapid or fast track procedure to purchase lifesaving emergency food or other supplies. The LNGOs working environment not attractive for staff. Weak LNGOs internal control system. B. TOUGH DONOR GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS According to the responses of all INGOs and LNGOs, the donor funding guidelines, primarily the financial compliance requirements are tough which the LNGOs could not meet so far. Some of the criteria that donors require include; financial management experience, commodity risk management and rigorous reporting. Besides, donors such as UNOCHA require LNGO to hold international bank accounts to qualify for the submission of the RfP. C. GRANT CLOSURE AND CAPACITY TO PAY BACK THE INELIGIBLE/ DISALLOWED COSTS All the three donors visited during this study had concerns in that the LNGOs lack the financial capacity to pay back the ineligible/disallowable costs. In other words, if the LNGO purchased an item without the permission of the donor; sometimes the donor will require the LNGO to pay it back if the cost is ineligible/disallowable, which most LNGOs will be challenged to do so. D. LIMITED DONOR SUPPORT There was little support from the donor agencies on their country strategies to involve the LNGOs in humanitarian action. The study didn’t come across any indication that the donors have clearly defined in their strategies to implement the humanitarian actions through LNGOs. E. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE AND INTEREST TO WORK IN REMOTE AREAS donors expect big scale of operations, and large impact instead of dealing with individual LNGOs in humanitarian intervention. At the same time donors prefer that LNGOs have capacity and interest to operate outside their traditional areas whenever required to do so. F. LNGOS STAFF PLACEMENT One concern of donors gathered in this study was that the LNGOs load senior staff and advisors at their head offices, but assign little technical staff at field level where the actual humanitarian operation is taking place.
G. International Humanitarian Architect The international humanitarian aid architect doesnâ€™t allow the LNGOs to directly access donor funds. Though the six INGOs are committed for walking the localisation of aid talk; the donors operating in Ethiopia which are part of the global humanitarian architecture may find it not easy to walk the localization of aid talk. THE ETHIOPIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY a. NDRMC is silent on the role of LNGOs on some emergency response, so far no clear guideline on the participation of NGOs on the national level task forces exists. From the interview with NDRMC and review of policy documents the study could not identify policy documents clearly indicating the roles of LNGOs at national level humanitarian platforms and task-forces. The LNGOs interviewed challenged that they have limited access to humanitarian information and updates as they are not participating in the national level humanitarian task forces. It must be also underlined that the LNGOs hardly put an effort to become pro-active to participate and get information and contribute at national regional and zonal platforms. The researchers have learned that all the humanitarian information and updates are available on NDRMC website /https://www.dppc.gov.et/. b. There is no hard and fast rule that restricts the INGOs to not work with the LNGOs. Although there are discouraging clauses that limit the administrative cost to only 30% and programme cost to 70%. However, certain provisions of the Ethiopian CSA Proclamation No. 621/2009 are seen by CSOs as constraining rather than enabling. For instance, the 70-30 directive (70% of the budget as programme and 30% as administrative) discourages the engagement of the CSO in research, monitoring/evaluation, and capacity building and training. Hence, INGOs working in Ethiopia both in humanitarian and development sectors find it difficult working with LNGO partners on sub grantee basis. c. The focus of the Ethiopian government over the last five years was a positive bias that NGOs should focus on development rather than on relief. Nevertheless, the National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management encourages Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) approach (DRM, 2013). LIMITED CAPACITIES OF LNGOS Several shortcomings of the LNGOs for the realization of localization of humanitarian aid were identified in this study. Some of the limitations that are considered as barrier in connection to the LNGOs are briefly presented below. a. Absence of Humanitarian Strategy: All the 15 LNGOs indicated that they have organizational level strategic plan documents. However, the INGOs and donors have reservations that the LNGOs do not have clearly articulated humanitarian strategies and on how the LNGOs intend to position themselves to respond to emergencies effectively and efficiently. b. Lack of humanitarian programme sensitive system: All the INGOs, LNGOs, donors and UN system members interviewed point out that LNGOs are not having in place manuals, procedures and guidelines that enable them to comply with international humanitarian accountability and management standards. c. Weak internal control system: The interviews findings from all sources show that the LNGOs, especially those smaller ones have weak internal control systems that comply with donorsâ€™ financial requirements. d. Inadequate Experience of LNGOs: All the INGOs and donors believe that the experience of LNGOs is primarily on development programmes and not on humanitarian actions. As a result, NDRMC, 8
donors and INGOs question the LNGOs readiness with logistics to manage emergency programmes or humanitarian aid. Similarly, from the interviews with all the 15 LNGOs we learned that their focus is mainly on development activities rather than humanitarian responses. e. Absence of humanitarian structure and staff: Our interviews findings from all stakeholders (donors, INGOs and LNGOs) prove the absence of humanitarian structure and staff and insufficient experience in humanitarian operations among the LNGOs. The salary structure of LNGOs isn’t attractive and hence staffs are not willing to stay long in LNGOs. This coupled with the short period nature of emergency responses made it difficult to get technical staff for short term emergency response assignments and hence this has overburdened the workload on the existing staff. f. Limited access to humanitarian Information: Weak representation of the LNGOs in various humanitarian platforms/forums (ECHT, agricultural working groups, nutrition task-forces and food prioritization committees). All the 15 LNGOs indicated that they do not get full information about humanitarian funding situations and information on the appeals to address the affected population as they were not represented in different task-forces as indicated elsewhere in this report. On the other hand, the NDRMC’s view is that the LNGOs are not making sufficient enough use of the available platforms and information on humanitarian issues. g. Weak Absorptive capacity of LNGOs: for instance the study has identified from the interview with DfID the minimum grant that could be channelled is 10,000,000 Pound Sterling. Similarly, on the same interview it was indicated that the LNGOs lack the required financial system to manage the mentioned amount of funds and comply with financial reporting requirements. h. Low Level of Collective Engagement among LNGOs: The absence of humanitarian focused NGOs’ forums has hindered the visibility of LNGOs to lobby humanitarian donors.
