Response to the public consultation on the Global resilience action programme

The UK Government is planning to establish a new Global Resilience Action Programme (G-RAP) – an initiative designed to help countries and communities become better prepared when disasters hit and to improve the effectiveness of any response.

From 27 March 2012 to 20 May 2012 DFID undertook a consultation process to inform G-RAP’s design. The high quality response comprised: 224 on-line comments; 30 completed questionnaires; and the active participation in a series of consultation meetings by stakeholders from the voluntary and private sectors. Views expressed in the consultation process were given on the basis they would not be published individually but a summary of the key messages that emerged from the process are set out below. These will be considered as a key contribution to the design process. The G-RAP is expected to be launched in Autumn 2012 and any announcement of opportunities to apply for funding will appear on the DFID website.

G-RAP Online Consultation Summary

Question 1: How can the G-RAP best support effective learning, knowledge sharing and encourage innovation?

For example, are there any key gaps in the multi-partner platforms that could be filled to support effective learning and knowledge-sharing and to incentivise innovation?

• Support to learning and innovation for sustainable resilience solutions must focus on and reinforce local level action and learning networks;
• funds should be made available to support learning and the dissemination of information amongst field staff, partner organisations and communities through conferences, learning events and materials;
• investment in knowledge management initiatives, which could include operating a ‘corporate memory bank’ to assess current projects and interventions; and,
• fear of failure is an impediment to innovation and novel approaches from partners. Funding needs to be available over the long-term, and there needs to be some flexibility in terms of the definitions which DFID is seeking when asking for outcomes and impacts. This will help build the knowledge base for what does and does not work.

Question 2: How can best practice and evidence be better shared?

This includes between NGOs, the private sector and others, including local/national governments; how can we drive the uptake of best practice and investment in innovation?

• Principal responsibility for building resilience lies with national governments and their citizens, so efforts to generate and promote evidence on best practice should be focused on them. Information should be disseminated to communities in a context specific and easily understood way;
• support for the creation of an online platform on which project methodologies, successes and challenges could be shared. Key to this should be the ability for partners to be able to share worst as well as best practice.  This could then be used to facilitate end of project workshops where other NGOs, private sector, local CSOs and government could be invited to share their opinions on the programmes; and,
• innovation has to be driven by a demand on the ground and designed in consultation with practitioners and communities. There needs to be an acceptance that areas of work may be unsuccessful and funding structures should be flexible enough to deal with changes during the three to five years of operation.

Question 3: How can we secure effective private sector and NGO collaboration?

Where do existing collaborations with the private sector work best and what’s missing?

• A distinction must be made when referring to the ‘private sector’, whether international companies or in-country organisations;
• in partnering with the private sector there must be a clear understanding of what is driving the motivations of each party, and that the decision making process must be wholly driven by the humanitarian principles;
• where these partnerships have worked it has been a natural, organic process rather than an attempt to force them together. Programme design should aim to build upon respective strengths; and,
• an emphasis must be placed on South-South collaboration between the private sector and NGOs.

Question 4: Where can private sector collaboration deliver real change in building disaster resilience and making a first response more effective?

Does this collaboration work best in certain areas? For example, construction, logistics and supply chain management, the provision of food, cash distribution, or learning and development?

• The private sector, alongside local authorities, is absolutely vital in applying risk mitigating construction practices. The engineering sector was particularly cited for the expertise it could provide for the provision of shelter and reconstruction programmes undertaken by INGOs;
• the influence of the insurance industry and government to improve planning, and enforce building regulations and codes. The financial sector could also have a role to play by extending credit and insurance to at risk populations;
• in the first phase of a response, the private sector could bring significant expertise to supply chain management and the provision of resources to affected populations;
• they could have an effective influence through the provision of cash grants to communities. During disaster recovery there also needed to be support for SMEs through equity funding, along with managerial, technical and marketing support;
• and, problems in using the private sector arise when they are not adequately accountable, or hold a monopoly position. Too often, large international companies are not directly accountable to local communities. This could be mitigated by using the expertise that the private sector already has in developing complaints and customer feedback mechanisms, and using the information from customers to change products and services.

Question 5: In designing the programme what issues should we focus on – in terms of results?

For example, what are the most important outcomes and what specific results do you think we should be looking to achieve?

• Expected results should be planned and analysed in relation to the local context. This should be based on needs assessments done in collaboration with the communities in question;
• there must be a recognition that specific results may be difficult to measure given the varying contexts of disasters and that the measurement of the resilience of a community is difficult to do without a ‘shock’ event within which to observe resilience;
• all outcomes should lead to relevant populations being able to better respond to and recover from disasters. This means improving nationally-driven responses and national resilience capacities. G-RAP should look to build the capacity of local and national emergency authorities to be able to respond. This also means enabling households themselves to better cope with shocks;
• and, explicit in this process must be improving resilience in terms of empowering women, children and the most vulnerable groups to have real involvement in how strategies for resilience are developed;

Question 6: In designing the programme what issues should we focus on – in terms of grants and funding?

For example, should there be a maximum/minimum size of grants under the programme, or a maximum number of grants that can be held by any NGO or private sector partner at any one time? Should we be seeking matched funding in all areas of the programme?

And what criteria should DFID use to assess funding applications: in particular for monitoring and evaluating impact and ensuring the proposed investments deliver results and value for money?

• There should be neither maximum nor minimum grant sizes. The benefit of larger grants was that they would encourage bids from multi-agency consortia. Resistance to imposing a minimum grant size was that it would prohibit smaller, specialist NGOs from applying for projects;
• there was a lot of resistance to match funding as it may prohibit a lot of smaller organizations from applying because of their limited funding base;
• the criteria against which bids should be considered included:

(i) whether the proposal addresses an issue identified as an evidence gap;

(ii) improve local mechanisms for accountability so they are intimately involved in the decision making process during disasters;

(iii) promote human rights and demonstrably show that the lives of the most vulnerable people will be improved;

(iv) improve the coordination between local NGOs and local government and build joint capacity;

(v) Invest in resilience at the household and local level;

(vi) impacts should extend beyond the 3-5 years of funding;

(vii) participatory methodologies should be included to allow affected communities to have a stake in the design of the programme and call to account those responsible for its delivery;

(viii) encourage partnerships between actors at all levels, including consortia of NGOs, private sector, government, and local CSOs; and,

(ix) evidence for how the grant links to broader development goals.

Question 7: In designing the programme what issues should we focus on – in terms of coverage?

Should the coverage of the scheme be focused on the countries that are most vulnerable? Should it be geographically or thematically focused?

• It should be targeted at countries where the most vulnerable people live. This will be those most susceptible to complex crises or experience them the worst;
• and, building resilience should not just focus on ‘stand-alone’ disasters as it is often those countries suffering from complex, protracted crises which need the most assistance. Plus, building resilience in these contexts will entail addressing underlying causes which can feed into broader development targets.

Question 8: Have we missed any key issues?

What are your overall views of the G-RAP?

• In designing programmes for the G-RAP, consultations must be undertaken with affected communities, local NGOs, governments and the private sector;
• assessments of results and impacts should be undertaken beyond the life-cycle of individual programmes;
• a learning focus should be included at the design phase of the programme;
• the G-RAP must be flexible to allow implementers to innovate and pilot alternative solutions in response to fluctuating operational environments;
• and, consideration should be given to the inclusion of national government and public service capacity-building as an objective.