Early Recovery ApproachTechnical Note

July 2011

Purpose

This Technical Note provides information to UNICEF staff on the purpose, principles, and key entry points to applying an early recovery approach in humanitarian situations. It complements inter-agency guidance on early recovery1, is a component of UNICEF’s core humanitarian policy, the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs)2, and is consistent with the current revision of UNICEF’s programme and policy manual (PPPM).3 While the Technical Note is primarily intended for field staff, it can also assist headquarters colleagues who support the mainstreaming and operationalization of the early recovery approach at the country level and/or in guidance products.

Summary of the Issue

The impetus for the early recovery approach stems from a frequently-observed gap between humanitarian response and development programming in the wake of a crisis as well as a recognition that transitions from a humanitarian response mode to a developmental approach are often too slow and have not traditionally received sufficient support, funding and attention. An early recovery approach, applied during response to humanitarian situations, is key to building resilience and helping countries and communities return to a path of sustainable development and achieving the MDGs.

Definition

Early recovery is an approach applies development principles of sustainability and local ownership in humanitarian action.4 Early recovery is not a phase. Applied during response, it is a core component of humanitarian action. It aims to shape the manner in which humanitarian response is conducted, such as the questions asked in a need assessment and the modalities for delivering assistance to:

ensure that humanitarian response operations become assets for longer term recovery; support recovery initiatives by affected communities; and stabilize local and national capacities as quickly as possible to encourage a quicker and

sustainable transition to longer-term recovery.

The early recovery approach is a core component of the CCCs because, while delivering life-saving assistance to reach the benchmarks defined in the CCCs will always be UNICEF’s primary focus during an emergency, supporting national capacity and ownership as early as possible is critical to achieving better and more sustainable outcomes for children. In addition, applying an early recovery approach can help reduce dependency of affected populations on humanitarian assistance, as well as the amount of time required for them to recover.

UNICEF’s Comparative Advantage

1http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clusters%20pages/Early%20R/ ER_Internet.pdf ; also see Inter-Agency Standing Committee, ‘Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response’, November 20062 UNICEF Core Commitments to Children in Humanitarian Action (CF/EXD/2010-02, April 2010) 3UNICEF, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual: Programme Operations, January 2009 (under revision)4 This definition is adapted from the definition contained in Early Recovery Guidance Note, Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery, April 2008.

1

Due to its dual humanitarian and development mandate, UNICEF is one of the few organizations with presence in a country before, during and after a crisis. UNICEF’s partnerships and programming extend outside of capital cities and target government and civil society actors at national and sub-national level. UNICEF has also been an early advocate within the UN for participation and the human-rights based approach in humanitarian action, as well as the “do no harm” principle for humanitarian assistance. UNICEF’s mandate commits it to respond to life-threatening crises, and to support communities to better prepare for, mitigate and recover from disasters and conflicts. For all these reasons, UNICEF is well placed to implement an early recovery approach in humanitarian action.

As the above suggests, the early recovery approach is not new to UNICEF. For years, UNICEF Country Offices have applied the principles and approaches that are now known in the inter-agency humanitarian discourse as “early recovery”. What is new and relevant for UNICEF is the fact that over the past years the humanitarian community has recognized early recovery as a systematic approach to be applied during response to humanitarian situations.

The early recovery approach is codified in the recently revised CCCs, which highlight specific programme actions should be applied immediately and in parallel with response in order to achieve the CCC benchmarks. This applies to sudden onset as well as chronic emergency situations. The early recovery approach is not intended to introduce new activities but is mainstreamed through sector specific CCCs. It also suggests a need to make more explicit the links between early recovery initiatives across sectors, making clear from the outset, for example, how humanitarian action will transition from directly providing “School in a Box” to an affected population, to more gradually sustainable interventions that build local capacity and resilience, such as teacher training, development of disaster-resistant school designs and standards, and national curriculum development.

Principles and Contexts

Humanitarian and Development PrinciplesApplying an early recovery approach in humanitarian action is synonymous with applying the recognized principles of sound development practice. These include Human Rights-Based Approach, national ownership, capacity development, and gender sensitivity. They are consistent with UNICEF’s Programme Strategy Map and were listed in the UNICEF Post-Crisis Transition strategy (2006)5.

Most of the guiding principles for humanitarian action are the same as those that guide development programming. However, at times certain principles may be in tension with one another. One important issue is that the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality can at times be in tension with the primacy of national ownership which guides development assistance. This tension can be harder to reconcile in situations of armed conflicts. In these situations, all of UNICEF’s programmes (humanitarian and development) should be subjected to a rigorous risk analysis based on a conflict analysis6 to ensure that engagement of local partners does not exacerbate already fragile conflict dynamics, reinforce vulnerabilities and inequities, or create new potential sources of violent conflict.