Partnership Practice of INGOs with LNGOs EXISTENCE OF PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY AMONG INGOS The review findings have showed that all the six INGOs have partnership guideline or strategy. The difference is that two out of six INGOs have country level partnership guideline the rest have adopted the global level partnership strategy to guide the country level partnership with their LNGO partners. Interestingly, Tear fund has a separate partnership strategy for humanitarian responses. Similarly, all six INGOs have country strategies which ends; Concern W-2016, CAE and AAE-2017, CAFOD-2018, Oxfam-2020, and Tearfund-2021. On the other hand, all the LNGOs have strategic plan documents on which they expressed their aspiration on how to partner with other actors. All the 15 LNGOs involved in this study do not have separate stand alone partnership strategies, but the presence of partnership guidelines is important to make the LNGOs humanitarian intervention strategy and principle led.
Key Values/Principles Underpinning the Partnership Strategy The review of the partnership documents of all the six INGOs shows that all are committed towards implementing their development programmes and humanitarian interventions in partnership with those local and national NGOs sharing common visions. The INGOs uphold key partnership principles and values. The partnership principles, and value cited within the INGOs’ partnership documents and commonly shared are: mutual respect and negotiation; shared vision and values responsibility; harmonisation’ accountability; equality/ equity; trust and collaboration; respect for experience; responding to urgent human needs; effectiveness; participation; innovation; solidarity; clarity on roles and responsibilities; and commitment to joint learning among others. The study confirmed that the INGOs also share partnership principles and value to their respective partners through grant agreements, and Terms of Reference (ToRs) when they work within consortium arrangements. The exception is that Concern W is currently working through local partners on development programmes, but it is implementing the humanitarian action on its own and working through government structures. They reasoned out their divergence from the partnership guideline due to the fact that the LNGOs are not operating in matching the level of ambition with resources and long-term commitment to strategic partnership.
The Translation of Strategy from Paper to Practice The study has reviewed the partnership practices of six INGOs with their respective LNGO partners; both national and local. In this regard, five out of the six INGOs put the partnership strategy into practice (humanitarian). The INGOs underlined that they have taken the partnership agenda seriously and realised it into action. All the INGOs indicated that the effectiveness of the partnership is determined by the commitment to put principles (mutual trust, commitment and active participation of both INGOs and LNGOs) into practice. The INGOs also believe that the local partners would play a key role in creating good working relation with the regional and national governments in Ethiopia. Whereas all the LNGOs on the other hand have a confidence in those INGOs can use their international reputation and network, to walk the localization of aid talk. The proxy indicators gathered from the INGOs interview showed the translation of INGOs partnership strategy from paper to practice. In this regard, three out of the six INGOs were certain that their LNGO partners have already created the capacity to work independently in development programmes; developed structure, systems, human resource and financial capacity. This group of INGOs strongly believes that the partnership strategy followed is live, translated into action, and well performing. Still one out of six INGOs see its partnership approach has added value to its work and created great impact on reducing poverty. Again two out of the six INGOs are highly proud off their long term partnership approach with local partners. The findings shows that about five out of the 15 LNGOs are partnering with two to three INGOs, their partnership principles and values are usually dominated by the values of the INGOs mostly funding either their development programmes or humanitarian interventions. Regardless of the above success stories, for the question ‘What kind of partnership do you have with your funding INGO partner?’ the findings of the research are a mix of reflections from the LNGOs side, which are broadly categorized into two as ’matured partnership and growing partnership’.
The study has discovered that 10 out of 15 LNGOs see their partnership practice with their respective INGOs as a matured partnership, which can be taken as a high performing partnership. The summaries of proxy indicators as an example for the high performing partnership are presented here. In connection, three out of 15 LNGOs indicated that they have good partnership with their partner INGOs. They added 10
that the partnership formed with INGOs was live /reality which helped them to build their capacity and to develop mutual trust and respect. The LNGOs further described that they jointly discuss on common issues collectively and decide on common agenda. The partnership built with INGO partners was on equal footing and trust basis. The fact that five out of the six INGOs translated the partnership principles and values into actions; and share their principles, values to LNGOs which can be considered as a matured partnership. Similarly, in four out 15 of our LNGOs interviewed indicated that they were partnering with INGOs on an equal footing, for them what determines the partnership is the leverage value of the partners. These LNGOs see partnership as practical, value and vision driven rather than task driven. Still one out the 15 LNGOs indicated that it has signed a 10 year partnership agreement with its INGO partner to implement humanitarian actions on which it is very much happy about its partnership (see the case study of Oxfam and AISDA for detail). Another two out of the 15 also indicated that the type of partnership they have is mixed: true partnership with some INGOs based on mutual cooperation and mutual trust, whereas like donor recipient kind of relationship with other INGOs.
