State of Surge Capacity in the Humanitarian Sector
ActionAid International on behalf of the Transforming Surge Capacity Project
April 2016 :: 56 pages
REPORT AUTHORS: LOIS AUSTIN AND GLENN O’NEIL
Pdf: http://www.chsalliance.org/files/files/Resources/Articles-and-Research/Surge-Humanitarian-Report-Final.pdf
Executive Summary [excerpts]
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
This research report is one part of the Transforming Surge Capacity Project of the Start Network. The project aims to improve the capacity of humanitarian organisations to scale up resources for emergency response, and to pilot and build evidence of ways of working that are collaborative and locally focused and which engage with a range of different stakeholders involved in humanitarian response. Led by ActionAid, the project brings together eleven agencies – Action Against Hunger, CAFOD, CARE, Christian Aid, International Medical Corps, Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid, Plan, Save the Children and Tearfund. CHS Alliance is a technical partner for the project and is responsible for this research. The Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities (CDAC) Network is also a technical partner.
The report presents an analysis of the current state of surge across the humanitarian sector, drawing from aid agency views on working collectively on surge and providing an assessment of changes in surge practice since 2007. The research aims to provide an update of a 2007 review of surge capacity and surge capacity mechanisms within international NGOs, which was commissioned by the Emergency Capacity Building Project and was carried out by People In Aid. The 2007 research highlighted the need for global aid organisations to be able to scale up human, financial and material resources in order to effectively fulfil their humanitarian mandates and recommended increased collaboration across the sector in order to improve surge capacity. Another core recommendation was the need to develop surge capacity at country and regional levels as well as at global headquarters…
…CONCLUSIONS
The key conclusions meaning from this research on the current state of surge within the humanitarian sector are as follows:
Conclusion 1
Demand and response: The last decade has seen a rising demand for surge responses, due to the rise in the number of natural disasters, the number of people affected by conflict and their cross-border and regional implications. As a result, humanitarian agencies have to increasingly deploy for surge across multiple crises, simultaneously stretching resources and capacity.
Conclusion 2
Local capacity: There is a need for increased funding and capacity building of local actors. Capacity needs to focus on the ability of aid agencies to maintain sufficient skilled staff, to have flexible internal systems and to support the capacity of partners. Maintaining a pool of qualified staff for surge is a critical issue, particularly at the national level. At the same time, many agencies relying on local partners for surge delivery are concerned with their capacity and are looking for more sustainable ways to support them. This is additionally challenging due to the sporadic and often unpredictable nature of surge.
Conclusion 3
New and emerging surge response models: A number of new models for implementing effective surge responses have been developed in the last decade. These include the creation of specialist support and service providers such as the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), MapAction and the Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS) – organisations that are able to provide rapid, specialised and detailed services to support the surge responses of operational humanitarian organisations.
In addition, the growth of specialised technical and sector rosters focusing on humanitarian communication – also known as communicating with communities such as CDAC-N,1 gender, protection and cash transfer programming for example have facilitated the humanitarian sector (and in particular the UN system) in ensuring that specific HR surge needs are met.
Conclusion 4
Improved coordination: There has been an improvement with regard to internal coordination within a number of humanitarian networks and organisations such as the UN and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. However, there remain ongoing challenges relating to coordination with national governments and new actors. There is a need for the humanitarian sector to address this challenge which goes beyond surge and impacts on humanitarian work in general.
Conclusion 5
Internal organisational coordination: Having organisation-wide and cross-organisation clarity relating to management structures during a response is considered to be beneficial for response operations. A number of humanitarian organisations have developed organisation-wide approaches to surge in the last decade including the implementation of surge policies and plans; accelerated decision-making procedures; and rapid access to financing. There remains room to further advance internal coordination, particularly in relation to coordination with HR, logistics and administration in order to support effective surge responses.
Conclusion 6
Surge staffing and management: The majority of aid agencies have appointed teams or individuals responsible for surge at their global HQs. Many larger agencies have reinforced their international emergency response teams and internal rosters with an increased reliance on expensive yet effective permanent stand-by surge personnel. Ensuring and maintaining consistent surge set-up at national level remains a challenge where agencies are still testing different approaches.
Conclusion 7
Collaboration: There are examples of positive surge collaboration, particularly with federated networks, partnering on rosters and those organisations that operate through local partners, and to a lesser extent with the private sector. However, there are few examples of inter-organisational collaboration (particularly at the global level), resulting in continued uncoordinated and duplicative surge responses. The advantages of increased collaboration – such as cost effectiveness, increased coverage of humanitarian needs, and capacity building in new areas – highlight a clear link to more effective addressing of humanitarian needs. However, humanitarian organisations stress that there are complications and disadvantages to collaboration. These disadvantages are primarily organisational as opposed to needs-related, and include differences in policy and mandate, diverse operational working modalities and competition for resources and staff. There is increased collaboration at the national as opposed to global level, with HQ focusing on finding, organising and mobilising staff and resources and national surge focusing on getting those resources to people in need. This is an area where humanitarian organisations could further learn from national public sector bodies that have developed coordinated collaboration practices.
Conclusion 8
Surge learning: There is a large appetite within the humanitarian aid sector to share learning, knowledge and ideas on surge responses. There is currently no forum or community of practice for this sharing. A major step towards collaboration and reducing duplication would be to develop such a forum or a community for surge practitioners and interested organisations.