Early Recovery Approach in Response to Natural Disasters Disasters can be either sudden onset, such as Cyclone Nargis that struck Myanmar in 2008, or chronic emergencies such as the drought-induced crisis in the Horn of Africa. Where disasters do not affect entire countries, some national, regional and local capacities may still be intact and available as resources for the response. In natural disaster, national governments customarily remain stable and functional, and affected populations look to the various levels of state services to quickly provide

5 Partnerships, National Ownership, Capacity Development, Participation of Children and Young People, Do No Harm, Building Back Better, Cross-Cutting Issues (UNICEF Post-Crisis transition Strategy, 2006).6 For more Information: Inter-agency framework for conflict analysis in transition situations

2

Haiti: Saving Lives and Supporting Long-Term PlanningAfter the devastating earthquake of 12 January 2010 in Haiti, UNICEF’s primary focus was service delivery to affected populations, guided by the humanitarian imperative to save lives. At the same time, less than one month after the earthquake, UNICEF engaged with partners to develop a “Transformative Agenda for Children” aimed at defining ways in which to help Haitians rebuild Haiti. Through this, UNICEF identified concrete and feasible Country Programme strategies, plans and results for the long-term. The response to Haiti earthquake, although unique, will potentially serve as the example of how UNICEF and partners’ can respond in a manner that aims to build resilience. This entails building national and local capacity for humanitarian action and longer term recovery, undertaking preparedness measures for upcoming hurricane season, advocating for national and local ownership.

relief. In such settings UNICEF can invest in longer-term capacity development in a more systematic way by working through national and local governance structures and supporting existing technical

capacities, as well as ensuring that delivery of humanitarian assistance does not undermine those capacities.

In dealing with recurrent disasters, such as droughts, cyclical floods or seasonal cyclones, the opportunities for applying the early recovery approach are numerous. Partnership with national and local actors should build greater community resilience to future disasters and reduces pre-existing socio-economic inequalities. In many cases, the specific interventions that result from applying an early recovery approach in such contexts are described as disaster risk reduction7 initiatives.

Early Recovery Approach in Armed Conflict and/or Complex Emergencies Complex emergencies and chronic humanitarian situations make the application of an early recovery approach more challenging because the framework provided by International Humanitarian Law protects first and foremost interventions that are of a “life-saving” nature. This can at times come into contradiction with interventions that aim to `build-back-better` or invest in community empowerment and national ownership. At times tensions also may arise between humanitarian principles and the goal of promoting national ownership. However, armed conflicts rarely engulf the entire territory of a country. So-called “pockets of peace” or “zones of stability” may appear and offer opportunities to apply an early recovery approach, working with communities to transition beyond the mode of humanitarian assistance. Failure to apply early recovery to interventions in such areas may hold back in their progress towards stability, or at least may result in loss opportunities to consolidate peace.

Humanitarian actors are often presented with a range of challenges in applying an early recovery approach. Primary among these are concerns that arise when the government is a party to the conflict or when the legitimacy of local and national actors is called into question. By aligning too closely with a government or any other party to the conflict, UNICEF may jeopardize its ability to act in a manner that is consistent with the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality.

In these particularly complex settings, the risk stated above can be mitigated by ensuring that the early recovery approach, in particular capacity development efforts, target a wide range of partners and stakeholders, including at the subnational level, and extend beyond state authorities to include community-based groups, civil society actors and the private sector. Building the capacity of local actors—teachers, health care workers, for example—who are closest to vulnerable populations may be one strategy to help avoid tensions that otherwise may arise when working with national-level government actors in conflict settings. In these cases, delivery of assistance should be subject to a

7 Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing disaster risk. It aims to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society in order to avoid (prevent) or to limit (mitigate and prepare for) the adverse impacts of natural hazards, and facilitate sustainable development. See recently issued UNICEF programme guidance on disaster risk reduction at

3

Liberia: Working in ConflictDecades of conflict in Liberia had devastating impacts on the country’s population: widespread torture and killing of civilians, warring parties’ use of child soldiers, rampant sexual violence against women and children, and the displacement of as much as 85% of Liberia’s population at one time or another. Even before a 2003 peace agreement opened the way to recovery, UNICEF leveraged child-friendly spaces within IDP camps to limit the negative impact of conflict on Liberian children’s educational outcomes. Following a Rapid Assessment of Learning Spaces, UNICEF adopted a multi-pronged approach that included rehabilitation of school facilities, teacher training, and development of new curricula that compressed six years of education into three to act as a bridge for children whose education was disrupted during years of conflict. Taken together, these time-critical initiatives helped to establish a sound foundation on which longer-term development of the educational sector could be based.

rigorous conflict analysis in addition to standard risk-informed Situation Analysis in order to identify

the risks associated with engaging and not engaging local or national actors8.

UNICEF Responsibilities

Inter-Agency Responsibilities at Global LevelIn 2005 the Inter-Agency Stranding Committee (IASC)9 adopted the ‘cluster approach’, which established 11 clusters to strengthen leadership, partnership and build system-wide accountability and predictability for humanitarian action. UNDP was appointed the lead agency for the global-level Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER). UNICEF is a formal member of the global-level CWGER, along with approximately 30 other humanitarian agencies and NGOs.

UNICEF’s accountabilities at the inter-agency global level derive principally from its role as the designated global cluster lead agency for three clusters, WASH, Nutrition, Education (co-led with Save the Children), and two areas of responsibility, Child Protection (and Gender Based Violence [co-led with UNFPA]).