The study has identified that five out of the 15 LNGOs have some degree of reservation on the maturity level of their partnership with their respective INGO partners. The LNGOs clearly indicated that there are some INGO partners who just engage them to accomplish their tasks. The fear mentioned here was that the partnership is usually dominated by the INGOs. This group of LNGOs also pointed out that although all INGOs have partnership guidelines, sometimes the level of partnership depends on the maturity level of the individual INGOs staff with whom most of the time they make working relationships. From the latter group two LNGOs also articulated that their INGO partners lack trust in them. These LNGOs judged that the partnership is highly dominated by the INGO interest. Their rationale is that the partnership they formed with INGO is not based on an equal footing; it is simply ‘give and take’ or ‘hit and run’ type of relation. Overall, the latter group of LNGOs believe that the level of partnership depends on the quality of the INGO leadership rather than the partnership principles and guidelines in paper.
3.3.4. Budget Allocation for Partnership Development There are only two cases out of the six INGOs that can be seen as moving from contractual form to institutional form of partnership which could be considered as a prerequisite for localization of aid. On the other hand all of the INGOs are challenged to allocate budget for partnership development. Although there is interest from the INGOs’ side to invest in resources for partnership development it is not realized in the current humanitarian funding context, sometimes due to the procedures of back donors and the other time related to the CSO law in Ethiopia which doesn’t allow the INGOs to allocate separate budgets for partnership development as the administrative cost of an organization should not be more than 30% of its total annual budget. Administrative cost is not clearly defined in 70/30 directives, but includes staff salary, and expenses related to purchase of goods and services for administrative purposes (CSO’s Task Force, 2011). Interestingly, seven out of the 15 LNGOs appreciated the support rendered from INGOs in terms of coaching though they didn’t receive separate budget for partnership development. Another two out of 15 LNGOs acknowledged that their INGO partners have allocated budget for partnership development.
3.4. Co-Designing of Humanitarian Programmes 3. 4.1. Joint Humanitarian Programme Designed by INGOs and LNGOs The Humanitarian Requirement Document (HRD) prepared by the NDRMC is the basis for design of the humanitarian action in Ethiopia. The finding of this study shows three approaches followed by INGOs and LNGOs in designing proposals and preparing reports of humanitarian programmes. The first cluster is that two INGOs provided technical backing and coaching to three LNGOs including staff deployment. In this case, the INGOs are jointly working with their LNGO partners starting from humanitarian programme 11
design up to implementation phase. The second cluster shared their experience that emergency programme proposals were developed by LNGOs and submitted to INGOs to get funding. In the latter approach three INGOs provided technical support to their LNGO partners to design quality programme, appraised the programme documents before sending to back donors and developed quality reports as per the standard formats of the donors. The technical support ranges from secondment of INGO staff, coaching and project appraisals. In both cases the INGOs provided technical supports at the field or project level through providing technical training and on the job training for project staff on key humanitarian documents such as HAP/CHS. The third cluster; three out 15 LNGOs working with traditional donors and with some of the INGOs designed the humanitarian programmes document and send them for appraisal which was seen an efficient way in humanitarian actions in terms of timelines. The study identified although 2 LNGOs jointly developed proposals for humanitarian action, but their INGO partners did not share full scale programme design document which clearly showing the overall budget secured from back donors for the humanitarian actions. As a result the LNGOs question the transparency of their INGO partners and taking that as a clear departure from the third point stated in the Charter4 Changes ’increases transparency around resource transfers to southern based national and local NGOs’. 3.4.3. Examples of Humanitarian Programmes Jointly Developed by INGOs and LNGOs As far as humanitarian aid is concerned, eight out of the 15 LNGOs have participated in the implementation of humanitarian response programmes and implemented emergency response projects with their respective partner INGOs in 2015. The examples of jointly developed, emergency proposals include; • Rapid emergency response project in Afar region implemented by AISDA and West Arsi zone with CD jointly developed with Oxfam • Moyale and Gelana emergency response project implemented by Ethiopian Kale Hiyewot Church Development Commission (EKCDC) jointly developed with Tearfund • The recent humanitarian response plan in Fentale developed by (EKCDC) developed with Tearfund • The Ankober emergency response project jointly developed by PADET and AAE • Zeway Deguda Emergency nutrition/school feeding jointly designed by HUNDEE and CAE • Drought recovery project implemented in Arsi zone jointly developed by CHADET with DfID/UK • Drought recovery project implemented by AVH in Hadiya and Kambata Zones with CAFOD. Both the interviews of INGOs and LNGOs have confirmed that the localization of aid shouldn’t compromise the quality of programme and delivery. Proposal development and report writing skills are the major gaps cited by all the LNGOs. The encouraging response from three out of the six INGOs is that three of their LNGO partners are even better positioned and with commendable capacity in programme design, and report writing (for instance; AISDA, SOS Sahel Ethiopia, and CHADET).
