Member States and Regional Organizations
OCHA strengthened dialogue on humanitarian issues with Member States and regional organizations. This led to increased support for principled humanitarian action and a stronger basis for the humanitarian work of the UN and its partners, including in GA and ECOSOC resolutions.
Outreach with regional organizations, including the signing of key MoUs, led to a broader consensus on humanitarian policy and operational decisions, and on the use of humanitarian tools and mechanisms.
An increased number and range of Member States contributed through multilateral channels and to OCHA. In 2011, CERF raised a record $465 million from new and returning donors. The support base to pooled funds increased with five new donors, while OCHA gained seven new donors.
UNDAC expanded partnerships with Member States in new regions, including the Americas, the Middle East and Central Asia. It also consolidated partnerships with ASEAN and ECOWAS through joint trainings. In the Americas region, UNDAC secured, for the first time, designated focal points in all countries.
Following the 2009 in-depth review of global challenges and their impact on international humanitarian action, OCHA recognized the need to extend and diversify its range of partners, particularly Member States. Since then, OCHA’s efforts have focused on building and consolidating relations with Member States and regional organizations through a three-pronged strategy: deepening the level of dialogue on humanitarian policy, creating new partnerships for operational support in emergency response, and mobilizing a broader range of financial and in kind support for OCHA and the system.
Policy dialogue with Member States over the past two years has led to an increased understanding of and better level of engagement in major issues and challenges. The Dialogue on Humanitarian Partnership, led by Sweden and Brazil with OCHA support, gathered 18 Member States to address key policy issues. The Humanitarian Partnership Mission to Panama and Haiti helped provide a stronger understanding of humanitarian preparedness and response work on the ground.
In 2011, OCHA also backed initiatives to strengthen the international humanitarian response system. This included a more effective focus on the importance of principled engagement on humanitarian civil-military coordination. The HOPEFOR initiative, sponsored by Qatar, Turkey and the Dominican Republic, underlined the successful use of Military and Civil Defense Assets. In the GA and ECOSOC, significant progress was made in tightening the texts of humanitarian resolutions, providing a stronger mandate for the UN and its partners. OCHA published an updated reference guide on normative developments since the adoption of GA resolution 46/182. This highlighted how Member States have strengthened the framework for humanitarian coordination and response over the past 20 years.
In keeping with its commitment to expanding donor relations, OCHA strengthened its engagement with a number of emerging donor nations and organizations. These included Turkey, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and GCC countries. Over two years, OCHA finalized MoUs with the African Union (AU), League of Arab States and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). OCHA headquarters, liaison offices and regional offices consolidated contact with regional organizations. This helped to build a solid understanding of and consensus on humanitarian principles and priorities in policy and operational decisions, and the use of humanitarian tools and mechanisms.
In Africa, OCHA supported the development of AU policy, helping with its first humanitarian pledging conference in 2011 and the establishment of a resource allocation mechanism linked to OCHA’s Financial Tracking System.
The opening of a new Gulf office has increased dialogue between OCHA and regional organizations in the GCC, and encouraged closer cooperation in crisis response. Similarly, OCHA’s strategic dialogue with the EU and NATO proved pivotal in ensuring a principled and coordinated response to the Libyan crisis. OCHA is also contributing to the development of the new EU legislation on civil protection and disaster response.
CERF raised a record $465 million in 2011; the highest level since the GA established CERF in 2006. This success was due to CERF’s ability to attract new donors and retain old ones, with Member States giving recognition to CERF’s positive impact on the ground, solid management and accountability record.
Overall contributions may have been lower than in 2010, but 2010 was marked by two high-profile disasters of extraordinary magnitude. Five new donors came on board in 2011. Some Member States are considering multi-annual funding or front-loading funds, thus enhancing funding predictability. An agreement in 2011 now allows for private-sector and individual contributions to the ERFs. The inclusion of CHFs is under discussion. OCHA’s resource mobilization efforts led to seven new donors in 2011. Funding for consolidated and flash appeals rose this biennium, from $12 billion in 2008-9 to $12.7 billion in 2010-11.
New Member States joined the UNDAC and INSARAG systems in 2011. UNDAC responses in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire showed the impact of extending UNDAC’s networks to Africa, with UNDAC collaborating with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Côte d’Ivoire. A similar focus was placed on Central Asia and the Middle East, resulting in the first UNDAC induction in Arabic, hosted by the UAE. The UAE has started important dialogue with partners in the region on disaster management.
As a result of OCHA outreach and trainings hosted by Member States, the Americas is the first region to have designated UNDAC focal points in each country as of 2011. This has helped to expedite dialogue with governments on the types of international response that may be required following disasters. Some 77 Member States signed the INSARAG Hyogo declaration in 2010, which reaffirmed collective commitment to improving urban search-and-rescue (USAR) response and outlined new areas for attention. They include national search-and-rescue capacity-building and INSARAG external classifications for international USAR teams.
- Objective 1.1 - Member States and Regional Organizations
- Objective 1.2 - Operational Partners
- Objective 1.3 - Preparedness
- Objective 1.4 - Analysis and System-Wide Learning
- Objective 2.1 - Accountable Humanitarian Coordination Leaders
- Objective 2.2 - Scaling Up and Drawing Down Operations
- Objective 2.3 - Tools and Services
- Objective 2.4 - The Humanitarian Programme Cycle
- Objective 3.1 - Funding and Financial Management
- Objective 3.2 - Surge and Staffing Solutions
- Objective 3.3 - Organizational Learning for Results