According to the current shared understanding of the Global Cluster Lead Agency Responsibilities within the IASC, UNICEF should ensure that an early recovery approach is mainstreamed within global cluster strategies and plans, and bears particular accountability for this regarding the clusters and areas of responsibility for which UNICEF has global lead responsibilities. This includes:

Incorporation of performance indicators that take into account the early recovery approach Incorporation of the early recovery approach in cluster led capacity development activities and

tools, such as training materials, technical notes, handbooks. Incorporation of indicators for the early recovery approach in humanitarian assessments Inclusion of the early recovery approach into cluster coordinator training and other cluster

specific trainings. Advocacy with all cluster partners on the early recovery approach to be mainstreamed into

Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAPs) and other humanitarian appeals.

As a member of the CWGER, UNICEF works closely with UNDP and other CWGER members as well as within the and the UN Development Group/Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA) Working Group on Transitions to ensure that the global aid architecture, including financing mechanisms and planning tools, effectively promotes and supports an early recovery approach.

Responsibilities within UNICEF

8 A list of conflict analysis tools and the contexts in which they are most applicable can be found at: http://194.185.158.105/public/PCNA_Toolkit/index.html9IASC/ CWGER in cooperation with UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transition Guidance Note on Early Recovery, pg. 7

4

Examples of the early recovery approach applied to service delivery

Distributing ceramic water filters to hurricane-affected populations instead of relying solely on trucking in potable water; working through community management structures to deliver needed services; ensuring that nutrition information systems reinforce or can be adapted for broader local and national decision making processes.

Several UNICEF divisions10 share responsibility for ensuring that an early recovery approach is mainstreamed throughout UNICEF’s work and receives adequate managerial and technical support and funding. EMOPS has the primary responsibility for representing UNICEF in global fora dealing with transitions and deploys, on a needs basis, technical capacity to support Regional and Country Offices in integrating the early recovery approach within response plans from the onset of a crisis, as well as providing technical support for UNICEF’s engagement with inter-agency recovery planning and applying early recovery in UNICEF Country Programmes where applicable (such as in chronic humanitarian situation settings).

Within Programme Division (PD), the Humanitarian and Transition Interface Section (HATIS) works with programme sections to promote an early recovery approach in sector-specific activities such as

training materials, presentations, technical notes, cluster handbooks and other tools, particularly with respect to the roll out of the revised CCCs.

The Division for Policy and Planning (DPP) ensures the early recovery approach is adequately included in the revised Programme Policy and Procedure manual (PPPM) and otherprogramme guidance. The role of the Public sector Alliances and Resource Mobilization Office (PARMO) is crucial in advocating for and including early recovery approaches into fundraising strategies for

Humanitarian Action that support Country Office programmes and activities, and the global support capacity.

Country Level ResponsibilitiesCountry Offices are responsible for applying an early recovery approach in response within humanitarian action through the CCCs programme commitments. Some key entry points and steps that can be taken by the Country Office are listed below.

Early Recovery Network When the cluster system has been activated in a given country according to IASC guidelines, an Early Recovery Network may be established to mainstream early recovery in the response. The Network would comprise all sectors/clusters, and be headed by the Humanitarian and Resident Coordinator (RC/HC) and, often, a representative from the local or national government. The specific arrangements can be adapted to country context under the lead of the RC/HC. An Early Recovery Advisor (ERA) may be deployed by the CWGER to support the Network. He/she should report to the RC/HC and should be a common resource for all members.

The UNICEF Country Office should identify early recovery focal point(s) for the sector(s) for which UNICEF has cluster lead responsibility. These focal point(s) have usually been the Emergency Specialist and/or the Social Policy/Planning Specialist. Cluster coordination teams may also choose one of the cluster members to represent them to the Network in addition to UNICEF’s own emergency or planning specialist.

Early Recovery ClusterTo deal with programme areas and priorities that fall out of the scope of established humanitarian clusters, such as livelihoods, governance, reintegration, the RC/HC has in certain contexts chosen to establish a stand-alone Early Recovery Cluster led by UNDP as the lead agency11. This cluster

10 Programme Division, Division for Policy and Programmes, EMOPS, and PARMO11 The name of this entity has varied, and it has usually covered issues such as rapid employment creation and governance.

5

increasingly adopts a different name in each country where designated, reflecting those priorities identified as gaps (eg the Governance and Livelihoods Cluster, etc.).

UNICEF has noted that this practice has not worked well towards mainstreaming early recovery throughout the response and has advocated at global and country levels for this practice to be discouraged, and for focus to remain on the Network approach described above. Consequently, UNICEF should have a strong role with IASC partners in determining the necessity for a stand-alone Early Recovery Cluster and should advise the RC/HC on this. If one is required, UNICEF should help define its terms of reference.

At the onset of the emergency, based on the IASC Operational Guidance on designating sector/cluster leads in major new emergencies and UNICEF’s own emergency response procedures, the Country Office should consider undertaking some key actions, based on this indicative table:

Cluster Lead/Co-Lead Responsibilities

Clusters may nominate an Early Recovery focal point to form part of the ‘Early Recovery Network’ to ensure joint planning and integrated response.

Early recovery planning should be mainstreamed into the work of all clusters.

Early recovery related indicators should be included in needs assessments and prioritized accordingly.

Early recovery coordination and programme commitments should be incorporated into sector appeals and other funding mechanisms.

Early recovery should be leveraged to support response exit strategies and ensure transition to national led coordination systems when possible.

Early recovery links cluster assessment and planning tools with the Post Crisis Needs Assessment priorities.

Programme Responsibilities

Ensure early recovery programme commitments as per the CCCs are included in sector plans.