3.5. Funding 3.5.1. Proportion of LNGOs Humanitarian funding coming from INGO partners The study has identified that five out of the six INGOs implemented humanitarian programmes through LNGO partners. The proportion of humanitarian funding channelled varied across INGOs depending on the funding sources and the scope of the humanitarian requirement where the particular LNGO operates. The overall percentage of humanitarian fund channelled for instance, in 2015 from INGOs to LNGOs was in between 3.5%-5 % of the total annual budget of the LNGOs. It is not possible to expect multi annual funding, as the humanitarian funding in Ethiopia largely depends on HRD and donor commitment. The percentage may or may not increase from the indicated figure over the coming periods. The government aspiration in Ethiopia over the last five years was that NGOs more involved in development programmes rather than humanitarian interventions. 12
The funding support of the INGOs to LNGOs is more project focused rather than funding to build institutional capacity of the LNGO. When the INGOs secure resources from donors they fund the LNGOs, otherwise LNGOs have no access to resources to respond to humanitarian crisis, especially when the humanitarian action requires huge funding. The INGOs also see funding humanitarian interventions is a big challenge for them. The back donors keep changing the ‘rule of the game’ through performance based, result based, and contract based. The current donor funding arrangement is consortium based, with little option for LNGOs to access direct funding from humanitarian donors. As a result the INGOs are funding the humanitarian programme of their respective local partners based on the resource they secure from humanitarian donors. For instance, during 2015 drought four out of the six INGOs channelled the resources they secured from various sources, such as; DfID, UNOCHA, and ECHO to their respective eight LNGO partners. The challenge of the INGOs in sub granting the humanitarian programmes is that if the INGO is not implementing and working through local partners, 100 % of the resource transferred is considered as administrative cost for the INGO which is the critical bottleneck for funding the humanitarian plan of LNGOs. Nonetheless, the study has identified that there is a gap in provisions in the Ethiopian CSO law, to entertain on how INGOs could work through partnership in both development and humanitarian context. Again from the interview with the INGO, NGOs and donors the CSO law and its accompanying 70 % of the budget as a programme cost and 30 % as an administrative cost is seen as a barrier remained unchanged. 3.5.2. INGO Partner formal commitment or pledge to Fund for LNGOs None of the LNGOs involved in the interview have experience of direct access of humanitarian fund from back donors. Similarly, neither of the INGO partners have made formal commitments. That isn’t possible; as partnership is mostly project based. There is an exceptional case, for instance, HUNDEE’s traditional donors provided institutional funding, which means provided agreed resources for activities prioritized by HUNDEE. In this case, HUNDEE has established a high level of trust with the traditional donors such as the Inter-Church Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO) and Kindernothilfe (KNH) which directly transfers the budget as both are convinced on HUNDEE’s capacity in delivering. The findings of this study shows that eight out of the 15 LNGOs secured funding from INGOs in 2015/16 and provided lifesaving support to needy communities in their respective operational areas. Nevertheless, none of the LNGOs reported that they have received formal funding commitment from INGOs. Delayed response for funding request was the challenge that six out of the eight LNGOs faced as humanitarian programme proposals were jointly developed with the INGOs. There was no emergency reserve fund among LNGOs to respond when crises occur, until the fund was secured from INGOs. In principle it is difficult that the INGOs can’t commit certain resources for certain and unknown period. The base for fund raising and resource mobilization in Ethiopia is the Humanitarian Requirement Document (HRD) or an appeal released by the Ethiopian government. It is only after the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) declares the appeal that the INGOs or LNGO can mobilize resources as clearly indicated in the NDRM policy and strategy document in sub-section 3.6.Source of Resources and Resource Mobilization Procedure(DRM, 2013 p.13); Mobilizing resources from the international sources shall be the responsibility of the Disaster Risk Management Coordination structure to be created at federal level. 3.5.3. LNGO humanitarian programmes directly funded by the major donors of the INGOs This study has not identified the LNGOs that accessed fund directly from humanitarian donors. In connection to this two out 15 LNGOs responded to UNOCHA RfP in 2015 but holding a foreign currency account was an issue for them not to secure funding among other factors. None of the LNGOs’ humanitarian programmes were directly funded by the major donors of the INGOs partner. The INGOs were the lead applicants and facilitators in securing funds from the donors. The other compliance requirements 13
of the humanitarian donors such as prefunding, and the obligation to reimburse the ineligible/disallowable costs were not attractive and discouraging for the LNGOs to apply to humanitarian donors for funding. From three of the INGOs interviewed the study has identified the comparative advantage of directly funding the LNGOs as they are cheaper and even sometimes deliver better in programme quality, but the LNGOs have to develop the capacity to meet the donor requirements.