Early recovery approach should be included in the performance monitoring system measuring progress against CCCs.

Develop innovative strategies for humanitarian action that enable transition to recovery (capacity development, participation, risk reduction, etc.).

Participate in Post-Crisis Needs Assessments and adjust programme strategies as relevant.

Support/ facilitate coordination of social sector inputs into national plans and recovery frameworks.

Build in early recovery approach into fundraising strategies.

Role of Regional OfficesUNICEF Regional Offices are responsible for the primary support to the Country Office prior to and during an emergency, unless a Level 3 Emergency has been declared12. In addition to this, regional Office responsibilities regarding the early recovery approach include:

Co-ordination of relevant expertise through Regional Advisers ; Provision of technical expertise for Post-Conflict Needs Assessment/Post-Disaster Needs

Assessments (PCNA/PDNA); Inclusion of early recovery in regionally-managed training.

Early Recovery in the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action

As explained above, the early recovery approach is a key component of the revised CCCs. It is closely related to risk reduction and to capacity development. Both are approaches that must underpin all of UNICEF’s programmes, whether they are predominantly in humanitarian action or in the development phase. In humanitarian action, it is important to articulate how they relate to early recovery.

Emergency Risk Informed ProgrammingEmergency Risk Informed Programming lays out steps in the Country Programme cycle to help ensure that UNICEF programming better addresses priority emergency risks threatening the rights of children

12 As per UNICEF’s Corporate Emergency activation Procedure (CF/EXD/2011-01, March 2011)6

in a given country. The most relevant aspects of Emergency Risk Informed Programming for the early recovery approach is the explicit consideration of all risks in the Situation Analysis (SitAn)13. When a risk informed situation analysis is part of the Common Country Assessment (CCA), used as the basis for development of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and subsequently the formulation of programme outcomes in Country Programme Document (CPD), it facilitates the implementation of an early recovery approach if/when a crisis occurs. Applying the erarly recovery approach during response also supports a strong programmatic bridge into more medium and long-term development programming that aims to reduce risks and build resilience.

Capacity Development for the CCCsThere is important overlap between the capacity development approach and the early recovery approach. As defined in UNICEF’s Approach to Capacity Development14 and more in detail in Capacity Development for CCCs,15 national ownership and strengthened local and national capacity should be mainstreamed throughout UNICEF’s humanitarian action. This supports national actors to assume more fully their responsibilities as duty bearers and to claim their rights as rights holders. Developing national capacity is acknowledged as fundamental to more effectively addressing increasingly complex humanitarian crises. It is key to improve emergency preparedness and response as well as transition to sustainable peace and development This is expressed through the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness16, Accra Agenda for Action17, Hyogo Framework for Action18, Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations19, and the Secretary General’s Report on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict20, all of which stress national ownership and capacity development.

Capacity development for CCCs is an approach and process enabling national actors to develop their capacity for humanitarian action in order to effectively be the provider of first resort It is about supporting national actors to assume more fully their responsibilities as duty bearers and to claim their rights as rights holders. Capacity Development as an approach needs to be mainstreamed throughout the programme cycle, with a considerable emphasis on the Situation Analysis during which capacity assessments should be conducted. Having undertaken these analyses in the Country Programme Cycle will facilitate the implementation of an early recovery if/when a crisis occurs.

ResponseNeeds assessments represent the key entry point for applying an early recovery approach during response. While timing for actually implementing early recovery initiatives as outlined in CCC Programme Commitments varies, and often delivery of life-sustaining assistance will be prioritized at the onset of a crisis, early recovery needs must be considered within needs assessments from the onset.

Humanitarian Needs Assessments and Early Recovery IndicatorsInitial Rapid Assessments (IRAs) are meant to provide a rapid overview of the emergency situation, based on essential multi-sector data. IRAs estimate needs and ongoing vulnerabilities of the affected population and define the priorities for humanitarian action in the first weeks. Sector-Specific Assessments seek to provide a more in depth assessment of immediate needs that is based on more statistically sound or in-depth qualitative and quantitative data.

13 The Emergency Risks Informed Programming will replace the Vulnerability/Capacity Analysis (VCA) as referred in UNICEF’s PPP.14 See revised PPPM (2011)15 Capacity development for the CCCs: Technical Note (EMOPS, March 2011)16 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, harmonization, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability High Level Forum, Paris, 2005. 17 Accra Agenda for Action, 3rd High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Accra, Ghana, September 2008. 18 Hyogo Framework for Action, Words Into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework, ISDR19 Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States & Situations, OECD, April 2007 ( www.oecd.org/fragilestates)20 A/63/881-S/2009/304

7

Although both IRAs and Sector-Specific Assessments are meant to direct humanitarian actors to the areas of greatest need or vulnerability, data collected within these early assessments increasingly are relied upon for more comprehensive assessment exercises, such as PCNA/PDNA (defined later). Those assessments are often complemented by the analysis of pre-crisis data and other baseline information when it exists. It is essential therefore, that certain ley indicators be captured in initial needs assessments. Several examples of suggested indicators for IRAs and Sector-Specific Assessments are presented below. As noted, these overlap considerably with risk and capacity assessment indicators.