3.6. Capacity Assessment and Building 3.6.1.The Existence of Framework and Tools on Capacity Assessment among INGOs The interview with all INGOs have confirmed that there are frameworks and tools for capacity assessment; either independently or included to the partnership guidelines. Conducting assessment and building the capacity of local partner was seen as an integral part of programme funding and partnership. Five out of six INGOs indicated that they use these frameworks and tools, for capacity assessment. Different forms of capacity building support were provided by INGOs to their respective LNGO partners. The capacity building support varied from staff training to system strengthening for humanitarian actions. Two out of the six INGOs made substantial investment on developing the humanitarian response capacity of their LNGO partners. Partnersâ€™ staff were trained on: Livestock Emergency Guidelines (LEGs); HAP/ CHS and Good enough guide; emergency logistics management; rapid need assessment; and training on WaSH/water trucking. Many of the LNGOs staff responded to this study have attended training organized by CCRDA on CHS. In connection two out six INGOs organized high profile leadership training for the LNGO leaders with the intention to make them vibrant and visionary humanitarian and development actors. In addition, three INGOs supported their respective partners for institutionalizing the CHS, for instance, Women Support Association (WSA) one of the LNGO considered in this study has become a member of the Global Humanitarian Alliance(GHA) (see separate case study for details). In another case, 13 out of 15 LNGOs involved in this study indicated that they lack core humanitarian staff for emergency response. As a result they are mobilizing their development staff by providing training and coaching on humanitarian programming to bridge the gap. The LNGOs interview indicated that it is difficult to employ technical staff for emergency tasks for short period response of 2-3 months. This is mainly because of the challenge of getting technical staff for short term humanitarian action assignments and hence this has overburdened the existing staff. The overwhelming majority of the LNGOs; 12 out 15 appreciated the humanitarian capacity building by INGOs as an eye opening exercise. Among INGOs, four out of the six have considered the LNGOs staff turnover as a challenge to work with LNGO partners. Some three INGOs indicated that there is lack of favourable and attractive working conditions for the high staff turnover from LNGOs. There is however, some exception that staff turnover is not mentioned as an issue. The LNGOs reflection on INGOsâ€™ role on capacity building is mixed, lack of competency among the INGOs staff on one hand and strong technical backing on the other hand. Whereas, the INGOs see that there is a dependency on the LNGOs side, that some of the LNGOs make little effort to enhance their technical and institutional capacities. 3.6.2. Humanitarian Response Structures and Systems among LNGO Partners From all INGOs interview the study identified that the INGOs support LNGOs for development of HR, Financial manual and Strategic plan documents. These documents are the anchor of any forward looking organization. Similarly, from the LNGOs interview the study has identified that the LNGOs are revising these manuals or started to develop a new ones to enhance their humanitarian intervention capacity. The same holds true with the development of Strategic Plan (SP) document. Particularly, the Ethiopian CSO law requires NGOs to have an updated version of strategic plan for registration. The presence of the SP has also helped the LNGOs to envision the development of the organization from now and get the necessary support from various actors. Thus, eight out of 15 LNGOs indicated that they secured humanitarian funds due to the availability of the systems and manuals. All the LNGOs have the capacity development framework for development context but they lack such for humanitarian context. About three out 15 14
believe they have all the necessary structures, systems to manage the humanitarian programmes. Both the INGOs and LNGO see the current StP project as an opportunity created for strengthening the humanitarian intervention capacity of local partners. Those 10 LNGO partners considered for StP are now revisiting their tools, systems and guidelines to incorporate humanitarian issues. The remaining five LNGOs considered in this study although implementing humanitarian interventions, they use the existing systems, tools and frameworks developed for development programmes; such need revisions to suite the humanitarian contexts. 3.6.3. Budget allocation and Commitment by INGOs for capacity building There was no common procedure among INGOs on budget allocation to LNGOs for capacity building. The INGOs allocate capacity building budget by linking it with the specific project. The INGOs are just funding the whole humanitarian programme not specific capacity building components. The study has identified that two out of the six INGOs followed innovative ways of supporting the capacity building of the LNGOs with core funding. The other three INGOs included the budget as a project funding. Some other INGOs; three out of six are happy to make institutional funding/core funding.
3.7.Policy Advocacy, Lobby, and Media Engagement 3.7.1. INGOs advocacy to donors to increase direct funding to local NGOs Among the six INGOs, four have already signed the charter of change (Oxfam, Tearfund, CAFOD and Christian Aid).It is also hoped that headquarters of both Concern W and Action Aid will sign the Charter4Change and inform their respective country offices. The INGOs have experience in international advocacy. However, the findings of this assessment shows lack of clear evidence on the INGOs effort and progress made so far in advocating to the humanitarian donors in Ethiopia about the localisation of aid agenda. All of the INGOs pointed out two major reasons during the interview for not advocating (1) The CSO law in Ethiopia doesn’t’ allow an element of advocacy and media communication on emergency related issues (2) some donors, for instance, ECHO doesn’t have a policy to implement the humanitarian funding through the partnership model and hence doing advocacy in that context is seen as wasting time, and resource. Yet the belief of all LNGOs is that INGOs can play significant role in lobbying and advocating for donors for direct funding to LNGOs through their headquarters. The LNGOs have misconception and consider some of their INGO partners as donors. Except two out of 15 LNGOs involved in this interview, the rest articulated the need to build capacity to carry out advocacy. In connection 13 out of 15 LNGOs indicated that they had no experience of talking to either the back donors of their INGO partners or other humanitarian donors. ‘Knocking the door’ of donors by itself needs skills as it was stated in one of the LNGOs interview. All the six INGOs have shared their experience of implementing humanitarian actions and the way how they are trying to influence donors to localize the humanitarian aid. The findings of the research confirmed that none of the INGOs committed to make a public pledge or commitment to hand over programmes or channel a percentage of funding to LNGOs over the specific period of time. 3.7.2. LNGOs Picture in LNGOs Advocacy and Media works The six consortium member INGOs operating in Ethiopia have a mixed feeling on the advocating for donors on the localization of aid agenda. For instance, two out of six INGOs represented in ECHT and member of Humanitarian NGOs (HINGO) share information for local partners and were voicing the need for representation of LNGOs at ECHT. However, due to the restriction of advocacy and media engagement on humanitarian issues for NGOs, the INGOs prefer to do informal lobbying of donors. If not all, most of the respondents agree that advocating for localization of aid in collaboration with NGOs consortia like CCRDA where the LNGOs take a lead in humanitarian actions was sought as a typical buffer strategy for transitioning or achieving the desired transformative change walking the localization of aid talk. 15
3.7.3. Examples of Jointly Developed Advocacy and Media Strategies All the NGOs and INGOs have confirmed that the comparative advantage of LNGOs for effectiveness of humanitarian aid implementation; the LNGOs are cost effective and can even deliver better quality interventions. However, the researcher didn’t come across with jointly developed and/or implemented humanitarian advocacy/media strategies by INGOs in collaboration with LNGOs. The LNGOs have detail information about the grassroots, structure at ground that can be easily sensitized and used for humanitarian response. The interviews with LNGOs have confirmed that almost 14 out of 15 indicated that they lack skills and experience in advocacy in general and humanitarian advocacy and media engagement in particular. Considering building internal capacity of LNGOs and producing evidences that can increase the visibility of LNGOs is important action that should get attention. It is important to note that there are other INGOs which are signatories of charter 4 change that are currently operating in Ethiopia (Help Age, NCA, DCA, CRS and CARE), outside the six consortium member INGOs. It would be useful if the six consortium member INGOs approach the listed INGOs to create a critical mass to walk the localization of humanitarian aid agenda. On top of that convincing other humanitarian INGOs such as World Vision Ethiopia, GOAL, Save the Children International, International Medical Corps and also sensitizing the respective LNGO partners of the six INGOs to endorse the Charter 4 Change document can be considered as an immediate action point. 3.7.4. The role of LNGOs for Lobbying for humanitarian response The Ethiopia CSO law in article 14 a-c encourages NGOs involvement in humanitarian intervention/response (MoFAs, 2104). Nonetheless, the LNGOs are not visible in national humanitarian platform in Ethiopia. There are two parallel views on this matter; the NDRMC indicates that as a humanitarian coordination organ and as per the mandate it is happy to involve the LNGOs in major humanitarian cycles starting from belg and meher assessment, HRD preparation and joint responses. However, NDRMC questions the capacity of LNGOs. On the other hand, the LNGOs interview shows that they need a space for involvement in national level humanitarian platforms. In principle, the LNGOs should own the process, and actively involved due to their good working relation with regional and local governments in Ethiopia. The study based on the interview with the CCRDA realized that the CCRDA conducted a rapid assessment on the capacity of LNGOs and shared the report to UNOCHA with an intention to enable the LNGOs to apply for Ethiopian Humanitarian Fund (EHF) through CCRDA in 2015. At that time CCRDA made all possible efforts in lobbying UNOCHA on behalf of its member both LNGOs and INGOs. The UNOCHA country office was willing to channel the resource through CCRDA; however the UNOCHA global rules and regulations didn’t allow and it wasn’t possible to apply for LNGOs for funding. There is also lack of space for LNGOs in national networks to maximize the local competency. The LNGOs lack the lobby skill, unable to access information, increase visibility and address the humanitarian needs. In connection to this CCRDA established a humanitarian forum and selected the Steering Committee (SC), but the commitment of the SC was slow and no humanitarian organisation either INGO or LNGO showed interest to participate in the forum. Thus, the process of formally establishing the national humanitarian forum was interrupted by then. As indicated by CCRDA, if the members are interested there is still a room to revitalize the national humanitarian forum.
3.8. Humanitarian Coordination and Governance 3.8.1. Historical Overview of Humanitarian Aid Coordination Intervention in Ethiopia Ethiopia has long history of humanitarian response with established institutional structure and long track record of managing emergency crisis. Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) established in 1974 and followed by Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC). The substantially downsized structured to Disaster Risk Management and Food Security (DRMFS) was placed under the Ministry of Agriculture. Very recently DRMFS was restructured to National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) with increased role and mandate. 16
The NDRMC Policy was also approved to guide the humanitarian aid coordination in Ethiopia. There are four components in the policy that NDRMC has to play; Response, Rehabilitation, DRR mainstreaming and Resilience building. The structure of NDRMC is recently approved with 14 directorates or departments. Besides, the CSO law gives mandate for various sectors to play a coordination role. Accordingly, the NDRMC has experience and skill in preparedness and response, and hence leading all coordination roles on the humanitarian actions. However, the shift of NDRMC hasn’t affected the regional, zonal and woreda structures. There are two structures (Food Security Task Force and Early Warning Committee) at all levels. Some LNGOs operating in SNNPR for instance, involved in this study indicated that the zonal level emergency task force either does not existing or is weak. As result, they lack information, and sometimes there is duplication of efforts on emergency response. For instance, the Apostolic Vicariate of Hossana (AVH) a member of the StP project is working towards strengthening zonal level emergency task force in the Hadiya and Kembata zones. AVH came to the decision from the challenges it faced in beneficiary targeting with World Vision Ethiopia which was latter solved through joint discussions. Consequently, AVH took an initiative in strengthening the zonal level emergency taskforce. The challenge with Early Warning Committee which is a relevant structure at local level is that there is high turnover of Development Agents (DAs) at kebele level. The existence of emergency coordination structure from federal to kebele level is recognized as an asset, during the interviews and validation workshop, but it was criticized for not functioning well. The zonal government emergency task force is not NGO inclusive. All the INGOs and LNGOs welcome the recent change in humanitarian policy and structures, but there is uncertainty as the government keeps changing this structure. Both the INGOs and LNGOs provide two reasons for their fear with humanitarian coordination structure sustainability. (i)the Ethiopian government’s ambition is more on trade and investment rather than humanitarian aid and (ii) the government considers itself as a ’development state’’ and believes that aid develops a ’dependency syndrome’ among citizens. 