% of public/ private social sector employees unavailable because of crisis % of public/ private social sector offices/ facilities (a) usable; (b) unusable % of education and teaching personnel not working due to emergency % of community based facilities to serve malnourished children % of locally based health workers trained in Health Service Systems % of maternal mortality prior to crisis % of children put into residential care centers due to poverty of families % of children with safe access to community spaces for socializing, play, learning, etc.

UNICEF’s position is to discourage separate specific early recovery needs assessment or planning frameworks.The early recovery approach should be mainstreamed into all sector-based needs assessments and prioritization and planning frameworks.

Gender Mainstreaming Humanitarian crises affect girls, boys, women and men in different ways, and there is evidence that recovery activities are more effective when they reflect and address the distinct needs, priorities and interests of these groups. There is also growing recognition that women play important roles in recovery processes.2122

Early recovery actors must have a clear understanding of the different situation, needs and capacities of girls, boys, women and men as a first step to ensure that early recovery programmes equally benefit these different groups, and contribute to the empowerment of the most vulnerable. This can be realized through a dual strategy of ‘gender mainstreaming’ (i.e. ensuring that gender perspectives are integrated into ER policies and programmes) and ‘targeted programming’ (i.e. investing dedicated resources and supporting specific interventions to empower vulnerable groups).

Some examples of areas where gender considerations can be included in early recovery include: Incorporate a gender analysis into needs assessments, with a view to identifying the different

situation, needs and capacities of girls, boys, women and men; ensure men and women are represented on assessment teams.

Carry out early recovery actions that target distinct groups separately or together to redress existing inequalities and discrimination. For example, including both men and women in income generating activities.

Ensure gender-responsive institutional change by incorporating gender concerns into assessments, planning, programming, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of all programme activities.

Applying Early Recovery: Some Best Practices

Supporting National Government Normative Role in Humanitarian Action21 Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, United Nations Development Programme, “Post-Crisis Needs Assessment for Recovery and Gender Equality: A Guide,” Early Recovery Cluster Working Group22 “Key Things to Know about Gender Equality as a “Cross-Cutting Issue” in Early Recovery” http://oneresponse.info/GlobalClusters/Early%20Recovery/publicdocuments/Key%20things%20ER%20actors%20need%20to%20know%20about%20GENDER.doc

8

The CCCs are an integral part of UNICEF’s comparative advantage, and the inclusion of the early recovery approach can deliver important results in emergencies. In the context of extremely weak central governance structures in Haiti, for instance, pursuing a two-track approach at national and subnational levels showed the comparative advantage of UNICEF and its partners to support service delivery at both levels. At the subnational level, UNICEF sought to build capacity of local governance structures and support community efforts to support and maintain sustainable interventions. At the national level, UNICEF supported the national government to exercise its normative, regulatory role and rather than attempting to implement. UNICEF also played a major part in promoting services and building capacity outside of the capital. This aided the decongestion of Port-au-Prince and the decentralization of service provision.

Promoting Participatory and Decentralized Approaches in Analysis and MonitoringExperience from the South Asian tsunami and Haiti have reinforced the imperative of participatory analysis to support recovery. It is crucial that there is capacity at field level to undertake ongoing monitoring, which includes participatory approaches, to be able to capture vulnerability and gender issues effectively. Decentralized approaches to disaggregating data are also critical.

As children, adolescents and youth often form more than 60% of crisis-affected populations, supporting their positive engagement in recovery efforts is therefore an important aspect in fostering more inclusive societies. Their sustained participation in community and national efforts can contribute to their own positive development and sense of wellbeing.

This is confirmed by recent experiences with regards to participatory approaches in analysis and monitoring, for example:

In the health sector, the tsunami response missed an opportunity to address the underlying, pre-existing causes of maternal mortality and to contribute to building the system in light of this understanding mainly due to lack of meaningful participation of local capacities.

In child protection, participatory analysis of the evolving context was critical for identifying the secondary child separation which occurred in Indonesia in the aftermath of Tsunami.

In Haiti, engaging youth and children in the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment process allowed for their voices and needs to be heard and thus concrete considerations were included in the resulting National Development Plan.

In the past, UNICEF has promoted such approaches as key components of Human Rights Based Approach to Programming and also closely relate to Communication for Development and capacity development. The early recovery approach reaffirms these.

Balancing Response to Immediate Needs with Planning for RecoveryBeginning an early recovery approach during humanitarian response can present very real challenges that UNICEF must manage. The early recovery approach requires humanitarian staff to begin assuming a longer-term planning lens at the same time that they are urgently working to save lives. The tsunami response evaluation revealed there was little planning for the long term, and the negative impacts of this on the transition to recovery. In contrast, the Haiti response illustrated the risks of doing the opposite, e.g. shifting too swiftly to recovery planning.

Getting the right sequencing and timing of response actions and planning processes is critical. Emphasis on planning recovery early should not detract from assessing and addressing immediate needs, nor should it divert resources from the response. At the same time, the lesson from the tsunami and Haiti response demonstrate that emergency response is an opportunity to build upon and develop systems, providing the impetus to develop or reactivate policies and approaches. UNICEF’s comparative advantage is often to leverage response for the longer-term recovery. For example, in Haiti, response in child protection was leveraged to address immediate needs and contribute to

9

systems building in the long term. Under the response to exploitation and abuse of children, UNICEF worked with the government to set up a policy against taking children out of the country. The practical interventions included having police guarding the airports and children’s residential care centers. The longer-term approach resulted in the adoption of a national policy.

Supporting Sustainability and ResilienceOften, in the aftermath of an emergency in there is also increased political will for disaster risk reduction to reduce vulnerability and risk. Therefore, when combined with disaster risk reduction and capacity development, the early recovery approach can also offer an important platform to begin building national resilience.

Disaster risk reduction23 approaches are often consonant with “building back better”, which can largely address “hardware” or infrastructural issues. It is crucial to remember that disaster risk reduction must also supports the “software” or human recovery issues. This is a major lesson from UNICEF’s experience with the early recovery approach. UNICEF’s policy advocacy on building standards and designs should emphasize that “building back better” is not merely building back “nicer” or even technologically better. “Building back better” should mean building better in terms of resilience and sustainability, linking physical rehabilitation with social recovery and transformation. Capacity development and participatory approaches help ensure that both “hardware” and “software” approaches are well-designed interventions—including participation and ownership—that can be a foundation for assisting social transformation.

Building SystemsThe early recovery approach relies often on systems building. Systems-building is not only rebuilding, but building from the ground up. This applies to all sectors. For UNICEF it is important to bear in mind that effective systems building calls for a paradigm shift away from fixed ideas about intervention—such as the imposition of predetermined models—towards the incorporation of flexibility in strategy and taking into account contextual need. Here again, there is considerable convergence with the capacity development approach.

Some systems building examples include: In education, a shift from notions of fixed models of schools and dedicated education

structures to establishing spaces for educational programmes can be very effective in meeting needs. These spaces can incorporate diversity—such as community or youth educational programmes (e.g. for youth entrepreneurship or leadership). There is a great opportunity to encourage local and community participation from the start to determine education system needs (particular skills in teachers, certain focuses in educational learning etc) and shape the system to best respond to the contextual requirements.

In the health sector, where in Indonesia local health facilities were a culturally appropriate system, nurse training was not supported by building management capacity to oversee the facilities. Building simple programmes which can be easily supervised and monitored can be very effective.

Resources, Mechanisms and Tools relevant for the Early Recovery Approach

Planning for Early RecoveryAnnex A consists of an overview key resources mechanisms and tools employed by the international community in engaging in post-disaster / post-crisis recovery context with which UNICEF can engage. Given that UNICEF argues against the elaboration of specific early recovery frameworks but instead sees early recovery as an approach applied during response which drives a rapid shift into recovery, these are the most relevant instruments to plan, mobilize support for and implement early 23 Programme Guidance Note on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNICEF, EMOPS/DPP (2010)

10

recovery. Of course, the implementation of an early recovery approach throughout the response is deemed one of the best ways to ensure that UNICEF is poised to shape the recovery agenda in favor of women and children.

Funding the Early Recovery Approach The general perception is that during the humanitarian response, programmes integrating an early recovery approach typically receive less financial support than life saving interventions. The development programmes24 kick in much later leaving a funding gap between the humanitarian response and development. The reasons for the gap are becoming clearer among donors and programme agencies. The early recovery approach integrated within the humanitarian action is one of the strategies to programmatically avoid this gap.

The early recovery approach is also consistent with the Principles and Practices of Good Humanitarian Donorship, which UNICEF promotes and advocates for with donors.25

Early recovery needs are increasingly reflected in revised Flash Appeals, where an expanded set of projects or actions can be more reasonably included, though even here, programme staff must be mindful of the six to 12 month planning and budgeting horizon for activities funded under a revised Flash Appeal. Funding instruments are typically: a) Consolidated Appeals/Humanitarian Action for Children (formerly HAR); and b) Common humanitarian funds and other pooled funding mechanisms at country level. More details on a number of funding instruments are presented in Annex A.

Who can help?

EMOPS, through the Recovery and Risk Reduction Section (RRRS), has the primary responsibility for representing UNICEF in global inter-agency fora on early recovery and transition, and providing guidance and support to the field. The RRRS deploys, on a needs basis, technical capacity to support Regional and Country Offices in integrating the early recovery approach within response plans from the onset of a crisis, as well as providing technical support for UNICEF’s engagement with inter-agency recovery planning. RRRS is is the main contact for COs and ROs requiring support on early recovery and can direct them to other focal points and resources located within other divisions, and/or within the global partners, such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee.

Contact:

James RoganChiefRecovery and Risk Reduction Section, EMOPS (NY)jrogan@unicef.org

Isabel CandelaSr. AdvisorRecovery and Risk Reduction Section, EMOPS (NY)icandela@unicef.org

Erin TettensorRecovery Specialist24 Estimates of early recovery approach funding rates generally do not include early recovery approach initiatives that are mainstreamed within the sectors, leading to an under-estimation of financing levels (Sarah Bailey, Early Recovery approach in Humanitarian Appeals, ODI 2010). 25 Principle 9: “Provide humanitarian assistance in ways that are supportive of recovery approach and long-term development, striving to ensure support, where appropriate, to the maintenance and return of sustainable livelihoods and transitions from humanitarian relief to recovery approach and development activities.”

11

Recovery and Risk Reduction Section, EMOPS (NY)etettensor@unicef.org

12

ANNEX A – RELEVANT INTER-AGENCY TOOLS AND MECHANISMS

Mechanisms and Tools for Post-Crisis Recovery

Post-Conflict Needs Assessment/Transitional Results Matrix (PCNA)26

The PCNA and PDNA are the agreed inter-agency tools for assessment and planning after conflicts and disasters under the World Bank-UN-European Commission Partnership Framework for Crisis and Post-Crisis Situations (2008).