3. 8.2. The Governance Practice of INGOs and Its Relevance to Localization of Aid All the INGOs governance structure (General assembly and board members) are based at their country of origin. The INGOs have only management structures at country level. The key humanitarian documents such as HAP/CHS demand the representation of local voice in INGOs governance. However, all INGOs neither have local governance structures nor an immediate plan to decentralize their governance structure. All the INGOs believe that there is legal gap /limitation in Ethiopia to put the local governance structures in place. All the Six INGOs use participatory Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) visits, self-reflection sessions with individual leaders of LNGO partners whenever necessary, and annual partners review meetings to jointly reflect on achievements as common form of platforms or means to involve the LNGO leaders in governance and decision making. Two LNGOs have become champions on familiarizing the CHS; organized training on HAP/CHS for their board and general assembly members. This is also directly linked with localization of aid agenda and has taken as a good step in walking the localization of aid talk. On the other hand the INGOs indicated that they prefer to consider their long standing development partners, both for development and humanitarian programmes. The common practice is that INGOs take a lead in the RfP in the consortium. Again the response of LNGOs is that most of the time they apply for humanitarian actions through one of their strategic INGO partners, either by invitation of the INGO or approaching them as a partner.
3.8.3. Representation of National Humanitarian Task-forces One of the big ideas this study has gathered from both the NGOs and the government was that only few national NGOs participated in the recent El NiĂąo and La Nina induced emergency intervention. Regarding, the representation of NGOs in national Task Forces: so long as LNGOs have experience and interest there is no restriction on their participation. The interview with NDRMC has confirmed that key humanitarian stakeholders including NGOs are invited when the Humanitarian Response Document (HRD) is prepared during both for the belg and meher season assessments. The stakeholders are required to provide at least one field vehicle and an expert that can join the assessment team. However, it is the UNOCHA that recommends the NGOs for involvement in specific sector specialized task forces such as; ECHT, Agriculture working group, Nutrition task force, Food prioritization committees and others. All the LNGOs involved in the interviews believe that the national humanitarian coordination and representation in humanitarian task forces favours the UN agencies and INGOs, and little empowers LNGOs. Regarding representation in Joint Emergency Operation Programme (JEOP) based on the interview at CRS and USAID the study has revealed that it is USAID which conduct capacity assessment and decide the consortium lead and the members during the response to the RfP. From the USAID interview the research finding has confirmed that the JEOP consortium members and lead may be changed depending on the consortium members who win the RfP.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion In general, based on the findings of the study the research concludes that there are good starts for walking the localisation of aid talk in Ethiopia. From the enabler’s side, there are positive steps taken by INGOs; the StP project, the existence enabling strategies and guidelines among INGOs, donor’s efforts (USAID, DfID) and the commitments of some LNGOs are seen as encouraging steps for the localization of Aid walking the talk agenda. The restructuring of the NDRMC and formulation of the NDRM policy and strategy was considered as enablers that INGOs and LNGOs should use as an opportunity for localization of aid INGOs walking the talk agenda. There are still number of barriers, such as strategies, attitudes, and regulations of donors remained unchanged and hence seen as hindering factors for the localization of aid walking the talk. The Ethiopian CSO law, the weak system, structure and infrastructure of LNGOs still considered as a big constraining factors for localization of aid INGOs walking the talk. The INGOs and NGOs formed long term partnership to design programmes, jointly raised fund and, build the capacity of LNGOs; both systems, infrastructures to deliver the humanitarian programmes (for instance, AISDA and Oxfam GB). The findings of the research has confirmed that the existence of little engagement of INGOs and LNGO on humanitarian advocacy and media engagement due to restrictive policies and laws in Ethiopia. The INGOs used different strategies such as annual reviews, one to one meeting with leaders of LNGOs and participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for involving the LNGOs leaders in governance and decision making. Building on the interviews and review findings the research concludes that readiness to change; localization of aid, INGOs walking the talk can be more accelerated if the humanitarian donors are convinced. This should be reflected in the donors’ commitments, country strategies, requirements, policies, institutional assessment tools and other humanitarian tools of the donor organizations. The INGOs largely recognized as they can play a big catalytic role in influencing (advocacy) and sometime convincing (lobby) so that donors’ could show flexibility to join the localization of aid agenda; the INGOs walking the talk. The change in localisation of aid; INGOs walking the talk can be realised, but needs time. There are prerequisites; such as familiarizing the concept, creating local ownership of the agenda itself, clearly defining the roles and responsibility of various actors to walk the talk (INGOs, LNGOs, National Government, Donors). Equally important is time and resource needed for creating local humanitarian capacity. The timeframe for smooth shift should be developed as a steady transition with clear milestones overtime and shared roles of INGOs and LNGOs in the transition, with reasonable accompaniment period of INGOs to LNGOs. The role of INGOs would be highly valuable in coaching the LNGOs to realize the localisation of aid agenda. In a nutshell, the anticipated localisation of aid; the INGOs walking the talk could be achieved by developing an incremental plan, in a pragmatic approach rather than in a swift transformative way.