PCNAs are government-led, multilateral exercises undertaken in partnership with the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), the World Bank, and the European Commission (EC), and with the cooperation of donor countries. Assessments based on the PCNA methodology are increasingly used as entry points for conceptualizing, negotiating and financing a common shared strategy for recovery and development in fragile or post-conflict settings. The PCNA process includes both the assessment of needs and the national prioritization and costing of needs in an accompanying transitional results matrix.

Consideration of a PCNA is initiated when a national government sends a request to UN, World Bank or EC representatives. Though in principle a PCNA is to be triggered by the signing of a peace agreement or other indication that a conflict has subsided, because of the political nature of the PCNA, they increasingly are requested and conducted prior to the cessation of hostilities and in the midst of a humanitarian response. In these cases, the PCNA draws heavily from existing needs assessments conducted in the humanitarian phase, thus underscoring the importance of mainstreaming early recovery approaches not only into early programmatic responses, but within rapid needs assessments as well.

PCNA Example: Joint Initiative for Saada, YemenFollowing a cease-fire in early 2010 in Saada, the Government of Yemen requested the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB) to assist the Saada Reconstruction Fund (SRF) to: (i) assess numbers and needs of the displaced; (ii) assess damage to public buildings, farms and other facilities; and (iii) develop and assist in the implementation of an action plan for the reconstruction of private and public buildings, agricultural sector and other high priority service and economic facilities. The Joint Initiative for Saada (JIS) is based on principles of inclusive, multi-stakeholder participation in dialogue and agreement for implementation of a coherent, holistic program addressing the needs of the entire population of Saada, without discrimination. The objectives of the JIS are: to build confidence, advance peace and promote sustainable development, through visible improvements in (a) infrastructure, including public and private buildings and economic facilities; (b) basic public service delivery and associated governance; and (c) restoration of the livelihoods of the local population. These objectives seek to complement humanitarian efforts by supporting stabilization and a return to normal civil life in Saada through services and opportunities for gainful livelihoods, and by breaking cycles of disaffection, exclusion, conflict, displacement and dependence. Recovery interventions are catalytic building blocks for leveraging lasting recovery for the next phase. Within an early recovery approach and building on humanitarian response, they are mainly service delivery oriented, but lay the ground for addressing issues of sustainable capacities and systems that have to be built for managing conflict, addressing of grievances, and promoting of peaceful negotiations over competing priorities among groups when planning and implementing recovery.

Post-Disaster Needs Assessment/Recovery Framework (PDNA)27

Similar to the PCNA, the PDNA is the primary modality by which the UN (UNDP), World Bank and EC maximize coherence in order to ease the impact of demands placed by international organizations on governments dealing with natural catastrophes. The PDNA is also a government-led exercise that

26 For more information on the PCNA process - http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=14427 For more information on the PDNA process: http://haitiregeneration.org/documents/Post%20Disasters-DRR/Guide/Vol_II_GuidetoPDNARF_andtools_22June09.pdf

13

results in a consolidated report detailing information on the physical impacts of a disaster, the economic value of the damages and losses, the human impacts as experienced by affected populations, and related early and long-term recovery needs and priorities.

As with the PCNA, PDNAs are being launched earlier and earlier within responses to disasters. By shifting the timeframe earlier into the humanitarian setting, international actors offering support, such as UNICEF, must be sensitive to the government’s capacity to lead in the midst of the crisis.

PDNA Example: NamibiaIn March 2009, flooding, caused by heavy rain falls affected six regions in Northern Namibia. Local access to hospitals and schools was cut off, urban sewage systems overflowed with the inundation of water supply and sewage stations, and electricity provision was compromised. An integrated approach to recovery and reconstruction was necessary to restart production, reconstruct the most critical assets, but also to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable populations. Within the PDNA process, three separate phases were designed to address the damage and losses that occurred as a result of the flooding, taking advantage of local resources and knowledge to maximize engagement on the community level, and to build on existing practices that minimize negative environmental impacts. The first phase addressed remaining immediate needs within an early recovery approach, laying the foundation for the second and third phases (medium to long term). It focused primarily on social protection and addressing the needs of the most vulnerable segments of the population. In the water and sanitation sector, it sought to rehabilitate and cover 160 km canal to avoid water contamination during floods (doubling from 750 to 1500 boreholes in the rural areas and to replace submersible water pumps and relocate waste dumping to higher ground). All three phases amounted to N$ 5 billion (US$ 620 million), about 5 percent of Namibia’s 2009 GDP.

Integrated UN Presences and PeacebuildingIn many cases, COs responding to emergencies and applying the early recovery approach will be doing so in the context of working with a UN mission or other UN Secretariat presence (peacekeeping operation, political mission, peacebulding office, etc.). In those cases, planning for an implementing humanitarian action infused with an early recovery approach will have to take into account key integrated planning processes and other relevant inter-agency mechanisms. Please refer to the Note on Engaging Effectively with Integrated Presences (2010) for more information.

Moreover, while the application of an early recovery approach during humanitarian response does not have political aims, it is recognized that early investment s in recovery can result in the provision of early peace dividends to war-weary populations, which in turn contributed positively to peacebuilding.28

Funding mechanisms

Flash AppealsThe flash appeal is a tool for structuring a coordinated humanitarian response for the first three to six months of a new emergency. The Revised Guidelines for Flash Appeal (March 2009) include a section on ‘How do flash appeals and early recovery interact’. Common sense and emerging policy thus suggest that early recovery projects can be proposed in a flash appeal’s rapid first edition, to the extent they:

address time-critical needs that are obvious or have otherwise been reliably assessed (including through reasonable inference);

have a strong rationale for beginning sooner rather than later and a rapid impact on the affected populations and/or relief activities; and,

28

14

can preferably be completed within the flash appeal’s usual six-month planning horizon. Essential ‘start-up’ costs for ER (to support coordination, rapid assessments and initial planning) can also be included.

Additional early recovery projects, based on subsequent and more thorough assessments of early recovery needs, for instance through a PDNA in natural disasters, can be included in the flash appeal revision (hence a phased approach). The presentation of early recovery projects and requirements in both the flash appeal and its revision is based on the following key principles:

Early recovery needs and projects should be mainstreamed, to the extent possible, within their respective cluster/sectors;

The areas that fall outside of the main humanitarian clusters/sectors (such as governance, rule of law, non-agricultural livelihoods, land and property, reintegration, basic infrastructure, etc.) would be presented in a section on ER, together with the essential early recovery ‘start-up’ costs.

Further and more specific guidance on this ‘phased approach’ is included in a document that has been developed by the inter-agency CWGER and has also received the endorsement of the IASC CAP Sub-Working Group.29

Consolidated Appeal Process The Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) is a tool used by aid organisations to plan, coordinate, fund, implement and monitor their activities. As a planning and programming tool, the CAP contributes significantly to developing a more thoughtful approach to humanitarian action. As a coordination mechanism, the CAP fosters closer cooperation between host governments, donors, aid agencies, and in particular, between NGOs, the Red Cross movement, IOM and UN agencies. Working together in the world’s crisis regions, they produce a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP).The CHAP is a strategic plan for humanitarian response in a given country or region. On the ground, engagement with donors in the CAP process from the planning and needs assessment and analyses stages would help to improve their understanding of the early recovery approach in humanitarian action. Clarity within the Humanitarian Country Team to prioritize and mainstream an early recovery within the sectors will also send a strong message to donors that such an approach is requisite to laying the groundwork for sustainable outcomes in humanitarian action. For more information go to: http://ochaonline.un.org/humanitarianappeal/webpage.asp?SiteID=184.

Central Emergency Response FundThe Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) is a humanitarian fund established by the United Nations to enable more timely and reliable humanitarian assistance to those affected by natural disasters and armed conflicts. CERF is a tool created to pre-position funding for humanitarian action. The CERF was approved by consensus by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 December 2005 to achieve the following objectives: a) promote early action and response to reduce loss of life; b) enhance response to time-critical requirements; c) strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in underfunded crises With their focus on life-saving interventions, CERF and UNICEF’s Emergency Programme Fund typically are not available as resources for early recovery initiatives; however, those instruments may fund time-sensitive interventions which may be part of an early recovery approach like Mine Risk Education. For more information go to: http://ochaonline.un.org/Default.aspx?alias=ochaonline.un.org/cerf

Multi-Donor Trust FundsMulti-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) have become an important funding mechanism to channel and leverage resources in an effective and coordinated way in support of UN system-wide development efforts. The increasing use of MDTFs is a direct application of the aid effectiveness agenda and UN 29 Including Early Recovery in Flash Appeals: A Phased Approach, CWGER/CAP SWG, January 2009.

15

reform initiatives in support of nationally determined and led development programmes. The principles of national ownership and leadership are key principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, reconfirmed in the Accra Agenda, and have been central to the UN operational activities for development. Operating on the principles of joint programming of the UNDG, MDTFs aim to provide more flexible, coordinated and predictable funding to support the achievement of nationally owned and determined priorities. By channelling donor contributions through one mechanism, MDTFs aim to facilitate and streamline donor contributions, and align donor reporting thereby endeavoring to reduce transaction costs. By improving coordination among all stakeholders, MDTFs can also provide a forum for policy dialogue and programmatic coordination and harmonization. For more information go to: http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=1370

Peacebuilding FundThe Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) seeks to address immediate needs as countries emerge from conflict, and bridge the gap between conflict and recovery approach at a time when other funding mechanisms may not yet be available. The Fund structure has two funding facilities: an Immediate Response Facility (IRF) for project-based proposals of an urgent need, and a Peacebuilding Response Facility (PRF) for programme-based applications that are linked to longer-term development planning mechanisms. Both facilities fund initiatives that respond to one or more of the following four criteria: a) respond to imminent threats to the peace process and initiatives that support peace agreements and political dialogue; b) build or strengthen national capacities to promote coexistence and peaceful resolution of conflict; c) stimulate economic revitalization to general peace dividends; d) re-establish essential administrative services. The PBF’s priorities include areas where UNICEF is likely to have a particular niche, such as livelihoods aimed at at-risk adolescents, child-focused DDR, and transformation of state institutions such as Education Ministries. For more information go to: http://www.unpbf.org/index.shtml.

16