4.2. Recommendations The following recommendations are forwarded to the six INGOs based on the findings of the study and the general conclusion drawn above. Besides, there is one recommendation for humanitarian donors. 1. Redefine humanitarian partnership with LNGOs that takes into account aid effectiveness and considering key elements such as ownership, harmonization, mutual accountability; alignment; and managing for results. The six INGO consortium members should aim to shift from the current project driven to long term partnership, scale up the good practice of Oxfam to take the partnership from infancy to maturity level to bring the desired transformative change in INGOs walking the localization of aid talk. 19
2. Design clear advocacy, lobby and media engagement strategy to start advocating the humanitarian donors thorough risk analysis. The INGOs should advocate for the humanitarian donors so that they should revisit their country strategy and humanitarian funding requirements to make it LNGOs inclusive. In addition, the INGOs should start lobbying the NDRMC so that it can develop clear guidelines on the representation of LNGOs on national level humanitarian platforms and taskforces. 3. Support/revitalize the existing national humanitarian forum under the auspices of CCRDA, replicate the same to different regions of Ethiopia phase by phase in collaboration with CCRDA. 4. Invest on strengthening local capacity, based on real gaps, comprehensive, and continues, demand driven approach as started by the StP project. Additionally, INGOs should consider establishing a section or unit responsible for LNGO partners’ capacity building on their respective organisations. 5. Scaling up the StP project lessons and best practices to more LNGOs and regions by designing a clear transition strategy with active participation of the LNGOs. The strategy should include how to scale up the lessons from the learning phase, increase number of LNGOs involved in the sifting the power project so as to popularize the localization of aid INGOs walking the talk agenda. 6. Assess the possibility for core or institutional funding and link LNGOs to the same as a strategy to move from the current project driven funding to core funding. For Humanitarian Donors 7. Humanitarian donors should revisit their country strategies, funding requirements, internal policies and procedures so that to make their country strategies and humanitarian funding requirements LNGOs inclusive and to translate their global level commitments for effectiveness on humanitarian aid from “preaching to practice”.
§ Compassion International.2010. Partnership Maturity Model § Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia Negarit Gazette,2009. Proclamation No. 621/2009 Proclamation to Provide for the Registration and Regulation of /Charities and Societies § Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia Negarit Gazette 2015. Regulation number 363/2015; National Disaster Risk Management Commission Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation § National Planning Commission (NPC ). 2016. Growth and Transformation Plan II (2015/16-2019/20), Addis Ababa. § MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 2015. Agriculture Growth and Transformation Plan II (2016-2020), Base Case Scenario § MoFAs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). 2014. “The Charities and Societies Proclamation and National and International Non-Governmental Organizations in Ethiopia”. http://www.mfa.gov.et/internationalMore. php?, Accessed <http://www.mfa.gov.et/internationalMore.php?pg=59> on July 18, 2016. § Nzeyimana H. 2015. Localizing Humanitarian Response: Can the Rhetoric Translate into Concrete Action? South Sudan Case Study.Dissertation Master of Advanced Studies in Humanitarian Action, The Graduate institute of Geneva.Accessed from http://www.cerahgeneve.ch/files/6814/5042/8912/MAS_2014-2015_ Henri__Nzeyimana_MAS_Dissertation__Final_Version_For_Publication__02112015.pdf; on July 18, 2016. § (CSO Task Force)Task Force for enabling CSOs in Ethiopia .2011. Users’ Manual for the Charities and Societies Law Enabling Environment for Civil Society in Ethiopia , Addis Ababa. 20
Web sources § https://www.dppc.gov.et/downloadable/Documentation/DRM%20SPIF%202014%20-%20Final.pdf; The Strategy and Programme Investment Framework (DRM-SPIF), 2014 accessed on August 29/2016 § https://www.dppc.gov.et/downloadable/Documentation/DRM%20SPIF%202014%20-%20Final.pdf National Policy and Strategy on DRM 2013 accessed on August 29/2016 § https://charter4change.org/#post-604 accessed on 20/09/2016 Country Strategy Documents § Action Aid Ethiopia 2012-17 country strategy § Christian Aid Ethiopia Strategy 2012-17 § CST Ethiopia Country Strategic Plan2012-18 § Concern Worldwide Ethiop Country Strategic Plan 2012–16 § Oxfam Ethiopia Country Strategy 2015-20 § Tearfund Ethiopia Country Strategy 2015-21 Partnership Guidelines § Action Aid Ethiopia Draft Partnership Guideline § Christian Aid Strategic Framework § CAFODInternational ProgrammesPartnership Policy § Concern Worldwide Ethiopia Partnership Guideline –Draft § Oxfam’s Partnership Toolkit: Minimum requirements and good practice guidelines § Tearfund Partner Criteria § Tearfund Quality Standard for Emergency Response
NATIONAL PARTNERS IN ETHIOPIA
CAFOD / SCIAF / Trรณcaire P O Box 1875, Addis Ababa, Gulele Subcity, Swaziland Street, Enqulal Fabrika, Ethiopian Catholic Bishops Conference Centre Tel: +251-(0)11-278-8843/44/45 Fax: +251-(0)11-278-8846 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: www.trocaire.org / www.cafod.org.uk / www.sciaf.org.uk